There is at least one thing that I can't agree is the "sophisticated" auto
exposure system, I would call them "fancy" exposure system. I have use some
of the later SLRs and I don't think they are any better than the OM4's
exposure system. I did read an exposure test from Pop Photo some years ago,
the most "sophisticated" N*kon F5 was one of the poorest.
C.H.Ling
----- Original Message -----
From: "Winsor Crosby" <wincros@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I agree with almost everything you say, but I would like to put this
> designed from the ground up statement to rest. Yes, they were. Because
> they had to. The OMs were designed from the ground up because Olympus
> did not make a system 35mm full frame SLR before. The E-1 was designed
> from the ground up because Olympus did not make a modern autofocus 35mm
> system camera before. To make failure to keep up with the competition
> an advantage is just marketing spin to me. Other makers did not have to
> redesign from the ground up because they all ready had good autofocus,
> sophisticated auto exposure systems, camera bodies designed around
> them, perfectly fine lens systems that work on the bodies that have all
> ready proven themselves in the field. The only lenses that proved
> unsuitable for digital were wide angle primes and zooms which were
> quickly redesigned, or replaced.
>
> I was sentimental about Olympus too because of my OM, but when the
> digital bug bit me earlier two years after they announced the 4/3
> system and the camera was still not out I made my move. Olympus
> announcements that there would be no compatibility with OM lenses and
> discontinuance of the film camera system concentrated my sentimentality
> on my experiences with my OM4T and not the company who made it.
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
> On Oct 15, 2004, at 10:37 AM, Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|