>
> The article would be a lot more interesting if you used pictures of pretty
> girls instead ;-)
>
I'll try harder. But the senoritas here are just not as photogenic as yours
and this winter everybody looks like the Michelin Man.
> But you do make some valid points. It is of course annoying. At least the
> 4/3 system allows you to mount a lot of lenses on it with adapters, and the
> micro 4/3 even more--and the latter (least my GF-1 does that) adjusts the
> brightness of the screen when the lens is stopped down manually, so one of
> the big disadvantages of stop-down metering all of a sudden does not matter.
>
In my opinion piece "Olympus E-P1 - What Does it Mean?" I addressed this
very issue. I believe that the Micro Four-Thirds format could very well be
the future of the Olympus E-system and does represent a near universal
digital film back to nearly every lens system ever made. But what has
Olympus done so far? Three cameras, two of which are essentially exactly
the same thing but the electronic viewfinders aren't universal across the
three, the control layout of the E-PL1 is different than the E-P1 and E-P2
and none of them have as much as a PC-Sync for universal flash
compatibility.
http://zone-10.com/cmsm/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=438&Itemid=1
But the incompatibility of grips, batteries etc. from one model to the next
> is annoying. However, so long as we collectively accept it (by voting with
> our wallets) there is no reason for the manufacturers to change their
> behavior.
>
And that's the rub. The fault does not lie with the camera companies, but
with us, the consumer. In another post I railed on Canon for taking away
features from the EOS line, like DEP mode, eye-control AF and the pellicle
mirror. This isn't Canon's fault at all. They assembled some lesser cameras
with outstanding sensors and people bought them. Canon has no reason to put
features in to INCREASE sales if the sales are already exceeding every
expectation. Canon won't bring back these features until they have to. Not
to only pick on Canon, but Nikon (and Fuji and Kodak) took a horribly
underspec'd film camera, stuffed the digital sensor and electronics in it
and we, the consumer, bought them left and right. Even though we asked for
better cameras, we bought what they made.
After nearly a decade of the digital evolution/revolution we are finally
seeing a maturity of the technology and a return to the quality of the
camera itself. Leica's M9 is an example of this, as is also the Nikon D700
and arguably the Canon 7D. All these years we've made excuses for the
cameras, but we're now seeing the cameras themselves improve as cameras.
(The flagship models are another story, they have generally remained top
spec, but at a premium price--not aimed at the masses).
AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|