WARNING - Long reply to a long post!
Khen,
khen lim wrote:
> Jim, my responses to your email:
>
> Jim, the OM-4Ti is a very difficult act to follow right now. However, it's
> the Holy Grail at Shinjuku to reach that goal one day. Don't hold your
> breath though.
>
>
I agree it is a high standard. I would love to see Olympus build a
digital similar in quality, size & weight to the OM-4ti. I would even
expect to pay a fair amount to get such a camera. I am not holding my
breath as it appears that Olympus is not really headed that direction,
but perhaps I am wrong. It certainly seems like nobody else is either.
>
> Maybe the E-3 mightn't be the model you should be aiming for then. You could
> look at the E-510 instead. While I'll eventually get the E-3, my present
> E-510 continues to surprise me. I have now used it under two rain shower
> conditions fully exposed and it hadn't failed on me at all and I'm not
> talking about drizzles here. The E-510 is commendably light; so that point
> should be fine for you.
>
>
I never really expected the E-3 to be what I wanted. It is just that in
the past (OK, so I am old and living in the past) Olympus built light,
small compact PRO cameras. Now all of the smaller cameras appear to me
to be aimed more toward the amateur market.
It may be that the 510 is something I should consider.
What I really want is a E-410/510 built in a weather sealed body with
one or two lenses to match. Light, compact, and durable. (While I am
dreaming - give me a Digital Zuiko Pancake 20 to go with it!) 10mp is
fine and the lenses don't even need to be blazing fast. I don't think
that this would be particularly difficult to build, but maybe it is a
hard sell - I may be one of just a few that really want something like
this. I guess what I really want is a body and a couple of lenses where
Olympus built to a similar high quality standard of the E-1 and E-3 but
went all out to maximize the weight and size advantages that the 4/3
system should offer.
> As for the 4:3 advantages of being lighter and compact, there are points I
> like to make here. On paper these advantages are obvious but in reality, it
> does look like they might not have delivered as much of these. But that
> depends on how you see the development of the standard itself. There's so
> much one can do with optical science to produce lenses that are super-fast
> and yet light. After all there's a heck of lot of glass in there to make
> that happen and when you have that, the lens will gain weight. Furthermore,
> the faster the optics, the bigger it has to be at least in girth anyway.
> However if you look at the 14-42mm and 40-150mm - not this List's favourite
> lenses, I'm sure - you have the benefit of lighter weight and compactness.
> Sure they don't come within hair's breadth of the costlier lenses in the
> range but they're fairly decent performers even when you compare them with
> their immediate competition in the market.
>
> There's a lot I can discuss with you on this issue of offering high
> performance and keeping everything tight, light and compact and I believe
> that slowly, Olympus is getting there. Overcoming obvious limitations posed
> by real-world physics is something that doesn't always happen. Perhaps one
> day we can see fast lenses that are lighter but to do that, there has to be
> an excellent replacement for solid optical glass with excellent aberration
> and refractive properties. That's not happening soon though. So when you
> consider all these and then look at what Olympus offers in terms of the
> "economy" line-up, it isn't all bad.
>
> My two cents' worth anyway.
>
>
>
I don't dispute most of these points at all. Once again, turning to the
OM system, most of the lenses came in two versions, one a faster
version, the other a compact, lighter, slower version. However, the
build quality was the same on both lenses. Often times the optical
quality was also equal. Olympus does not seem to be doing that these
days. It just seems that when the system was announced Olympus spent a
lot of time touting the size and weight advantages, but they have not
spent much engineering effort working toward that goal.
I don't deny that Olympus has come up with some nice stuff, it is just
that none of it really meets my needs or desires.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|