Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] speculations on the Olympus digital SLR

Subject: [OM] speculations on the Olympus digital SLR
From: "William Sommerwerck" <williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 05:43:40 -0700
I find it difficult to put all my responses at the beginning when I'm
commenting on multiple remarks. It also seems illogical to have the response
precede the stimulus.


"... take [sic] a little math, do the ratio of 35mm vs the 3/2 sensor they
will be using, and then proportion the lens and body size accordingly."

If anyone expects the interchangeable-lens digital Olympus SLR to be a
marvel of microminiaturization, they will be bitterly disappointed.

Why are people so fixated on small size? Weight and handling ease are far
more important. When Olympus introduced the OM, it said the camera could
have been made even smaller, but there was an ergonomic limit dictated by
the size of human hands and the need to position controls so they could be
easily accessed and operated.

Most people use only one camera body, and that body is usually hanging on a
strap around their neck. Unless you're carrying multiple bodies, there is
little need for a really small body. I owned a Nikon Photomic FTn, and
though I _would_ have liked the body to be a bit smaller, I would have much
preferred that it were lighter.

The "handling" -- that indescribable characteristic of how a camera
"feels" -- is more important than size or weight. When Consumer Reports
tested SLRs, one of their most-important rating factors was the ease with
which you could change lenses and perform other common operations. If I
remember correctly, they said it took 500nger to do these things on some
cameras.

I own an OM-4T and D-620L. I have average-sized hands (I'm "average" height,
5'9"), and both cameras are about as small as I feel comfortable with. I
wouldn't mind my IS-30 DLX being a bit smaller, but it "feels right" in my
hands. And the "bulky" Polaroid SX-70 is one of the easiest-to-hold and
operate cameras I've ever owned.

One of the best things about plastic-bodied cameras is that the controls can
be placed almost anywhere; the IS-30 is more comfortable to hold and easier
to operate than the OM-4T. My main complaint about the IS-30 is that the
viewfinder window points upward when the camera hangs in front. Food
collects on it when I'm eating. I recently had to lick off a spoonful of
Mrs. Butterworth.


"The CCDs only have sensors on the tip... That means the light has to come
in at a direct angle to the sensor. If the angle is too steep, then the
image quality will suck."

The problem is actually that the sensor sits in a well slightly _below_ the
"surface" of the CCD. The more acute the angle of the light, the more the
well wall blocks it. This does not cause a loss of image quality -- just a
loss of light.

No one has yet explained how a lens can have the image-forming rays near the
edge strike the image plane at a less-acute angle without changing the
lens's focal length.


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz