On 01/09/06, Jez Cunningham <jez.cunningham@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/29/06, khen lim <castanet.xiosnetworks@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > . In fact I can make you feel
> > real proud by telling you that never in the history of NASA space
> > expeditions has there been a camera that required no modification other
> than
> > the replacement of the leatherette with silver tape. And that camera was
> the
> > Olympus OM-4Ti.
>
> Does Morgan Sparks do a duct tape version? :-)
Sorry but I have not the foggiest idea who Morgan Sparks is..... :(
Seriously, I have been off list for 3 days and I come back to a thread
> with 100 messages - and it's the best reading I've had in years! I'm
> expecting Tom Scales, Oben and Doris to chip in any moment now.
Would be very very honoured to meet them. I'm the one who feels privileged
here. :)
I'm very proud to be amongst OLYNUTS (or is it Oily Nuts?? Oh dear....).
Love all of you even if I've only been on the List for three days now. Seems
like years! I have Candace and Ali Shah to thank for this....!
Khen
> - you've woken us all up and got us talking on topic again! And I'm
> only half way through the thread.
My mailbox has never been THIS FULL!!!! And after two days of goggled eyes
and relentless pursuit to answering all the questions that seem to be
streaming in unabatedly, I have to force myself to delete those that do not
ask for my input. But heck, it's been great. I've been transported back to
1985 now....and I'm staying there.
Do I get to read the specs for the
> OM5 further down the page? I can't wait! This is just too cool!
Jez, the OM-5 is actually an OM-4Ti that was heavily modified inside. It was
never really going to work though. As much as all 22 of us were rallying
quietly behind Maitani-san, protocol was strict at R&D. We could not bring
our placards and voice support... :(
The film guiderails for example had to be substantially modified to provide
contact interface with the DB. Electronics for the viewfinder has to be
revised. There was also a different focusing screen (not sure why but it was
nonetheless). The wonderful OM Motordrive 2 could not be used because it
wouldn't physically mount properly due to the thickness of the DB. We had to
tool up a stand-in MD2 that was slightly different.
I think, looking back, the enormity of the task ahead of us in modifying or
adding new accessories, the restructuralising of the OM-4Ti's innards et al
were what killed it in the main. There was also the question of economics
and market returns because a pro SLR that offered manual focusing, external
motordrive and digital capture was going to be too odd for the common
market. Pros were largely looking at the feast that Canon and Nikon were
serving up and to them, their requirements were met by their offerings.
Had the OM-5 gone ahead, it would probably have failed, like the Leica. As
wonderful and purist-based as the OM-5 definitely was, it wasn't economical
to build. Needless to say, only the oddballs like you and I at the List
would be the key customers..... :)
K.
THANKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Jez
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
--
Khen Lim
XIOS Network Solutions
IBM Business Partner
+60 +16 528 6010 / 016 528 6010
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|