"But please don't tell me that the OM system is not going to last just
because there's no autofocus."
Unfortunately, the marketplace has a tendency to make the wrong choices.
Advances in technology have a way of dragging along existing products,
whether or not it's a good idea. Autofocus has become so commonplace
that we expect to see it in virtually every camera -- even ones that
don't really "need" it.
Autofocus has een begun to invade medium-format cameras. But one of the
reasons people switch to a larger format is (as pointed out in the 4x5
article in this month's Popular Photography) that it forces you to slow
down and think more about what you're doing. I doubt that most medium-
format users really _need_ autofocus, but it's an excuse to advertise --
and buy -- a new camera.
I sincerely hope the OM system will be around for many years. But unless
Olympus aggressively markets it -- to the serious photographer, not just
the "nuts" -- and tries to keep the price down, it will almost certainly
die.
It's also possible for a camera to be too conservative -- eg, Leica. I
remember an ad for the M4, stating that the Leica would "never have a
built-in meter until creativity could be automated."
Uh-huh. I guess the introduction of the M5 also marked the introduction
of automated creativity (though Leica was strangely silent on the
subject).
This was one of the stupidest photo ads of all time. (Wanna hear some
more?) It's obvious that the (or at least _an_) exposure meter should be
built into a camera, and coupled with the controls. As OM-4 owners know,
the multi-spot meter gives a degree of control that is not available
from most hand-held meters. (I'm tempted to say _any_. Very few meters
can average multiple readings. My Sekonic L-508 can average only three.)
< 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 >
|