Dawid Loubser wrote:
> Iwert, I think we were all thinking of the introduction of the OM series, and
> hoping Olympus would pull something of this magnitude off again. Something
> really innovative, not just something pretty.
>
> I can't think of too many things they did wrong then...
>
I think I qualify to comment, as a early adopter of a pre-MD OM-1 and
lifetime OM user since. As a user of a Nikon Ftn, I was wowed by the
size, weight, elegance and innovative mechanical design of the OM-1. As
soon as I could swing it, I gave up the Ftn and bought an OM-1.
A breakthrough camera, sure. Without fault, nah.
The major failings in the camera itself relate to vibration control. The
design of the lens aperture and stop-down mechanism is inherently
flawed. Oly worked around that starting with the OM-2sp, then the 4
series, OMPC and OM2000, but all used the self timer, which isn't
variable length, which is a slow and awkward way to work for many
applications.
OM lenses have the diaphragm held open by a spring in the lens. The
camera has no idea what the actual movement needed for any stop is, so
it simply slams the lens operating pin against the stop inside the lens
in a circular motion. Because the camera body has to operate even very
large diaphragm mechanisms, its action is quite strong. This causes lots
of motion and vibration. Gary's tests proved conclusively that the
mirror lock-up is simply ineffective at controlling vibration - possibly
why there isn't one on the OM-2(n).
Nikon F lenses are the reverse, with a spring in the lens holding the
aperture closed against the internal stop set by the aperture ring. The
camera operating lever just moves down and up, without a bang at the
end. The bang, a smaller one because of the smaller mass of the parts
involved, happens out in the lens, and is proportional to the operating
force required by each lens. So small, light lenses have a small bang,
big heavy ones a bigger one.
In the case of the F series, the sheer mass of the camera helps minimize
vibration effects. Then of course, the F series has a mechanical MLU AND
aperture pre-stopdown mechanism.
The other error, since corrected, but significant to me at the time, was
the quality of the 50/1.8 kit lens. It was just so-so, and couldn't hold
a candle to the 50/2 Nikkor I'd had before. No personal experience, but
I believe at introduction, the Zuiko 50/1.4 was also inferior to the
equivalent Nikkor, although not by as much. If I hadn't been blinded by
the camera body and had tested the lens against the Nikkor, I might well
have put off the switch. Oly sold a LOT of cameras with mediocre lenses
back then. The Zuiko 35-70/3.6 solved my personal problem. Just the
opposite of the 50mm primes; the Zuiko was way better than the
contemporary 43-86 Nikkor.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|