[shoplink 51548 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Recently Olympus manager Setsuya Kataoka told at Dpreview that he would certainly like to make a digital [shoplink 51548 ebay]OM-4 camera[/shoplink] with minimal buttons and no rear screen. A classic original retro camera with digital sensor and EVF.
So the question to you is:
[poll id=”272″]
116 Responses
If “no screen” also means “highly affordable”… then yes!
Another DF? No thanks.
But I think it would need a screen.
If it has same size sensor, no need for it. What they should do in my opinion is something like TRIP35 with fast fixed 40mm and bigger sensor and build in viewfinder.
Ridiculous concept. The space is there, and screens are not expensive.
Why no monitor screen? A screen would make it fatter but no mirror would make it thinner …
The monitor is needed for settings as well as live view and review
But imo would need a fully articulated screen like E-Mii if only to fold away and protect it
OLED not LCD please 😀
While I like the idea of a screen that can be folded away: settings, live view and review can be easily done via an EVF.
Personally, I am baffled by the idea. I was a big fan of the old OM system, which I started using well over 30 years ago. However, the OM system wasn’t retrograde. It was innovative and new. It pioneered things like far more compact SLRs, TTL flash metering, high speed flash metering, and spot metering.
Why would anyone not want an LCD? As someone who initially bought into the OM system for TTL flash for macro, one of the big problems was not being able to review the images until you got the film developed. This was a big problem with colour slide film which had not exposure latitude, and much of a 3rd of an f-stop out in either direction was over or under exposed, and that was it.
It makes much more sense to have an LCD like the E-M5 mkII, where you can just turn it around if you don’t want to see it.
Again, when the OM-4 first came out, it was an innovative advanced camera, not a piece of male jewelry, or something for posing purists.
Excellent. Agree completely. The first thing people would do after buying something like this would be to buy an after market grip. And then it would look like a modern camera anyway.
People should realise they already have digital OM cameras and they’re called E-M1, E-M5 and E-M10
If you really want a retro camera be sure to request one that only allows you to shoot at ISO 25-160 in color and up to 400 in B&W (with a special “push mode up to 1600). And no raw, only JPG with appropriate grain. Chipped batteries that have to be replaced for a fee every 36 shots would be a nice touch too. No feedback on exposure compensation in the VF and no playback until you take the card out and look at the image on a computer.
I understand people that miss the simple interface of a dial for shutter speed and ring around the lens for aperture. But on a camera with 2 control dials like my GX7 or the EM series I do not miss it. Buying a new camera for nostalgia is silly. If you have an itch for a retro style camera buy an old film camera off ebay, they are dirt cheap and you could buy a lot of film for what this would cost.
Dave, the article is about a retro OM-4. The shutter speed adjustment on the OM-4 is via a ring/collar that surrounds the lens mount, so both shutter speed and aperture are adjusted on the same lens axis.
The ASA/ISO dial on an OM-4 goes up to 3200 and down to 6.
Actually, you got it around the wrong way, it would shoot only RAW, so you would have to process the result off-camera to get a JPG.
For nostalgia, yes it would be silly, but for people with OM lenses it wouldn’t be. I also think some photography schools might very much welcome a digital camera that mimicked a 35mm SLR.
By leaving out a rear screen and all the processing electronics and bells and whistles, it might be possible to reduce the costs to make the idea viable, though I suspect those components are of negligible cost in the scheme of things.
Maybe the thing to do would be to have it be bare-bones and really mimic an SLR, but give it WiFi and give the user access to all the mod cons via a phone app where they could also review images, produce JPGs and such.
Mirror and such would cost more as there isn’t those available anymore. Instead use E-M1 EVF and IBIS and make everything available there, with just new Direction pad behind camera and two wheels.
I might buy such a camera if it had a 35mm (FF) sensor, to use with my OM MF lenses. While I don’t want to change to a modern FF system, I have enough OM lenses that would be a pleasure to use at the their original focal length.
I rarely use the LCD screen on my E-M1, my old eyes make it very difficult, I have to hold it too far away.
So yep, I’d buy one for about $1000, especially if it was 32MP or thereabouts.
why no screen and minimal buttons? Having no screen for studio/lowangle shots + menus would be retarded. As for less button, digital cameras have changeable WB, ISO + af that require buttons, I don’t see what could be achieved with less? The e-m5 has a minimum amount of buttons, I much prefer the e-m1 layout…
Think outside the box. Make the camera more communicative and you can use any screen you’d like, including one of the screens you’re likely always carrying with you (smartphone).
Yep, fully agree. I’ve stopped traveling with a laptop, and use my iPhone for social media posting from my E-M1. Just had a dinner party where I used the iPhone as a remote for shots from a tripod, so I could join the party. Really looking forward to the next iteration of firmware for the E-M1, that will hopefully give a useable set of controls for video via my iPhone.
The mindset that says no rear LCD and raw only format is hardly going to be receptive to wireless communications in a hair shirt retro camera.
Probably not. But still, thinking only “SLR” or “DSLR” or “Mirrorless” as they’ve been defined so far is really, really constrictive, and one of the problems that the camera companies have boxed themselves into the corner with.
Not to mention battery drain, ease of use in inclement weather, having to to juggle two devices when doing activities like hiking etc. It’s bad enough trying to change a lens out on an exposed wet (or snow covered ) hillside but messing around with a smartphone app to change a camera setting is an unnecessary step.
I’ve personally only just started using a smartphone a few months ago (company provided) and nobody else in my family owns one.
And my mobile phone is always off and stored in my rucksack when I’m in the hills and is only switched on once or twice a day to catch up on any urgent messages (assuming there is reception).
I can see the benefits for remote control and monitoring use but there’s a reason we festoon cameras with buttons (and pay extra for them) and that’s because it’s easier to change these setting on the camera, preferably with your eye at the viewfinder
For me ‘minimal buttons’ means they’re going to to use old style dials/switches. And I like that.
That makes sense (no rear screen) to me because I almost always shoot with the EVF and almost always review shots via the EVF rather than the rear screen – EVF review shows better details than a screen in bright sun / light reflections.
If I can’t shoot with the VF I also don’t mind the idea of “blind” high shots or shoot from the hip shots because with the right lens you can do the “I know roughly what I’m aiming for” and still see the real world as it happens.. and if necessary pan / tilt and grab with multi-shot what you’re seeing that would never have been in a EVF or on the rear screen. Too much attention on a screen causes plenty of missed shots. The old “f 8.0 and be there” approach especially now with high fps and fast auto focus would make this design idea an attractive lower cost body.
a lcd-screen really isn’t expensive, especially if it doesn’t tilt and isn’t touch controlled. I’d rather go that way if I really wanted a body as cheap as possible.
I voted yes on the assumption the lens mount would be OM, since I already have some superb OM lenses, not because I am interested in full frame.
I don’t know why people want to forgo one of the best things that the digital photo revolution gave us – the ability to review images immediately.
If it truly is a digital OM, then there is probably going to be a mirror box and an optical finder. I’m fine with both of those. I’m also OK with there being no live preview like there is with the OM-D we have now.
Keep all the physical buttons – those are what a lot of people are craving – the ability to make exposure changes from a dial and not have to menu dive. Or have all the drive settings on a dial. Those are the biggest time savers.
An EVF allows you to review images.
Way too small to be useful for a proper review, IMHO.
Wait until you have old eyes….for me, it’s the ONLY way I can do it, without fumbling around for reading glasses.
Somebody is running out of ideas…
More accurately: someone has so many original ideas they don’t know what to do with them all.
It was a passing comment in an interview,
By the time they looked at everything they would require and developed it, it would either end up as an E-M5 mark iii or as horrible mismatched hybrid like the Nikon DF.
yess ! with multispot exposure system option 😉
With that new Hi-Res viewfinder sized LCD that has been mentioned, you could eschew a rear screen and review shots via the viewfinder, which you can do with OM-Ds anyway, which would be good because you could skip the mirror and the problem with optical viewfinders and long slow lenses making focusing a bit tricky sometimes due to a dim viewfinder.
I said no. I have an OM-4. I loved it.The claim to fame was the now obsolete, multi-spot metering function, what made it an OM-4 instead of an OM-2. The Titanium model was very nice. The metering function in my OM-D is already light years faster and more effective, so I don’t know where the enthusiasm comes for a camera simply because it has a 4 on it. One of the comments mentions an assumption that would make it interesting to me, a digital camera with an OM mount, but a solution already exists, part number MF-1, the OM Adapter from Olympus. The reason Olympus lost its SLR business was everyone else developed an autofocus system, revealing a market that demands automation. Although use of a word like hypocrit doesn’t fit (because I once preferred the full manual, contemplated, deliberate manner of choosing and shooting pictures) I am now completely at home knowing where my AFL button is. As before, the game is about pictures and the choice of camera is all of a personal, financial, and technical choice. What I don’t get is why people who are unhappy with the FourThirds equation hang out here at all. I see no special reason why the camera in your bag should have an “O” on it if you would be happier with something else. I got into it because I love the size and optical bang for the buck–I love these f1.8 primes. The automation on the camera is very fast and very effective. I thought it would happen sooner, but I’ve not yet had a photo op that required a bigger sensor and a whole year has gone by. If you’ve got more money, spend it, no criticism from me. Look at this haircut and the beautiful bokeh. One is sharply rendered and the other is very gentle.
Retro for retro sake is just a caricature.
This is the kind of goofy idea that appeals to grumpy-uncle nostalgists in photo forums, but wouldn’t work. I hope Olympus is smart enough to do no more than talk about it… their finances aren’t good enough to waste capital on a project that only about seventeen people would actually buy.
Why 17? Nearly half the people in the quick survey said yes to buying it!
I owned and used the OM system. It was a great system for its time but I think retro for retro’s sake is idiocy. This “grumpy uncle” says if you want an OM camera, head to ebay.
I’d rather buy a dedicated b&w camera than one w/o an LCD. I consider the E-M5 a pretty good “retro” styled camera enough. My main priority is good control.
I would much rather Olympus have a fixed lens m4/3 first. Would love a dedicated 17/2 on it. Or a 20/25 f2. Yes, I know, X100, but I want to support m43. Actually, a Panasonic version with DFD would probably be ideal.
Good to know that im not the only one who wants that! Fixed 17mm 1.8 or 2.like a LX100 but truly pocketeable / a smaller sensor GR with EVF / digital XA.
Sure I would want such a camera. I still have dozens of OM lenses, would like to use them without the crop factor. I know I can do that on FF cameras from Canon or Sony but a real digital FF camera with OM mount and manual shutter speed ring and not much larger or heavier as the OM 4Ti would bring back the same shooting experience. But don’t omit the rear LCD, that doesn’t make sense.
Rear LCD isnt such requirement when we have EVF. And it would be a own kind retro camera. It would be with native OM mount a true digital OM with digital benefits but not threat to m4/3 system at all.
why not, but a true OM-4D with a FF sensor, Olympus mount and decent price. Not a E-M1 without rear screen for double the price.
Not a very good idea. Retro design sells, but actual retro functionality not so much. I would be very impressed by a digital back end that could be fitted to old OM-4s. Perhaps a high end compact would do well, but an ILC with deliberately reduced functionality, no. What Olympus can do is go back to simpler naming conventions. OM-4 is nice and snappy, OM-D EM-5 Mark II is a big bowl of alphabet soup.
Only Leica can get away with releasing a digital camera w/o a back screen now (things like the Air aside). You don’t always want to be looking through a viewfinder, esp for high and low angle shots.
“Minimal buttons”? Hell no. If I could, I’d reprogram even the mode disc to e.g. ISO. I want the exact opposite: even more direct controls.
And what good would the omission of the rear screen do? I want to be able to check if the focus, wb, background details, etc. were right after the shot was taken, or if I need to reset or recompose and take another shot.
Only with a classic OM mount and full frame sensor id consider this.
None of the OM lenses I have owned or tried has held a candle to the good modern lenses available. I know there are some nice, exotic OM lenses, but I’m skeptical that they would be worthwhile. There certainly aren’t enough people out there clamoring to use them that an OM mount camera would make them any money.
If the idea is to keep it minimal, why would you use the one with the very most buttons of all. If it’s actually going to be retro it shouldn’t have any buttons at all but the shutter button. Meaning the one true OM camera the OM-1.
It would be the OM-1 like M-1 was.
Are we talking full frame, using old OM lenses? Or m43? If all m43 lenses had proper manual focus and aperture rings, it would be cool. But they don’t. Seems if you want to go more purist, Fuji already does that. Though I’m annoyed not all X lenses have aperture rings. I’d really prefer if someone made a system that had a uniform standard across all of its lenses for aperture and focus control.
Yeah, and X-Trans causes more problems than it solves – been there, done that.
Leica?
Full-frame – yes.
No reason to have a m43 version of this camera with the Pany and Oly bodies that already exist.
No rear screen – no.
These days there is no reason not to have some kind of rear screen – even if it’s just black and white to check histograms and settings.
Please – no OVF – EVFs are more than good enough these days.
Why would they bother going “full frame”, after spending the better part of a decade producing a well rounded line of m4/3 lenses, not to mention the adaptable 4/3 lenses and building a nice ecosystem with support from multiple brands? They picked their strategy. As sensor tech continues to improve, large sensors will become less and less necessary. Abandoning their market niche now and starting from scratch to go head to head with Canon, Nikon, and Sony in the 35mm arena would make no sense whatsoever. None.
I just bought a Zuiko 50 f2 ED like new in box etc 220$!
Waiting for MMF-3 delivery, ready for the summer! 🙂
I hope for you that it doesn’t hunt like mine does.
Im afraid it gonna hunt alot 🙁
I hope not. I’ve had mine since 2005 and it’s a very good lens optically, but much like the 14-35mm f/2.0, it can be a pain to use occasionally.
I hope too man, esp. with 3.0 update, some people are reporting overall even bertter AF with 4/3 lenses.
I also had a really good deal on Oly 8mm 3.5 ED. Couldn’t resist!
Most of my experience with the 50mm f/2.0 macro and 14-35mm f/2.0 have been with the E-1 and E-5 dSLRs. It seems as though the speed of focusing with the 50mm was better with the GH3 or E-M1 because CDAF runs the range.
I haven’t used the E-M1 extensively with my Four-Thirds lenses simply because the E-M1 is too small for good balance. The GH3/GH4 is better, and I can always pull out a dSLR.
Thank for the info, appreciate it. Tomorrow i’ll receive a MMF-3 adapter and will try out ED 50 f2 and ED 8 f3.5 on EM-1 with the 3.0 firmware update. I hope AF will be good enought for general use. Imo ED 50 size f2 is perfectly fine for EM1. Altought i am not sure about ED 8 f3.5, as i dint reived it yet, but should be here soon. I haven’t found much info about that lens, just tech specs and few customer reviews on adorama and bhphoto.
It weights 500gr which should be huge. But at the same time i sold my Samyang 7.5 f3.5 because of it’s tiny size, it is really too small for EM-1 and my hands. I was constantly getting shots with my fingers on it.
I hope it will all be good for you.
I photograph sports and most of the micro Four-Thirds lenses are too small to focus manually, so if AF doesn’t work, I might as well go back to the dSLR.
The 50mm macro lens is possibly my smallest lens, although the Panasonic/Leica 15mm f/1.7 is tiny–another lens that hunts too much.
When I voted yes I actually assumed this was a full frame camera, with either one, or a limited selection of full frame lenses (perhaps updates of the once excellent FF Zuiko lenses).
It might be an excellent way of Olympus testing the waters for FF interest without having to fully commit to an actual product line to begin with…?
It’s polls like this that add confusion to the already confused. The future is in front, not behind.
I will not buy it as it is too niche for me …if I want minimal I choose film!
anyway I think Oly should produce it and try to sell it limited as leica do …they can do it a la carte and produce only those which are ordered/payed in advance with customized colour, special materials like titan, carbon or whatever people want, customized signs on top plate etc
Hey Oly …be brave and do this to promote Oly camera overall
I really like the concept of a pure RAW Camera with dials for Speed and iso, aperture on the lens, where it belongs. I had a OM4 25 years ago, before it was stolen, now i have a leica m8 and a nikon d600. I shoot for fun, and the leica inspires me to shoot, the nikon is a computer, i like it for that, but it does not inspire me, to go out and capture the world for fun. The leica without rear screen would inspire me even more, because chimping takes your flow away from subject. You have to get deeper with your subject, and think a lot more, where to stand, when to shoot. One lens, no zoom, no screen and a clear mind …
There is a shocking number of good, reasonable posts in this thread! :O
lol
I like the idea of an OM body, FF, but to use their existing OM lenses. This would just be a niche product though and would have to be priced accordingly.
I cant see them producing an OM m43rds without the technology. m43rds is the most modern of all the mounts with all the flexibility anyone could ask for. The one thing missing is the larger sensor which some would like to see.
Make it mirrorless with a new mount, have an adapter for OM lenses in the box (basically a metal tube) and based on how it sells you could produce a line of limited zuiko lenses.
Lets be honest here, it would be pricey, but you could use a great deal of the parts from m43rds (viewfinder, screen, processors (just keep the mpix 16) AF algorithms… If is sells well jump into a set of f2-ish lenses (24mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f2 and 80mm f2) design small and use CDAF…
This would have very little to do with m43rds though… so it is just a novelty for me, and metabones plus focus peaking works just fine for DoF control.
I love the idea of a simple camera that does everything with traditional knobs. ISO, f-stop, shutter. Done. No. Other. Options.
I grew up on old cameras and still have that basic muscle memory ingrained into my being.
The sad thing would be that if they make it it probably would’t shoot video, which is what I do for a living.
M4/3 OMD cameras have all of that except for an ISO dial, wouldn’t that be enough ? IQ is already beyond what can be achieved by film (even 16mp sensor is overkill for manually scanning film). And as you said, lack of video is just crazy for any camera today, just look at how the Nikon Df caused a widespread flame war over photography websites.
Sure, it’s kind of enough. I mean, I use a lot of different consumer cameras and can make it work, but as a motion picture shooter, just having the three important controls where they should be would be great.
–going into a menu to adjust exposure is lame. Yet, with these digital cameras that’s what you have to do.
You may know this, but for some perspective, when one’s shooting motion pictures, having the shutter locked in most of the time is desired for the best motion blur results. (You shoot 24fps, you want the shutter @48, for example) Additionally, having the f-stop dialed into a wide-open-ish two stop range is preferable if you’re trying to accomplish some cinematic DOF.
So, with ND filters and ISO one has to use those two variables most of the time to adjust exposure.
Again, it’s not hard to do, it’s just annoying to hop into a menu to do it.
Bottom line, for me, I’d love a old-fashioned stills camera that also shot video –with knobs where they belong controlling the traditional things they controlled.
I think it’s a great idea but probably wouldn’t buy one. Most of the old manual lenses are just not up to the standards of the latest FF digital sensors. e.g. the old 50mm f1.4 and 1.2 lenses are crap at wide apertures.
I don’t want an EVF either, I want an SLR with the traditional MF viewfinder. The sensor remains cooler without live view and battery life is much better too.
If what you describe is the exact description of a film OM camera and a digital version is not worth it, then why not just go and buy a REAL OM-4 ?
Because I already have 4 old film bodies I never use. I want a digital camera with the same simplicity and intuitive controls as my manual film cameras
I think Olympus manager is referring to putting a 4/3 sensor inside the OM-4 like camera, otherwise it wouldn’t make sense. If they did without a screen and use a 3-axis instead of the 5-axis the camera would be very slim. Offer the camera with a new 4+MP EVF and only shoot RAW, no video.
The camera technically should be cheaper than the E-PL7 for body only, $399-$499.
Aren’t OMD cameras already OM-like ? making such a camera is the same as releasing a crippled budget version of the OMD10, except you know they will actually charge a premium for it (much like Nikon and Leica). People in this thread are making no sense.
Why not just go buy an old camera then? Why produce a digital camera that is crippled by not having any options. People already tend to complain about Oly’s menu system and their customization, think of all the screams that will do down when there isn’t even an option to change a option.
I think an idea like this would be better suited for some kickstarter company to make a couple hundred cameras versus a real company that needs to sell in the hundreds of thousands of units to turn a profit.
Why this comment doesn’t have more up-votes is beyond me.
Another thought: use Sony’s 35mm sensor that’s in the Nikon Df. Set the flange distance to accept a native OM lens mount, but with EVF and all manual focus (peaking). Real shutter speed dial at back of lens, real ISO dial, aperture dial on lens. A real OM-4D. Interesting thought.
The OM you describe would be interesting if old OM lenses could live up to a modern high resolution FF sensor, but that seems unlikely. I’d race you to the store if it could, though! Great idea 🙂
They do, but problem is that filter stack on sensors $%&#$ the resolution because optics were designed for film.
Remove the filter stack (and lose IR & UV filter) and resolution is back a top notch from Zuiko objectives.
Or you know…go back to shooting film on cameras that fill exactly that description. Why go to the trouble if re-creating an old mount just for the nostalgia factor when today’s mirrorless cameras already accept those lenses and surpass film in terms of convenience and IQ ? just for the sake of wide angles ? go get a speedbooster and stop asking for nonsense people.
These “anniversary” one offs are a fun distraction when companies are firing on all cylinders and raking in the cash. But in light of Olympus’ declining market share, it seems like a really misguided use of resources.
Celebrate your past only when the future looks bright, with game changing products, not when the future is uncertain. Leave the Leica M60 playbook to Leica. It works for them.
Amen.
Gear-heads are the worst people to turn for advise as a manufacturer, as exemplified by this thread, people will ask for everything and anything, they have no idea what they actually want much less what they need or what will work in the market. Olympus has ditched and abandoned enough mounts in their history to go onto yet another route with a FF OM homage, it’d be just insane and unnecessary. If anything Olympus needs to recover their share of the entry level market, it is clear that the enthusiast market is well taken care of and already too competitive to make important profits, better go with affordable and small m43 cameras for emerging markets, the key factor to being successful at that is MARKETING. They seriously lack presence outside of Asia.
Not the OM-4 but OM-1.
– Make 0.92x EVF with 4.4Mpix resolution, electronically done exposure meter on left side, but possibility get real exposure like E-M1
– no rear display, at all
– normal exposure metering modes from OM-D as well.
– OM mount
– sensor without filter stack, just sensor cleaning feature
– controls like OM-1 but add D-pad back of the camera with OK button.
– Shoot only RAW
– 35mm sensor, if possible then with IBIS.
Forget the future kids, it is Olympus 80 years edition and OM-1 is best known.
OT: You posted a link to a great video showing footage from an E-M5 II and GH4 mounted on the same rig, shot in Japan with a female model – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w1IF1Pbe5k
The video has been removed (Panasonic found it too painful to watch I suspect). You wouldn’t happen to know if it can be found elsewhere?
Is this the one where Olympus had some unknown camera taking blurry video next to the E-M5 Mark II on the same rig walking behind some blond? We assume the camera might be the GH4? Maybe shot with a manual lens and without OIS to make the E-M5 Mark II look better?
You can place any OIS against Olympus IBIS and Olympus would win clearly.
And with cinema objectives there isn’t OIS available, but IBIS is.
Here is a comparison using a GH4 with an OIS lens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q75B8GNdUMk
car seems to me 1:1 or maybe Pana better, but running is for Oly for sure
hmm, unless you have poor eyesight, the GH4 is jerky as hell!
Nope, sorry. As I don’t know anything about removal. But probably too much whining and possible risk getting sued. Or friendly suggestion from Panasonic.
Willfully stupid product design. As someone who shot with the OM-1 and OM-4, the idea of reviving the OM mount is ridiculous. The OM lenses were designed to work with film. Used with a full 35mm sensor you’d immediately see why they’re not suitable for modern digital sensor technology except cropped down to MFT. And old used lenses can’t support a new camera platform, so I suppose you’d also want a new line of retro manual focusing lenses for the fake retro camera. Olympus can’t afford to develop such nonsense.
Shooting only raw is just wearing a photographic hair shirt. As is having no rear LCD…oh what a joy to have to configure camera settings using nothing but the EVF.
I’d suggest a much better alternative. Buy an OM system and shoot film. No need to play pretend with a dumbed-down digital camera.
It would seem that FujiFilm agrees with you, as they didn’t even provide adapters for their Fujica era lenses, even though there were many available.
For APSC and M43 sensor it’s not too bad to adapt old lenses for 35mm frame, since the the bad part of the lens is “cropped off” with these smaller sensors. Short-flanged digital 35mm systems, like A7, suffer most when adapting old lens, especially the compact rangefinder lenses (which makes most sense to be adapted regarding compactness).
I’m using an Olympus PEN FT these days and process/scan at home. Totally dumped my digital PEN.
You really don’t get it….. A special small production camera that revives OM mount alive.
You want just a new toy with all bells and whistles.
And when you remove filter stack from digital sensor, optics thats designed for film quality is improved a lot to native levels. That is what you get with removing IR filter etc.
And I happen to own multiple OM bodies, complete sets of objectives, flashes, macro etc special products AND shoot film and develop them myself (as it is cheaper doing large prints than doing it by digital).
Photography is not about latest toys, it is about photography and final print. Even if it is done with a pinhole camera or architecture/technical camera or with semi-digital or pure digital manner.
Yet there are lots of people who shoot in film and do scans to get better results than any digital camera makes possible. For them a special unit can be made, after all Nikon Df, Fuji X-T1, Sony A7 line and many from Leica are doing very well.
You just don’t get anything.
Your post is the definition of contradiction.
This idea of ¨a special small production camera that revives OM mount alive.¨ sounds EXATLY like wanting ¨just a new toy with all bells and whistles¨, just for the sake of retro nostalgia, expcially in light of the fact that just by turning the LCD on a em5 mk II yields exactly the same user experience (no LCD, haptic controls, retro design, etc). If your idea of photography is not about ¨the latest toys¨ then why are you not content with what is already available, like the em5 mkII ? wouldn’t such ridiculously unnecessary niche camera like the one proposed be ¨the latest toy¨ by its very nature?
If photography is not about the gear but the prints, as you said, then what difference would this unnecessary camera make compared to what we already have ? isn’t the whole point of this camera just the physical interface of it ? after all, it would still be a digital camera.
Sounds to me like what you want is just film photography, not a digital version of it. If so, go for it, film is still alive, the more people into it the better, and the best thing is that you can use your OM bodies just the way you want with this dream camera.
The worse thing Olympus could di right now is divert its resources into a niche product like the Df or the Leicas. Driving m43 into a niche of unaccessible, big enthusiast/Pro mirrorless cameras and lenses is bad enough as it is…
And what does the XT1 and A7 have to do with the Df or the leicas ? those weren’t ¨special units¨ and are far from this digital FF OM-4 concept or niche cameras like Df or the Leicas.
No, but would definitely smash!
Olympus should be putting all resources to giving our cameras more Dynamic Range, More Resolution and Better Tracking AF. Period….. Those things will make their cameras sell like hotcakes…They already have EVERYONE beat on form and functionality (except for the menus….but I am used to them now…so don’t change those Oly!!!! :-))
Great idea, lets pressure them to make something completely useless.
While I would like a camera concentrated on still photography, it wouldn’t do well in the general market, much like the Nikon Df.
If they added the shutter speed ring around the lens mount, that would be better.
The first Olympus I believe was a 6×6. Maybe the’ll come out with a 4×4 and if they dare it will be B&W only. Shape it like the Samsung sorta Bronica prototype. Flip up/twist LCD for waistlevel viewing plus hood and with optional pentaprism for VF viewing.
Would like to have a digital back for the OM-4. Without changing anything else.
The is the only post in the whole thread that actually makes sense (from a consumer standpoint). Making a modern reinterpretation of an old camera is a waste of time, it just won’t be the same. Re-purposing old cameras with modern sensors might bring a whole revolution to modern photography (although still pretty niche). It’s a shame no manufacturer will ever dare to kill their own market, might explain why even though the tech is available no single attempt at this has been successful.
Having such a simplistic design can we be assured that it will it come with a retro price tag as well or will it be $1400 for the body. This may be a great idea for a basic stills camera with all manual controls like the “olden days” but a lack of rear lcd would kind of suck.
Seriously, every single description about this ¨dream camera¨ sound EXACTLY like what the EM5 mkII already is. Just turn the lcd around and be done with it, there, now you have the retro look, the retro dials and no lcd, why beg to pay Olympus $1400 when you can have such a camera TODAY for $1095 ? You gearheads are ridiculous
Highly depends on what it’s going to look like, and I don’t think it’s going to look like what many think it’s going to look like. I’m actually not exactly convinced it will ever be produced.
Better for a digital OM-4 to have an articulated LCD that can be folded closed against the back of the camera when not needed, and folded out to review images when that would be helpful. Also, minimal buttons is not a selling point. Fast, positive access to key functions is a selling point.
To clarify, I meant better to have an articulated LCD in addition to an EVF, not instead of an EVF.,
Isn’t that exactly what the em5 Mk II is ? You people can’t even see what right in front of your eyes because you’re too obsessed about gear, no wonder none of you actually take photos with your cameras
If it’s FF than yes!!!!
Yes, but only if it HAD a rear screen
Shut up and take my money!
I have an OM4 since the olden days, would be great to have a digital back, its already a “full frame” SLR.