Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Olympus OM enthusiasts' digital prayers have been answered ...

Reply
Thread Tools

Olympus OM enthusiasts' digital prayers have been answered ...

 
 
Mort
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012
Trevor wrote:
> "Bruce"<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> What makes this an "OM enthusiasts prayers answered" more so than any
>>> previous E series SLR (other than the OM-D name)?

>>
>> The OM-D looks like an Olympus OM, just as the PEN E-P1, 2 and 3 look
>> like an Olympus Pen F or FT. Yes, it is all about appearances, and
>> about exploiting the enormous positive sentiment for the OM System.
>>
>> I am very happy to be exploited and I think many OM enthusiasts will
>> too. I have no doubt that the OM-D E-M5 will sell very well indeed. I
>> expect I will buy one at some point, just not immediately.

>
> As a long time OM enthusiast I can say it will take more than a retro look
> for me to buy one. My Canon DSLR's take my OM lenses with adapters just the
> same as the E-series or OM-D will.
> Now if it had an OM mount with aperture automation, it might "answer some of
> my prayers", but it doesn't.
>
> Trevor.
>
>

Hi,

I still have about a dozen OM lenses for my two OM-4T bodies. It
certainly would be nice to have a new Olympus digital body with the OM
lens mount and auto diaphragm, and I would not mind manual focus. I
suppose that it is just daydreaming.

Mort Linder
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012
On 06/02/2012 9:42 PM, Mort wrote:
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> Surely that's wrong. The PEN was never an SLR?
>>

> Hi,
>
> There certainly was a PEN SLR, as I owned one. It was half frame camera.
>
> Mort Linder
>

So larger format than mini 4/3


--
Mike
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012

"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Many, if not most OM Zuiko lenses present significant problems when
> used on a (Micro) Four Thirds digital sensor. The sensor design
> strongly prefers telecentric lenses, where most of the light rays are
> approximately perpendicular to the sensor when they hit.


Right, so just who's "prayers" are being answered simply by a retro "OM"
look I wonder? The "look" was hardly what attracted most people to the OM
system, it was the size weight and performance for me.


> The result is that many OM lenses are poor performers on digital
> sensors, particularly on the small (Micro) Four Thirds sensor. They
> suffer particularly from vignetting and their overall performance is
> degraded compared to their performance on film.


Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
circle?


> Olympus helpfully released a list of OM lenses with indications as to
> which would performed well, or less well, with suggested limitations
> on some in terms of lens apertures. I was so put off by the
> complexity of this list, and the dire warnings it contained,


Do you have a link for that list? Sounds interesting.


> that I
> never even tried an OM Zuiko lens on my E-1 bodies. There was no need
> because I no longer owned any OM gear and the Zuiko Digital lenses
> were in any case superb.


True, I would only use an OM lens because I already had it and did not want
to buy another lens of that type. Which also rules out buying another camera
body just to use the old lenses I guess! So looks like my "OM enthisiasts
prayers" are never going to be answered



> So the OM-D E-M5 is not intended as a digital body for use with OM
> lenses. It is more about retro styling that taps into the positive
> sentiment for the OM system that is still around. People will buy it
> because it looks like an OM SLR, not because it accepts OM lenses.


Right, hardly anybody "praying" for that AFAIK. Which is NOT to say it won't
be a good camera for some, or that nobody will buy it of course.

Trevor.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012
"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> The result is that many OM lenses are poor performers on digital
>> sensors, particularly on the small (Micro) Four Thirds sensor. They
>> suffer particularly from vignetting and their overall performance is
>> degraded compared to their performance on film.

>
>Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
>significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
>circle?



I explained it in my previous post. You replied to that post but
snipped the relevant paragraph.


> > Olympus helpfully released a list of OM lenses with indications as to
>> which would performed well, or less well, with suggested limitations
>> on some in terms of lens apertures. I was so put off by the
>> complexity of this list, and the dire warnings it contained,

>
>Do you have a link for that list? Sounds interesting.



It was on the Olympus Four Thirds web site.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012
Mort <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>I still have about a dozen OM lenses for my two OM-4T bodies. It
>certainly would be nice to have a new Olympus digital body with the OM
>lens mount and auto diaphragm, and I would not mind manual focus. I
>suppose that it is just daydreaming.



Unfortunately yes, that is just daydreaming. Olympus rejected the
idea of a digital OM because of the incompatibility of many OM lenses
with digital sensors, which I explained in the post you replied to.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012
Mort <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> Surely that's wrong. The PEN was never an SLR?
>>

>Hi,
>
>There certainly was a PEN SLR, as I owned one. It was half frame camera.



The Olympus PEN F, FT and FV were half frame 35mm SLRs made from 1963
to 1970, still being sold as late as 1974.

The current PEN E-P3 (and previous E-P1 and E-P2) mirrorless digital
cameras are styled to resemble the PEN F, FT and FV.

However, the first PEN was made in 1959. It was a viewfinder camera.
A range of non-reflex PENs were made from 1959 into the 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympus_Pen


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012

"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
>>significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
>>circle?

>
>
> I explained it in my previous post. You replied to that post but
> snipped the relevant paragraph.


No, you explained why it would happen if you were using the full lens image
circle, but since your not, I can't see how it's a big problem? Sure there
might be a slightly measurable loss, but a visable vignette, really? Not
saying your wrong, but I'd love to know the TRUE extent.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012
"Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>>>Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
>>>significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
>>>circle?

>>
>>
>> I explained it in my previous post. You replied to that post but
>> snipped the relevant paragraph.

>
>No, you explained why it would happen if you were using the full lens image
>circle, but since your not, I can't see how it's a big problem?



You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Your loss.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012

"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Mort <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>I still have about a dozen OM lenses for my two OM-4T bodies. It
>>certainly would be nice to have a new Olympus digital body with the OM
>>lens mount and auto diaphragm, and I would not mind manual focus. I
>>suppose that it is just daydreaming.

>
>
> Unfortunately yes, that is just daydreaming. Olympus rejected the
> idea of a digital OM because of the incompatibility of many OM lenses
> with digital sensors, which I explained in the post you replied to.



Well it's all relative. I note they don't recommend the 75-150 below 100mm
and 5.6, yet it works well enough on a Canon DSLR, on par with the kit zooms
at least, which are only f5.6 at that range anyway. And most of the other OM
lenses I have seem to be reasonably OK on their list.

Have you actually tried any OM lenses on a E-series camera yourself? I think
Olympus is just advising caution. And of course they'd prefer to sell more
new lenses
But as I said, buying a fairly expensive DSLR body just to use some old
sub-optimal lenses is probably not such a great idea anyway. And simply
using a retro look as a marketing feature will appeal to some, but there are
more important things I look for in a camera.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-07-2012

"Bruce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>Haven't used one on 4/3, but I'm puzzled how they suffer from any
>>>>significant vignetting when your only using the middle half of the lens
>>>>circle?
>>>
>>>
>>> I explained it in my previous post. You replied to that post but
>>> snipped the relevant paragraph.

>>
>>No, you explained why it would happen if you were using the full lens
>>image
>>circle, but since your not, I can't see how it's a big problem?

>
>
> You obviously didn't read what I wrote. Your loss.


Nope I read it, and it doesn't match my experience, so I queried what YOUR
experience was? (rather than theory)
Maybe it's only a major problem with Olympus 4/3 sensors perhaps, but as I
said, it's all relative.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAQ Topic - I have a question that is not answered in here or in any of the resources mentioned here but I'm sure it has been answered in clj. Where are the clj archives located? FAQ server Javascript 0 04-04-2007 11:00 PM
FAQ Topic - I have a question that is not answered in here or in any of the resources mentioned here but I'm sure it has been answered in clj. Where are the clj archives located? FAQ server Javascript 7 02-10-2007 02:55 PM
FAQ Topic - I have a question that is not answered in here or in any of the resources mentioned here but I'm sure it has been answered in clj. Where are the clj archives located? FAQ server Javascript 0 12-04-2006 12:00 AM
FAQ Topic - I have a question that is not answered in here or in any of the resources mentioned here but I'm sure it has been answered in clj. Where are the clj archives located? FAQ server Javascript 0 10-06-2006 11:00 PM
FAQ Topic - I have a question that is not answered in here or in any of the resources mentioned here but I'm sure it has been answered in clj. Where are the clj archives located? FAQ server Javascript 0 08-09-2006 11:00 PM



Advertisments