Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Close encounter of the first kind

Subject: Re: [OM] Close encounter of the first kind
From: Andrew Fildes <afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 07:34:38 +1000
Andrew Fildes
afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



On 25/05/2010, at 6:51 AM, Sue Pearce wrote:

> The AF was not as bad as reviews have indicated. In good light, it  
> was only
> slightly slower than my D3 and D700, and much faster than my M9. In  
> poor
> light, it would either focus quickly, or not at all.

That has become one of those 'accepted truths' - a bit like the  
business with the Leica M8 IR problem. I never really noticed it  
because I habitually prefocus, recompose and fire. Near zero lag then.  
The early reviewers must have been 'snapshotters' - I found the lag  
worse on the Samsung NX10 used in that way but oddly, no-one mentioned  
it! So it hasn't become folklore.

>
> The body is small and light, but the lens looks only slightly  
> smaller than
> the new Sony.

I thought the Sony kit zoom huge but that may be in relation to the  
camera body (looks like an old F505 to me!) When you get the ruler  
out, the Sony is a tad longer and heavier and, critically, larger  
diameter (about 55mm to 63mm). Collapsed, where compact counts, it's a  
lot smaller. The 16mm looks larger than it needs to be - tiny glass in  
an empty body with no stabiliser. I thought it was a design  
consideration to maintain the 'look' but then I remembered that it  
need to be a platform for large auxilliary lenses, a wide and a  
fisheye converter. The 18-200mm is a whopper.

>
> Som reactions: It is indeed possible to minaturize a camera body with
> improved electronics, but a lens will always be what it is. There is  
> no
> rational way to make a zoom lens that is in porportion with the body.

Because it needs to be in proportion to the lens. But as I've pointed  
out, Minox did it with a tiny 35mm f2,8 lens on film (full frame)  
which had a back flange distance of 17mm (the Sony is 18mm) so yes,  
they can do better. The Minox had no AF in it of course - but it did  
have a (flakey) electronic shutter built in.

>
> There is no one that can make a good optical viewfinder in all of  
> Japan,
> except for one guy at cosina. All others are dead or retired. I'm of  
> the
> opinion that shooting from the screen on the back is one of the  
> things that
> heralds the end of the earth, but we should all get used to it.

Wait until you use a Panny G2 where you just tap the point of focus  
you want on the touch screen! I'm still in lerv with the Oly PRN EVF  
(and the G2 has a hi-res finder as well - not the G10 tho'). And  
unlike my Leica M4, it doesn't care that I'm left-eyed.
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

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