Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: A BS statement from the 35mm newsgroup

Subject: [OM] Re: A BS statement from the 35mm newsgroup
From: Winsor Crosby <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2006 00:16:22 -0800
It is BS, but partly because Olympus never intended to compete  
feature for feature with the pro SLRs of the day, or they would have  
priced it as such. It was a very fine system camera that was a cut  
above mass market and was quickly emulated by others as they reduced  
the size of their cameras. There would never have been a Canon AE-1  
and all the cash they generated without the Olympus OMs.

Even Galen Rowell who hated big cameras investigated Olympus but  
decided to err on the side of caution and perceived reliability,  and  
stayed with the non pro Nikons. He may have been wrong though:

http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/crash-test.txt



Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA




On Feb 4, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Jay Drew wrote:

>
> Here's a snippet of crud from the 35mm newsgroup that is in the thread
> "mourning Minolta"
>
> Crud Beginnith
>
> Despite the technological advances Olympus made (they were the only
> company besides Leitz to engineer a damped mirror movement, for which
> reason the Leicaflexes needed no mirror lock-up), its entry into the
> SLR fray was ultimately doomed. The cameras simply came to the party
> too late, about 10 years after even Leica's belated entry. The fact is
> that N*kon owned the pro SLR marketplace, and Olympus simply did not
> have a pro camera. Pros did not need smaller SLR's (quite the
> contrary!) and OM-1's were no match for N*kons or Leicaflexes in
> durability. The Olympus lens line contained some lenses that were so
> small that men (the primary buyers of SLR's) had trouble handing them.
> I know I dropped an Olympus lens at least once while demonstrating it!
> The reduced size of the lenses was accomplished by sacrificing  
> strength
> and durability: you could make an Olymus lens bind easily by squeezing
> the focussing ring, something that was more difficult to do with a
> Nikkor and all but impossible to do with a Leica reflex lens.
>
> I prefer the size of Leicaflex SL or SL2 camera to the bulky Nikon  
> F or
> the diminutive OM-1.
>
> Crud endith
>
> *********
>
> I have to admit, the only 35mm SLR I've ever owned has been OM  
> gear.  As
> such I don't have the experience to say how strong the bodies were  
> compared
> to the competition.  I bought my OM-1 in 1977 because it WAS  
> SMALL.  I have
> normal hands (at the last time I took a peek I was of the male  
> gender) and I
> didn't have a problem with handling Zuiko lenses.  And I does  
> anyone have an
> idea of what strength you need to squeeze a focusing ring to make  
> it bind?
>
> There are a few things that were dumb in the OM line in my opinion:
> 1. The motor drive cover on the OM1 and OM2 is a joke.
> 2. The flimsy hot shoe.
> 3. As a right handed fellow, would have liked the film speed (and  
> thus the
> compensation dial) on the left hand side of the camera on the OM2.   
> You
> southpaws can tell me otherwise.
> 4. Would have been nice to have the Fstop indicated in the  
> viewfinder with
> the shutter speed, although I admit that I would not like to  
> sacrifice the
> size of the viewfinder to get it.
>
> Offset those 4 peeves with a whole lot that Olympus got right and I  
> say I
> chose correctly way back when.
>
> Jay
>
> Hand me my costume
> Please won't you pass me my mask
> I have appointments I must keep with my past.
>
> Bill Nelson - Beauty Secrets
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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