>Responding to Ed Mall's comments, the built-in diopter is not sufficient for
>me because my eyeglass prescription is about -5 and includes some
>astigmatism. Taking glasses off to use the camera is very awkward because
>without glasses on I can't see much. So I think we still need a
>high-eyepoint OM and am wondering if it could be done with a relatively
>minor modification (longer-focal-length lenses in the eyepiece).
>
>But Mark Hammons is right -- what we REALLY need is a digital OM. Olympus
>makes all those nice OM lenses; Olympus is committed to digital technology;
>so why not?
>
>Cynical answer: Because digital users insist on autofocus. They want a
>totally-automated, brain-free-operation camera.
>
>Response to that: So make it autofocus! It should be easy to move the CCD
>forward or backward to focus, much easier than the way Contax moves the film
>plane in one of their cameras.
>
>Does anybody at Olympus read this?
>
>How about Herbert Keppler (of Popular Photography), who is an Olympophile?
>Maybe we should write a collective letter to him.
>
>
>Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
>http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.mindspring.com/~covington <><
>
Why would you build a camera with CCD to take superb OM lenses when cheap
zooms on point and shoot digital cameras exceed the image quality that can
be delivered by a current commercially available CCD?
Winsor
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
mailto:wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|