On Sat, 09 Jan 1999 20:40:14 -0800, William Sommerwerck <williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
jammed all night, and by sunrise was overheard remarking:
> The person who complained about the "bad" ergonomics of the OM-4 doesn't
> know much about ergonomics, nor has he thought much about why the camera
> is designed the way it is.
I couldn't agree more. Many of the ideas in the OM-4, or for that many
anything that can be considered at all innovative, aren't immediately
obvious to the casual observer as "ergonomic". However, when you live
with it for a little while, you discover that there's good reason for
these things.
> "You can't see the shutter speed looking down at the camera, because the
> prism housing obscures it."
> True -- IF you hold the camera perfectly vertical. You only need to tip
> it very slightly to see the speeds.
Yup. And most of the time, the camera's a eye-level. On the OM-4 and
most of the other OM cameras, you can feel the shutter speed setting by
the position of the speed ring grip. I can certainly also do this, 100%
accurately, holding the camera at waist level or any other way. It's one
of the main advantages of placing the speed control around the lens,
rather than near the film lever, as was the style when the OM-1 was
released.
> Besides, you can see the shutter speeds in the viewfinder. It's a shame
> you can't see the f/stops, but that will never happen until Olympus puts
> a maximum-aperture pin on the lens. (It's unlikely they'd ever change
> the lenses to move the aperture ring near the body, a la Minolta, so you
> could see the aperture through a prism.)
These days, you would do it with an electronic coupling system. Such as
in an OM-77 or OM-88, or many of the other "computationally intensive"
auto-everything cameras out there today. Though I suspect there's a good
chance the camera is actually telling both you and the lens what the
aperature is, rather than the lens telling the camera, in most cases.
> "An LCD bar graph is much harder to use than an analogue swing needle.
Maybe, though with enough segments, it's a fairly moot point. It's also
far more rugged.
> The LCD is just a cost-saving by the manufacturer -- on what was
> supposed to be the top of the range model."
At the time of the introduction of the OM-4, an LCD certainly cost much
more than needle. LCDs also get the metering out of the display area,
a clear advantage over the needle system of the OM-2, for example.
> Ugh. Analog good. Digital bad. Ugh.
> You're overlooking a number of things. The complex LCD and the circuits
> to drive it probably cost more than a meter movement.
Today they probably wouldn't, but back in the mid-80s, they certainly
did.
> "You have to read the instruction book from cover to cover to figure out
> how to stop the camera from beeping. Beeps are *always* evidence of poor
> interface design."
> Is there something _wrong_ with reading the manual all the way through?
> (I write manuals for a living, and I expect the reader to eventually
> work through the manual.)
In the computer biz, the single most common problem is when users don't
RTFM. This isn't a toy, it's professional camera, and you should read
the manual. While they certainly lacked the technology back then to have
the camera explain each error to you in a nice, friendly, British-accented
voice, I think I rather prefer a beep anyway. Another one of those
things that may seem a bad idea on the surface, but works very well in
practice.
> "The highlight and shadow buttons are pointless features, since there's
> already a compensation dial.
I find them excellent features, extremely useful, and I do use them all
of the time. Way more efficient in their purpose than using the exposure
compensation dial.
> "The TTL socket is exactly where I like to rest a finger. When a cord is
> attached to it, it tends to drift into the field of view for macro
> work."
> 35mm cameras are usually held with the left hand cradling the lens --
> not grasping the body. Although you might have a valid reason for
> holding the camera this way, it is not the way most people hold it.
Yup. In fact, Olympus (and I'm sure others) used to give demonstrations
on the right way to hold a 35mm at camera shows. Beginners often grab on
either side of the body, moving their hands to focus. But they gave a
good show about the relative stability of different holding methods.
This was back in the 70s, when I had my OM-1, and I have been holding
cameras this way ever since. It makes the difference between blurring at
1/60th and not blurring at 1/15-1/30 (depending on the situation and the
lens, naturally).
> "The MEMO mode looks deadly. If you should accidentally bump this
> switch, *every* exposure from then on will be wrong.
> It's rather hard to accidentally "bump" the MEMO button. It takes quite
> a bit of force to move it -- enough to "dent" the skin of your
> fingertip.
Yup. In nearly 15 years of frequent use, I have never accidently bumped
the MEMO button. And at 6'1" and 210lbs, I may not have fat figures, but
I'm no Japanese-sized guy either. Though I do have good fine motor
control -- I also paint, carve wood, and work on fine electronics,
sometimes under a microscope.
> "I know now that it wasn't lack of marketing or keen pricing which lost
> Olympus the SLR market. They no longer *have* a product worth marketing.
> I would not buy this camera new at any price."
> Althought the OM-4 has automatic exposure and a motor drive, it was also
> designed for photographers who want to think a bit before they snap
> away. Its "unusual" features were designed for this type of photography.
> I don't see how they detract from a more casual use of the camera. (Like
> most photographers, I shoot both ways.)
While I don't think they do at all, the SLR market underwent significant
changes from the time the OM-1 was introducted through today. Back in
those days, the only people who used SLRs were serious photographers --
pros or "prosumers". Today, the volume market is really for the casual
consumer, the folks who would have been using 126 cameras 20 years ago.
So you have to have auto-everything on the SLR -- fail-free film loading,
built-in cheesy winder, programmed exposure modes (with multisensor
array and pattern library, so any fool can get a decent shot), etc.
There's obviously still a market for the OM-4, but it's for a much
smaller percentage of a much larger market. Olympus addressed this new
market with their ZLR line, not the OM line (well, they hit it a bit
with the OM77).
> It's really a shame you can't
> appreciate the imagination that went into this camera. And it's rude to
> suggest that the other people in this group don't know a good product
> when they see -- or use -- it.
Right. There's lots of room for personal perference here, guys,
photography is a creative endeavor. We don't all paint with the same
kind of brushes, or agree on the same sort of carving tools, or the same
style of car or clothing or the same movies, etc. Cameras are no
different -- that's why it's a good idea to really get to know one
before plunking down the big bucks.
--
Dave Haynie | V.P. Technology, Met@box Infonet, AG | http://www.metabox.de
Be Dev #2024 | NB851 Powered! | Amiga 2000, 3000, 4000, PIOS One
< 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 >
|