Until this morning, when they Photoshopped it, that image towards the bottom of the page of the camera with accessories wasn't even branded OM-D. It was this image:
http://tinyurl.com/74hhk83 of an Olympus camera called an ON-M!
Olympus Schizo! ;-)
-- Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
In article <jh14u3$d8...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mike <n...@none.invalid> writes
>Why would a user of the 24x36mm OM-1/2/3/4 be anxious for a 1/4 frame >(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?
Perhaps they are tired of getting film developed. But there have been closer look-alikes before, even from Olympus. The E-420 is one example that springs to mind. The OM-D looks more like an ugly OM-10 or the Cosina made OM-2000 than it does to any Olympus classic. Just like those models, there isn't even any control where the shutter speed selector would be on an OM-x.
They had to wait till Maitani was dead and buried before naming this monstrosity.
>What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.
Its closer to 110.
-- Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
> In article <jh14u3$d8...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mike <n...@none.invalid>
> writes>Why would a user of the 24x36mm OM-1/2/3/4 be anxious for a 1/4 frame
> >(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?
> Perhaps they are tired of getting film developed. But there have been
> closer look-alikes before, even from Olympus. The E-420 is one example
> that springs to mind. The OM-D looks more like an ugly OM-10 or the
> Cosina made OM-2000 than it does to any Olympus classic. Just like
> those models, there isn't even any control where the shutter speed
> selector would be on an OM-x.
> They had to wait till Maitani was dead and buried before naming this
> monstrosity.
> >What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.
> Its closer to 110.
> --
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Well, Olympus people have been asking for something with a shape akin
to their old SLRs. But aside from that,
I think the overall trend toward smaller gear is inevitable. The
only reason Nikon and Canon are still making such large pro bodies is
they think the users will balk at paying $5000+ for something as
"small" as the D800 or 5DII.
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:57:29 -0500, Mike <n...@none.invalid> wrote:
>Why would a user of the 24x36mm OM-1/2/3/4 be anxious for a 1/4 frame >(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?
>What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.
Because it's got a very nice feature set, and can (we'll see) provide
very nice image quality in a small package? Because it can mount a
very nice, and growing lens selection?
Why would anyone use an APS-C when FF is available?
Why would anyone use 24 x 36 when MF is available?
Why would anyone shoot digital when 8 x 10 film is available?
> On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:57:29 -0500, Mike <n...@none.invalid> wrote:
>>Why would a user of the 24x36mm OM-1/2/3/4 be anxious for a 1/4 frame
>>(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?
>>What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.
> Because it's got a very nice feature set, and can (we'll see) provide
> very nice image quality in a small package? Because it can mount a
> very nice, and growing lens selection?
> Why would anyone use an APS-C when FF is available?
> Why would anyone use 24 x 36 when MF is available?
> Why would anyone shoot digital when 8 x 10 film is available?
> Seriously, have you been living in a cave?
I think the real question was why it needs to look like an old camera most prospective purchasers never owned, and even those that did won't have at the top of their priority list. I've got 4 old OM bodies, and I'm not interested in an micro 4/3 OM look alike. Naturally there will be some of course :-)
IMO more sales would be made by making it look like the next Modern Classic. Of course that takes a bit more design skill and inspiration.
> I think the real question was why it needs to look like an old camera > most prospective purchasers never owned, and even those that did won't > have at the top of their priority list. I've got 4 old OM bodies, and > I'm not interested in an micro 4/3 OM look alike. Naturally there will > be some of course :-)
> IMO more sales would be made by making it look like the next Modern > Classic. Of course that takes a bit more design skill and inspiration.
> Trevor.
I would hope that specifications, performance, lens range and in particular handling would be what sold the camera system, not looks! <G> No, I'm not into fashion!
