Why doesn't Olympus release an OM-1d?

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by RichA, Aug 7, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    A purely manual digital camera? But, not a cheap
    plastic thing aimed at people who wouldn't buy it,
    a high quality DSLR that avoids many the features
    now found on current DSLRs? A centre-weighted metering
    mode, a manual shutter and mirror, pentaprism,
    and the only thing drawing power would be the sensor
    and circuitry needed such as the buffer, etc?
    All the crap (buttons) spattered all over current
    DSLRs are a pain, it makes them less than friendly
    to use. If they decided to verge away from 4/3,
    they could do a full sized sensor and simply revive
    previously existing OM lenses. Instead of myriad
    and questionably useful "functions" the camera could
    be geared to render the very best images possible for
    those capable of using it manually.
    I'm sure the crowd who suddenly after years of using
    SLRs decided they needed "histograms" in the display
    wouldn't like it, but it might have appeal to some.
    I'd limit the exposure modes to "P" and full manual,
    no "S" and no "A" modes and NONE of the things found
    on P&S's like "nightime" mode, etc.
    You could leave adjustable WB since no one wants to
    use filters anymore.
    RichA, Aug 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Stacey Guest

    I'd love one but they'd never sell as too many people were weaned on AF full
    auto metering 35mm cameras. Just look at how hard a time most of these
    people have trying to use a medium format camera and you can see why it
    wouldn't sell.
    And make a body they have no "new" lenses to sell with it? Yea that would
    make sense for them.
    Stacey, Aug 7, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    dylan Guest

    And Nikon the FM-D and FE-D, and if Canon made the AE-1D and I could make
    use of my FD lenses.
    We could do anyway with all these modern AF gimmicks etc and take real
    photographs :O)
    dylan, Aug 7, 2005
  4. RichA

    Deedee Tee Guest


    I believe that, once you put a digital sensor and the minimal required
    electronics and mechanical and optical hardware in a camera, virtually
    all additional functions can be implemented in firmware without adding
    any other hardware except for a few buttons. Cost-wise, there would be
    no savings in making a manual DSLR, possibly the contrary.
    Consumer-wise, I doubt many would choose a camera that deliberately
    left out many automatic functions and did not cost much less.
    Deedee Tee, Aug 7, 2005
  5. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest


    The way to sell DSLRs by the truckload appears to be by removing most
    manual functions, thereby taking away all creative decisions - apart
    from composition - from the user.
    Tony Polson, Aug 7, 2005
  6. I really don't get your point here..

    Aside from the commercial suicide of it all, why?

    I.e With my Nikon D70 I can choose to switch it to manual, average metering
    and even manual focus.

    All the other buttons become superfluous....what is the problem?

    It's like buying a car with airconditioning and you don't like
    airconditioning. Don't use it?

    It's not as if all these other buttons are causing a drain on the battery...

    Please don't tell me you are one of those people that say it isn't 'real
    photography' unless you are setting everything completely yourself? Imagine
    a sports photographer panning a racing car through dappled light and having
    to 'guestimate' the exposure? A perfect use of A/S mode if ever there were
    Steve Franklin, Aug 7, 2005
  7. RichA

    Alan Browne Guest

    The paradigm has been set since the early to mid 90's in film cameras to
    have a lot of functionality, regardless of their utility to most

    My Maxxum 7D is very close to my Maxxum 9 in controls (and almost
    identical to the Maxxum 7). The only "added" controls are those that
    control the "film".

    The Maxxum 9 and 7 (and 7D) are photographer oriented with all
    photographic controls on dedicted buttons/dial/switches, etc. This
    appears daunting at first, but as you realize that it saves a lot of
    time by not having to menu dive, then it becomes very workable. I had
    shot hundreds of photos with the Maxxum 7D before I even opened the
    manual... simply put it was just a minor variation on the Maxxum 9.

    I operate my cameras in "M" mode most of the time. (I used to be more
    "A" or "S" oriented).

    It would be great if Oly did do a OM-1d as you suggest, but with the
    industry trend set, Oly's 4/3 strategy and Oly's weak profits, it is not
    likely to occur.

    Alan Browne, Aug 7, 2005
  8. RichA

    wilt Guest

    You are effectively proposing a digital OM-1d, but I think something
    like an OM-3d with spotmetering (one of Olympus' feature strengths)
    would be better.
    Problem is that the buying public so much went for the OM-4
    automation and electronic shutter that the manual, mechanical shuttered
    OM-3 fell into an also-ran status in terms of sales volume. I myself
    fell into that, and so I still own an OM-1n as well as an OM-4 for my
    35mm film system.
    I entirely support the concept you propose, so that my lens
    investment (with some somewhat exotic and with some fairly fast glass)
    would be more actively used once again. What I have for my 20D is not
    nearly fast enough maximum apertures to equal my OM system, and I have
    an OM perspective control lens I would dearly love to use with a
    digital camera.

    First problem is that Olympus withdrew from the 'pro' market, and
    the OM system was very much aimed toward that market...you cannot say
    otherwise with its formidable array of lenses including PC and
    macrophoto. Another (more significant) problem is with that the
    Olympus 4/3 digital Olympus touts the benefits of their wide angle
    lenses designed for the properties of the electronic sensor, which
    makes wide angle film lenses 'less suitable. So your proposal poses a
    problem for Olympus, in that they still would need to design a new
    series of wide angle lenses for your 'OM-1d' so as to not invalidate
    the claims for why their 4/3 camera and lenses 'are better'.

    wilt, Aug 7, 2005
  9. Who do - or does- that?

    Every dSLR I have looked at has a pretty complete slate of both manual
    and auto. controls.

    john mcwilliams

    Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in
    the country.
    -- Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, D.C.
    John McWilliams, Aug 7, 2005
  10. RichA

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    But where's the tradeoff? What do I get in return for
    giving up the various features? If I were going to use
    a camera like that, it would be a Leica rangefinder or
    something, where I'd actually get something in return.
    The only exposure modes I ever use are A and M, so you
    just lost me right there. No interest in a "P" mode,
    but want "A".
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 7, 2005
  11. RichA

    Brian Baird Guest

    I gotten to be the same way. I'll still use Av if I'm in varying
    lighting conditions, but otherwise I'm setting things manually.
    Brian Baird, Aug 7, 2005
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Except for all the extra buttons, switches and wheels needed.
    RichA, Aug 7, 2005
  13. RichA

    RichA Guest

    You just said it.
    RichA, Aug 7, 2005
  14. RichA

    RichA Guest

    It was a sop to speed, offering the "P" mode. Personally,
    I never leave M, there are just too many situations where
    manual control is needed.
    RichA, Aug 7, 2005
  15. RichA

    RichA Guest

    None of us know what direction Olympus is going in. I'm not even sure
    what sensor size the current digital lenses are capable of supporting,
    beyond the 4/3. But I remember the thick little Olympus catalog that
    used to come with their cameras, listing all those lenses from wide
    fisheye up to 1000mm and showing all the neat pictures you could take
    with them. Olympus, when they went on their new path gave up their
    ability to trade on their old, highly trusted past reputation and
    gear. It was brave, but from a marketing standpoint, probably not the
    best thing they could have done.
    RichA, Aug 7, 2005
  16. RichA

    Tony Polson Guest

    Don't hold your breath.

    The chance of Olympus doing this is precisely zero.
    Tony Polson, Aug 7, 2005
  17. Personally,

    Like where exactly? I really do not get this old boys manual thing. With AE
    lock on A tell what you can't do that you can do in manual?

    For certain types of photography...you get that chance to do all that. But A
    mode gives you just as much control. I.e For the majority of photographs,
    the shutter speed is only important to the extent that you need to have it
    high enough to avoid blur. The aperture has far more impact on the

    I still don't get what your problem is?

    Most Dslrs give you full manual control. You don't need to worry about the
    other 'technology' because you don't use it. However it will be helpful in
    selling the gear on to other (non luddite) photographers when you are
    finished bitching about bayer filters and lens resolution tests
    Steve Franklin, Aug 7, 2005
  18. RichA

    Darrell Guest

    So buy a E300 or E1 and get the Olympus MA-1 adapter, seems easy enough. The
    downside is the FOV with the 4:3 system is the lens will be doubled.
    Darrell, Aug 8, 2005
  19. RichA

    wilt Guest

    As pointed out my many, just use one of today's automagic cameras in M
    mode, and you have it. On the other hand, a key point missed by almost
    everyone is this...

    "If they decided to verge away from 4/3, they could do a full sized
    sensor and simply revive previously existing OM lenses."

    I know 'fat chance' is the probability, since it means that OM users
    won't buy scads of lenses and Olympus benefits primarily from the sale
    of digital bodies. But for OM owners like me, the idea of a Olympus
    digital that takes all the OM lenses is a very desirable thing
    nevertheless. Heck, I'd even be a lot happier with an adapter to mount
    my OM stuff on my 20D, even if my perspective control lens would not be
    wide enough in field of view on the 20D.

    wilt, Aug 8, 2005
  20. I converted to AF when a weekend of rental showed me that it was of
    significant value in the photography I did. I got pictures I never
    would have gotten manually.

    People doing sports photography and such benefit even more than I do
    from *good* AF. First-rate AF is *much better* than you can do
    manually for many situations.

    For other situations I've got a monorail 4x5. Sometimes that's the
    best choice.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 8, 2005
    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.