> All true, but the Stylus includes an electronic flash and a motorized
> winder. If you add those to the other cameras the difference is
> dramatic.
The TC-1 does have a motor drive and flash.
The Epic is lighter than the TC-1 (185g vs 145g) and the shape fits in the
pocket better than the squarish TC-1, and probably in the hand. To make it
smaller on the left, the film runs from right to left.
The epic is also 90-95 0.000000e+00ss expensive.
Lets not mention the Loma Compact.
Tom
Rollei's achievement with the size of the 35[S,T] should be viewed in
context with the era in which it was designed and put into production:
early-mid 1960's. Like the OM-1[n], it is mechanical which some find a
distinct advantage, and they are precision made with superb lenses. Half
of my six cameras are mechanical. They don't quit when doing photography
in sub-freezing (or sub-zero-F) weather.
Observations about the Olympus Stylus:
The [Stylus] Epic fits a shirt pocket better than any of the others I've
seen too, and suspect it was one of the design criteria. Olympus' greatest
achievement with the Epic is creating an excellent camera in the miniature
size class for $80. While not alone in very small size (and never has
been), it is alone in performance and build excellence for a very small
price; the highest performance per dollar I've found. The closest I've
seen in "bang for the buck" is another good camera, the [larger] Yashica T4
Super at $150. An excellent performer with a superb lens, but it sells for
1.9X the price. The Epic is easily a "best buy" among fixed focal length
P&S's.
I'm much more impressed with the Stylus line than the XA series. While
Olympus also squeezed every ounce of space out of the XA, the current
Stylus cameras are better designed with better lenses. Olympus has also
paid attention to ergonomics. When we replaced my wife's Fuji P&S that
"died" a couple years ago, she looked at quite a few Pent*x, Can*n and
Olympus models. The controls on several stylus zooms we handled fall
naturally under the fingertips and their slightly concave backs fit the
face when looking through the viewfinder (using the right eye; don't know
what it's like using the left eye). Not so with many of the
others. Control placement on some felt awkward. Others have a back with a
convex bulge which made looking through the viewfinder uncomfortable.
Only complaint:
I wish my other half's Stylus 140 had a "hard coat" over its paint
finish. It would have helped prevent the plastic equivalent of "brassing"
much longer. I don't know if other models have color "molded in" or if
they're painted. Current plastic paint technology can create a surprisingly
durable finish, but still needs a hard coat to hold up longer on corners
and edges subject to very high wear.
Minolta's major achievement with the TC-1?
IMO, it's creating the most expensive "fixed focal length" miniature P&S
camera. There must be something very special about it that I've missed
(beyond its titanium body).
I won't mention the camera you asked me not to, but will mention the very
special acheievement of the *Lomo* Compact (sorry, you misspelled it). It
has the dubious distinction of being a true "cult" camera; so bad that it's
good (in the eyes of its very devoted following). The "Diana" has
similarly distinguished itself in the medium format world.
-- John
< 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 >
|