Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Digital and the Olympus E System

Subject: Re: [OM] Digital and the Olympus E System
From: "Titoy" <litefoot@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:48:59 +0800
Yes, you need another body (buddy)...

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ross Orr" <voxbongo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: [OM] Digital and the Olympus E System


> Some of you have been batting around the whole "digital versus film" 
> question here, so forgive me for throwing out a few thoughts on the 
> topic. . .
> 
> I don't have any ideological reason for preferring film to digital. 
> Quite the opposite. I got so backloggged with unprinted negatives 
> that it was a major reason I drifted away from using my OM gear in 
> the 90s. And I think photoshop is fun! Also many people had told me 
> stories of digital re-awakening the pleasure of photography for them.
> 
> So a year ago, I stuck a toe in the water with a Canon S200 Elph. 
> It's a cute camera--actually smaller than my XA, which impressed me! 
> The quality is fine for snapshots/web/email. But I became quite 
> frustrated with the "feel" of shooting with it, particularly the 
> SHUTTER LAG. This led me to dust off my old OM gear, and fall in love 
> with it all over again. . . which is how I ended up here.
> 
> I'm sure many of the rest of you also hoped that Olympus would revive 
> the OM lensmount when introducing their first digital SLR. However 
> when I started hearing about the 4/3 format, I was willing to give 
> Oly the benefit of the doubt--after all, starting with a blank sheet 
> of paper had achieved great things for them in the past.
> 
> But whatever the theoretical justifications,
> http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index_01.htm
> I feel like the E-1 and the E system have not really lived up to the 
> hype. Image-wise it doesn't sound like the real-world quality is 
> there yet,
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/
> And so far the E lens system hasn't delivered the advantages the PR 
> claimed: Where are the ultra wide angles? Where are the f/1.4-class 
> lenses?
> 
> Worst, contrary to the PR claims, the E-1 throws overboard the most 
> beloved feature of the OM series, its *compactness*. The E-1 is 
> BIG--though peeking inside the mirror box at the size of the vital 
> organs, I find it mystifying why. The grip is too large for my hand 
> (I have smaller hands), and the whole body seems unnecessarily deep. 
> And I just don't understand why the viewfinder magnification is so 
> much smaller than life size.
> 
> Meanwhile, the OM-2N feels like a familiar friend. So in the near 
> term I'm staying with the tool that feels right to me.  I'm thinking 
> perhaps Kodak's PictureCD processing will give me enough digital 
> convenience to handle the inevitable "emailing copies to friends."
> 
> Any experience here with how well C-41 process B &W comes out with that?
> 
> Of course if I want to shoot both color and B & W, maybe I'd better 
> better pick up another body. . .  (uh oh). . .
> 
> best,
> 
>    --Ross
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 42.2855 North
> 83.7497 West
> 
> < 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 >
> 

< 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