OM-D yawn

Why would a user of the 24x36mm OM-1/2/3/4 be anxious for a 1/4 frame
(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?

What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.

--
Mike

In article , Mike
writes
Why would a user of the 24x36mm OM-1/2/3/4 be anxious for a 1/4 frame
(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?

Perhaps they are tired of getting film developed. But there have been
closer look-alikes before, even from Olympus. The E-420 is one example
that springs to mind. The OM-D looks more like an ugly OM-10 or the
Cosina made OM-2000 than it does to any Olympus classic. Just like
those models, there isn't even any control where the shutter speed
selector would be on an OM-x.

They had to wait till Maitani was dead and buried before naming this
monstrosity.

What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.

Its closer to 110.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:57:29 -0500, Mike wrote:

Why would a user of the 24x36mm OM-1/2/3/4 be anxious for a 1/4 frame
(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?

What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.

Because it's got a very nice feature set, and can (we'll see) provide
very nice image quality in a small package? Because it can mount a
very nice, and growing lens selection?

Why would anyone use an APS-C when FF is available?

Why would anyone use 24 x 36 when MF is available?

Why would anyone shoot digital when 8 x 10 film is available?

Seriously, have you been living in a cave?

"Bowser" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:57:29 -0500, Mike wrote:

Why would a user of the 24x36mm OM-1/2/3/4 be anxious for a 1/4 frame
(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?

What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.

Because it's got a very nice feature set, and can (we'll see) provide
very nice image quality in a small package? Because it can mount a
very nice, and growing lens selection?

Why would anyone use an APS-C when FF is available?

Why would anyone use 24 x 36 when MF is available?

Why would anyone shoot digital when 8 x 10 film is available?

Seriously, have you been living in a cave?


I think the real question was why it needs to look like an old camera most
prospective purchasers never owned, and even those that did won't have at
the top of their priority list. I've got 4 old OM bodies, and I'm not
interested in an micro 4/3 OM look alike. Naturally there will be some of
course :-)
IMO more sales would be made by making it look like the next Modern Classic.
Of course that takes a bit more design skill and inspiration.

Trevor.