Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by rpd, Mar 11, 2009.

  1. rpd

    SMS Guest

    Those two statements are not opinions, they are supported by the market
    data.

    The overwhelmingly majority of people choose P&S cameras and are
    satisfied with the image quality (though often dissatisfied with other
    aspects of the P&S camera).

    Those wanting higher image quality choose a D-SLR, and only a tiny
    percentage choose Olympus, and it's because of 4:3, either directly or
    indirectly, that they don't even consider Olympus.
     
    SMS, Mar 23, 2009
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Quite the opposite actually, since with large lenses you (or at least I
    and many others) support the lens in one hand by the zoom ring, with the
    other hand on the shutter release. That way, the size of the camera
    body doesn't make any difference at all. Now, with a small wide angle
    prime or pancake lens, both hands are usually on the camera and that can
    seem difficult if you aren't used to it.

    I used full frame Olympus OM film bodies that were smaller than any of
    today's DSLRs (OM-1, OM-2, OM-4, OM-2n, OM4Ti, OM-1n, OM-2SP, OM-3 in
    that order of acquisition) with some pretty large lenses for over 30
    years without any discomfort at all. With the body being that small,
    all your attention was on the lens - the body just needed to "click" on
    command.

    Of course, Olympus OM cameras had one significant ergonomic advantage
    which helped holding the small camera as described, although many
    newcomers found it difficult to get used to: the shutter speed control
    was around the lens barrel. So all of the exposure functions were
    controlled by the lens hand.

    I for one, would love a full frame OM sized camera - even one from
    Olympus.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Mar 23, 2009
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. rpd

    Guest Guest

    i'd love an om-4 digital. that (and it's siblings) are the only
    cameras that i know of that implemented spot metering where it was
    actually useful.
     
    Guest, Mar 23, 2009
    #83
  4. rpd

    JoelH Guest

    I'm surprised. I think that using more megapixels and then cropping
    can be cheaper than buying a telephoto lens. Also, 64-ISO slide film
    had an equivalent of some 70 megapixels.....

    -Joel
    http://flickr.com/photos/joelmhoffman/
     
    JoelH, Mar 27, 2009
    #84
  5. rpd

    Bruce Guest


    I'm still a big film fan but there is no way that a claim of 70 MP can
    be supported. If you scan the best film at 4000 ppi that's about the
    best result you will get, and that is about 21 MP for a 35mm slide.

    You might possibly see a difference if you scan at 4800 ppi with a drum
    scanner, giving about 29 MP. But 6000 ppi shows no improvement in
    detail over 4800 ppi, and 70 MP would require about 7300 ppi.

    Sorry, but 70 MP is a gross over-estimate of what 35mm film can do,
    unless of course you are talking about 120 roll film.
     
    Bruce, Mar 27, 2009
    #85
  6. rpd

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
    aware of his background.

    "Get Real" is the anti-dslr- and chdk-troll, aka Keoeeit, Vern, X-Man,
    Baumbadier, Casiobear, etc, ad infinitum.

    He's well known for the 'attitude', and that's being kind. He can be
    found on many forums, is frequently banned (eg Steve's Forums,
    photography-on-the.net) and he's usually quite easy to spot, by his
    withdrawn posts and images, and posting from cpinternet in Minnesota
    where he lives.

    He doesn't like leaving a trail, yet is too
    incompetent to not be recognised wherever he goes..
     
    Mark Thomas, Mar 28, 2009
    #86
  7. Thank you for your oppinion.
    Now go and wash out your mouth with soap.

    Next time you want to give someone a piece of your mind, better
    don't do that, you don't have that much left.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 29, 2009
    #87
  8.  
    Chris Malcolm, Mar 29, 2009
    #88
  9. We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    Don't forget the Nikkormat. Another little jewel of a camera.
     
    Grimly Curmudgeon, Mar 30, 2009
    #89
  10. Really! Activating the shutter button one handed must have been a feat.
    Hardly.
     
    John McWilliams, Mar 30, 2009
    #90
  11. You seem to have missed the bit about being able to make any adjustments
    with your left hand without ever having to remove the finger of your
    right hand from the shutter button.
    As I said first time round, it didn't suit everyone, particularly
    newcomers who had already developed bad habits dealing with the poor
    ergonomics of other cameras of the time. For this who did pick it up
    and find it second nature it was pretty fast - perhaps not as fast as
    "auto-anything" but certainly faster than rotary wheels and other
    controls operated by the same hand that triggers the shutter.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Apr 1, 2009
    #91
  12. And the left handed control on the Nikkormat predated its use on the OM
    series by several years. I always believed that's where Mantanai got
    the idea from, but he said no, it was a consequence of moving the
    shutter speed governor to under the mirror box which made this the
    easiest way to engage it.
     
    Kennedy McEwen, Apr 1, 2009
    #92
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.