Manuel, you make some good points. I was simply hoping (keeping the
technological
advances of the past 30 years, and specifically the past decade on the
digital side)
in mind, that an E-P2 could make an OM user happy.
Apart from quite good resulting images, I don't see how any regular OM
user would not
be permanently frustrated by that "toy" of a camera body. I don't
think it's that
unfair to compare, though. With much less cost than an OM body's glass
prisms etc,
they could have made the electronic finder bigger and/or better I
believe. They could
have made the thing a bit more substantial, i.e. not entirely of
painted plastic, save
for a metal panel they tacked onto the plastic.
They could have made it a bit more responsive, i.e. at the same level
as a DSLR of 8
years ago would be fine.
No - it's a serious disappointment, and thoroughly belongs in the
"point and shoot"
corner, for people who are used to unresponsive cameras. If you
recall, the 17mm "pancake"
kit lens is also proven to be a serious disappointment (extensively
discussed on this list
last year) so my primary disappointment al-round lies with Olympus.
They could have innovated
and taken the market by storm, but instead it's mediocrity all-round.
That's a pity.
On 02 Sep 2010, at 2:31 AM, manuel viet wrote:
> I can see your point, but I think you're unfair toward µ4:3 by
> comparing it to
> the OM single-digit line. While the OMs were always promoted as
> being part of
> a professional grade imaging *system*, the e-pX are targeted at
> amateurs. They
> deliberately lack some crucial functions, a clear give away of this
> lower
> status (can't shoot tethered being the most obvious).
>
> If you really were to compare fairly with some film based models,
> then the
> obvious reference would be the pen-f line. And all of a sudden, you
> notice
> some obvious convergences : pen-f were notorious for their poor (and
> dim)
> viewfinders, they lacked the possibility to attach a winder, and, of
> course,
> their half-frame pictures caused a quality drop of the images (more
> 'noise'
> after dark room processing because you had to blowup more to achieve
> the same
> final size as 24x36).
>
> But all of this is besides the point. The question is, do they fit
> their niche
> as the pen-f fitted in its time? Obviously, the answer is, yes, for
> a large
> share of the prosumer crowd. Almost no pro adopted the pen-f in the
> film era
> (save W Eugene Smith), but countless users made /almost/ reflex
> quality slides
> with them, for a much lower budget.
>
> I'm really sorry you expected F3HP framing quality from an amateur
> priced
> camera. Myself, I'm fairly happy to have an e-p1 on which I can
> attach nearly
> any lens I may fancy, with quite good results. An OM it is not, nor
> a leica,
> but it serves me well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Le mardi 31 août 2010 09:16:01, Dawid Loubser a écrit :
>> Perhaps I have simply been spoiled by the responsiveness, clarity,
>> "extension-of-one's-hand" that an OM body
>> offers. Or the small size, and the build quality of the lenses. But
>> I'm glad this is settled now _ I always
>> wondered whether I'd like M4/3 for day-to-day usage.
>> Hell no.
>
>
> --
> Manuel Viet
>
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|