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).