The negatives from my IS-10 -- whether Kodiak or Fudgy -- consistently
look a bit thin. Yet the prints are okay -- low grain, vibrant color,
solid blacks.
Yes, I know I could resolve this by running a roll of slide film through
the camera. But I don't feel like it. Has anyone in this group ever
checked the metering accuracy of the IS-10?
>>>>>
When I visited Ballard Camera last week, the woman who waited on me said
there was a great demand for Zuiko lenses and OM accessories. This might
have been a lie to justify their highish prices, but I doubt it.
(Norwegians don't have the brains to make up good lies.) If Olympus USA
heard these comments falling innocently from the lips of retailers, they
might have a different attitude towards promoting the OM system.
>>>>>
The fundamental technological "problem" with photography is that it
hasn't _fundamentally_ changed -- or improved! -- since it was invented
160+ years ago. Given a decent lens, you can take just as good a picture
with a 100-year-old view camera as you could with a modern view camera.
The _major_ advances in photography (ignoring improved lenses, faster
film speeds, and color) has been in ease of use. As these advances
appear, older cameras become marginalized, even though their purely
photographic capabilities have not diminished.
This is one time when our market-based competitive economy doesn't work
very well. Camera manufacturers, trying to keep one jump ahead of each
other, are constantly bringing out New & Improved products. The public,
convinced that progress is always A Good Thing, buys these new products,
destroying the market for cameras that were just-as-good picture takers,
but slightly less- convenient. *
Once the demand for the older product drops to the point where it is no
longer feasible to produce it in quantities that would let it sell at a
"reasonable" price, the demand further falls, in a vicious cycle that
eventually leads to the camera's demise. (This rule does not apply if
there are enough collectors to support the camera -- eg, Leica.)
Guys (and gals) there is NO WAY that Olympus is EVER going to bring back
the OM-1 or -2. The price would be astronomical and production would
consume resources that might be "better" used for more-popular cameras.
Until the public grows tired of technological "improvements" they don't
really need, this continuing "obsolescence" of quality products will
continue. Of course, now that we have auto-load, auto-advance,
auto-rewind, auto-exposure, auto-flash, and auto-focus, there doesn't
seem to be anything else that can be automated. ** So we might just be
at the end of this road. Fortunately.
Several years ago I went to a camera store to get a demo of the then-new
Sony VX-1000 3-chip camcorder. I carried my OM-4T to establish my
credentials. The store manager looked at the camera and said "Don't ever
sell that!" I think there's an enormous reservoir of respect and
good-will towards the OM system among retailers. It's a shame Olympus
doesn't take advantage of it to promote The System.
One other comment, to Gary Schloss. There is a big differnce between
"dead" and "obsolete." What bothers me is not whether Olympus kills the
OM system (though I hope not!), but whether they will provide repair
service for at least the decade following such a demise.
* Many years ago, Leica ran an insufferably stupid ad in which they said
they would never put a meter in their cameras "until creativity could be
automated." Of course, an integrated TTL metering system -- especially
one as sophisticated as the OM-4's -- is precisely the sort of technical
advance that truly enhances photography.
** Old geezers (and geezerettes) out there might remember that the box
in which the original Nikon F came proclaimed "fully-automatic 35mm
SLR." In those days, "fully-automatic" meant that the lens had an
automatic diaphragm, the mirror returned by itself after the exposure,
and that advancing the film also cocked the shutter. How times have
changed!
< 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 >
|