On 03/10/06, AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> khen wrote:
> > Aha....I know the person who did that and you won't believe
> > the out-of-box thinking for that one....
>
> So WHY did this feature not make it into the E-system?
AG, I don't really know. I'm trying to catch up as quickly as possible on
all things concerning the E-series and E-System. That is why when it comes
to out-and-out technical issues, I have normally been quiet because I was
already out of Olympus by then. A lot of these stuffs I'm discovering by
quietly reading where all you guys have been talking. So I cannot answer
your question other than to just let you know that the guy who thought out
the IR was the same person who developed the E-1. And yes, I do know him
(know OF him) but not as closely as I would have wanted to.
It's
> these great features, like live-exposure adjustment during the
> time the shutter is openned (OTF metering),
I understand that OTF-TTL-type metering is under development but not much
more. Like you, I would want to see this bit of innovation returning.
mirror-box metering,
> outstanding viewfinders,
How much more outstanding do you think (or want it) to be? From my own
understanding, the Four-Thirds format restricts viewfinder sizes to being
somewhat smaller. I am aware that viewfinder design development right now is
focusing on how to make the information clear and quicker to view. In this
respect there has been some talk about developing the OM-4 type info system
further and in my opinion, this would be excellent. I have always enjoyed
the way the exposure bar works for example.
Some in this List have mentioned the desire to bring back the
Fresnel+microprism focusing screen design. I love to see this but there has
to be a technical issue that is preventing this from happening. Correct me
if I'm wrong - does Canon and Nikon retain the use of the Fresnel/microprism
design?
I remember - not too clearly - that passive AF systems don't take kindly to
this type of focusing screen. What are your views?
instant-spot-meter-button (which came
> back in the E-3xx), disappearing from the cameras for no
> apparant reason which has me confused.
You're right. I think you can be fairly optimistic about its return though.
It's like asking why
> Canon hasn't brought back the pellicle mirror in the 1D-series!
>
> It can't be cost-containment. The engineering is already done,
> it's just a matter of including it in the design.
Yes, you're right. No argument here.
Instant-spot-metering is fully available in almost every single
> camera except the E-1. Oversight? If so, why wasn't it fixed
> in firmware?
I believe that myself.
> You think so...? In your opinion, how does the IS-3000's ESP
> > compare to the Camedia E-10/E-20 or do you think that this is
> > not a fair question...? I have a reason for asking this
> > question..... :)
>
> Haven't tried the E-10/E-20, but I believe it works better than
> the E-1's.
Interesting you said that.
I think I know why. It appears that the ESP/Matrix
> metering system in the cameras now sense the color and light
> value of the brightest metering zone. It uses this information
> to determine the type of scene it is photographing. For example,
> my A1 identifies bright sunlight by the EV and will
> automatically lean towards the Sunny-16 rule. The E-1's ESP
> mode seems to be working in a similar manner. Well, where this
> falls down, is when you are running a polarizer on the lens.
> The maximum EV value is lower by two stops (typical with
> polarizer),
1.7 I think.
which fools the matrix into thinking it's something
> other than a bright sunlit scene. As such, it will end up over
> or under-exposing the scene because the "rules" are different.
> The ESP metering matrix in the IS-series appears to be
> restricting the calculations to foreground (center-spot) and
> background (ambient) ratios. It might be dumber, but it isn't
> fooled by a polarizer.
I'm not very sure if you're correct here AG but I'm not contesting it. How
about opening this question up and see what others say.
> Yes, that was ingenious....Maitani thinking here.
>
> So where was Maitani's thinking when it came to the rest of the
> controls?
AG, I'm talking about the IS-3000, which was one of the last cameras that
Maitani had some degree of input in.
> > My suggestion to every camera designer is to try and operate
> > > the camera while blindfolded. That'll help.
> > Very very true. The OMs were supreme in this aspect.
>
> So why are the current designers h*ll-bent on erasing every
> memory and thought-process of Maitani? Did he really tick off
> the powers-that-be so much that they are in a total anti-Maitani
> mode?
I really don't know, AG. Maitani left not long after I did.
No I don't think he ticked off anyone. He is still very much revered at
Olympus. There are people there who were his proteges like Takada and
Asakura, both learned a great deal from the great man himself.
As for why the current breed are the way they are, well...the short answer
would be that they are not him. But such an answer would be a cop-out, I
guess. The real answer is that I don't even know.
I will be very honest with you, AG. I'm not 100pc happy or content with the
breed of DSLRs coming out. Here's my very brief take:
E-1: Quite good but not by the Olympus standards I have long known. There
are a lot of questions that have yet to be answered by the manner inwhich it
was designed. You have pretty much asked at least half of them already. The
"feel" and general "ergonomics" are typical Olympus, yes, but I was
certainly disappointed by the way the Spot/Multispot/Hilight/Shadow system
was addressed with the E-1.
E-300: You might not believe me but I actually like this camera for its
boldness. Although not as substantial to feel in my hands than the E-1, it
holds a lot of promise. Again lots of questions but not enough answers.
E-330: The LiveView was and still is an important technical feat but it
personally doesn't do much for me because I can do without it.
E-500: This is a concession to those who found the E-3xx weird. This is
Olympus recapitulating. I think you know that already.
E-400: Don't know enough of it but pretty much along the same lines as the
E-500. Either camera won't make it to my collection though but I can
perfectly understand why they were launched.
Reliability Issues
I have never seen this many issues during my time with the OMs. I'm stunned
by the problems I have come across though I have not personally witnessed a
faulty E-1 but you can correct me if you like on this. I did ask Shinju-ku
about this reliability issue but the answer was not exactly something I
would readily accept, AG.
> AG, please restrict discussions on this feature.....thanks...
>
> Not to worry. It's obvious that nobody inside Olympus has ever
> taken the time to see what we users have been wanting or
> thinking anyway. ;) Oh, wait, there was the issue of the
> OM-adaptor--maybe they did listen.
thanks.
K.
PS: and by the way, I'm real. I'm not bothered what I've seen and read.
AG (NOT!) Schnozz
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> ==============================================
> 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
==============================================
|