On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 05:47, William Sommerwerck <williams@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>It's hard to believe that someone thinks the OM cameras are so "perfect"
>there's no room for improvement. Shall I suggest a few?
>1. Autofocus. No argument -- the lack of autofocus killed the OM line.
>2. Integral motor and motor battery. The OM cameras lose their svelteness when
>the motor and battery pack are added.
>3. Higher shutter speeds and faster flash sync.
>4. SuperFP flash with continuously variable output, according to subject
>distance and/or degree of fill-in desired.
Ahhhh... But all those things are already being done by Olympus, just
not with their OM line of SLR cameras. Let's face it, most of the
people who buy the auto-everything wonder-bricks from Nikon and Canon
would be just as happy with the pictures coming out of any point-n-shoot
cameras, and that is where Olympus has invested a lot of their energy.
The market for the true manual SLR is very limited, and it will never
expand.
>The OM cameras are "perfect" in a limited sense, as they represent a brilliant
>combination of compactness and usable features that no one has ever matched in
>a 35mm SLR. But in that respect, the Rolleiflex, Minox, SX-70, and even the
>Brownie are "perfect" cameras. Within the range of what they do, they do it
>brilliantly.
I still think the OM-x line of cameras were "perfect" for what they were
meant to do. But if we start talking about things that they were not
meant to do (such as auto-focus), then of course they don't do them very
well (or not at all).
< 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 >
|