Recently, I purchased an OM-4T that I had to return due to it being
defective - mirror would 'freeze' in the up position, even after I changed
batteries. I tried this camera out, and was impressed with the it's
capabilities. Even as an amatuer - in the extreeme - I was able to realize
the advanced nature of the metering, and flash capabilities - although at
my level of experience I'd be hard pressed to take advantage of all the
features.
Right now, I have an OM-1n, with a few Zuiko lenses, and a few off-brand
lenses. I am mainly involved with astrophotography, but I have recently
gained an interest in doing 'terrestrial' photography. With this in mind,
I am considering a more 'advanced' OM camera. I know Olympus appeals to a
certain niche within the photography world, but I would like to understand
what the philosophy is behind the choice of OM vs. others.
What spurred this on is that I have a friend with a nice Canon setup.
A2-e. I have seen the results. His is certainly easier to use for candid
shots, and action photography - auto-focus can be a nice thing - but I
would not think that he'd get as good a result from situations requiring
long exposure, or advance metering. Am I way off here?
I'm hoping that perhaps some of the more dedicated Olympus users might
provide some insight into why they like Olympus vs. other camera systems.
Regards,
Dan M.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|