Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OM-D released, something weird about the skin
1 view
Skip to first unread message
RichA
Feb 7, 2012, 10:05:25 PM2/7/12
to
There appears to be two different body claddings. I'd much prefer the
pebble texture to whatever that is on the black model.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/08/Olympus_OM-D_E-M5_announced
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusEM5/images/allroundview.jpg
pebble texture to whatever that is on the black model.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/08/Olympus_OM-D_E-M5_announced
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusEM5/images/allroundview.jpg
bugbear
Feb 8, 2012, 5:36:35 AM2/8/12
to
RichA wrote:
> There appears to be two different body claddings. I'd much prefer the
> pebble texture to whatever that is on the black model.
Yes - the texture is most interesting thing about that launch.
> There appears to be two different body claddings. I'd much prefer the
> pebble texture to whatever that is on the black model.
Wait, what?
BugBear
Kennedy McEwen
Feb 9, 2012, 1:10:32 PM2/9/12
to
In article
<da196f4d-059a-4261...@15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> writes
Something weird about the entire DP preview. Take a look at page 6:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusEM5/page6.asp
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)
<da196f4d-059a-4261...@15g2000vbq.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rande...@gmail.com> writes
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/olympusEM5/page6.asp
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)
Mike
Feb 9, 2012, 1:57:29 PM2/9/12
to
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.
--
Mike
(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?
What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.
--
Mike
Kennedy McEwen
Feb 9, 2012, 2:47:59 PM2/9/12
to
In article <jh14u3$d8o$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mike <no...@none.invalid>
writes
closer look-alikes before, even from Olympus. The E-420 is one example
that springs to mind. The OM-D looks more like an ugly OM-10 or the
Cosina made OM-2000 than it does to any Olympus classic. Just like
those models, there isn't even any control where the shutter speed
selector would be on an OM-x.
They had to wait till Maitani was dead and buried before naming this
monstrosity.
>What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.
>
Its closer to 110.
writes
>Why would a user of the 24x36mm OM-1/2/3/4 be anxious for a 1/4 frame
>(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?
>
Perhaps they are tired of getting film developed. But there have been
>(17.3 x 13 mm) look-a-like?
>
closer look-alikes before, even from Olympus. The E-420 is one example
that springs to mind. The OM-D looks more like an ugly OM-10 or the
Cosina made OM-2000 than it does to any Olympus classic. Just like
those models, there isn't even any control where the shutter speed
selector would be on an OM-x.
They had to wait till Maitani was dead and buried before naming this
monstrosity.
>What is with all the "excitement" it's a smaller sensor than APS-C.
>
RichA
Feb 9, 2012, 6:50:47 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 9, 2:47 pm, Kennedy McEwen <r...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <jh14u3$d8...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mike <n...@none.invalid>
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 $5000+ for something as
"small" as the D800 or 5DII.
> In article <jh14u3$d8...@speranza.aioe.org>, Mike <n...@none.invalid>
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.
Bowser
Feb 11, 2012, 3:29:02 PM2/11/12
to
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?
Trevor
Feb 11, 2012, 6:23:41 PM2/11/12
to
"Bowser" <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote in message
news:2pjdj7hfg7ldi2k4u...@4ax.com...
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.
David J Taylor
Feb 12, 2012, 1:36:54 AM2/12/12
to
> 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
> 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.
particular handling would be what sold the camera system, not looks! <G>
No, I'm not into fashion!
David
0 new messages