What The EP1 could have been

CaptainPenguin

CaptainPenguin

Messages
5,161
Name
Nigel Cliff
Edit My Images
Yes
After seeing the Olympus EP1 and being seriously disappointed due to its lack of a proper optical viewfinder I happened up a review of the old (1970's) Minolta CLE in a copy of AP, I think its one of the nicest looking cameras of all time and surely a micro 4/3rds based on this with viewfinder and hot shoe but autofocus instead of rangefinder wiould have created a camera that would fly off the shelves

have a look at the link below

http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm
 
I think that there's a burning market for a lower end digital rangefinder. How many of us would consider a modern day Leica CL [though in partnership with Panasonic rather than Minolta] if it had an £899 price tag? And if we could turn back the clock a few years, how many of us would buy an Epson RD-1?

The D-lux 4 is as close to the 'baby M8' as the EP-1 is, although I'm really taken by the little Olympus.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
... I happened up a review of the old (1970's) Minolta CLE in a copy of AP, I think its one of the nicest looking cameras of all time and surely a micro 4/3rds based on this with viewfinder and hot shoe but autofocus instead of rangefinder wiould have created a camera that would fly off the shelves
Click to expand...
I haven't seen a CL for a decade or so and not seen the Olympus in the flesh either - but suspect the Minolta was rather smaller. Would they be able to squeeze in the electrickary and a coupled rangefinder in such a tiny body?

The Contax (RIP :() G system would be lovely as a digital body.
 
Voyager said:
I haven't seen a CL for a decade or so and not seen the Olympus in the flesh either - but suspect the Minolta was rather smaller. Would they be able to squeeze in the electrickary and a coupled rangefinder in such a tiny body?

The Contax (RIP :() G system would be lovely as a digital body.
Click to expand...

When you look at the thickness of the CLE body compared to the E1 I am sure all the electronics could fit and if as others have suggested it were a Digital rangefinder with manual rather than AF lenses then even less electronics to worry about
 
There will be a rangefinder version of the EP-1 coming out later this year/early next year, according to the Olympus rep.....
 
CaptainPenguin said:
...and if as others have suggested it were a Digital rangefinder with manual rather than AF lenses then even less electronics to worry about
Click to expand...
Eh? Rangefinder coupling. The (mechanical) linkage that connects the lens to the rangefinder - the lens cam operates a focusing lever inside the lens mount as a lens is focused, the lens cam moves prisms in the viewfinder.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
There will be a rangefinder version of the EP-1 coming out later this year/early next year, according to the Olympus rep.....
Click to expand...

The digital rangefinder shouldn't be hard to replicate - even if it's of a usual size. After all, the Epson came straight out of leftfield... who'd have thought it, with the Epson R+D budget? And who'd have thought that after these years, it'd be skyrocketing in used value?

For me, the interesting thing about that statement is the need for rangefinder lenses. Not only do they need coupling, but they need to have a tight machine tolerance with a working depth of field scale and tactile focusing ring. If Oly genuinely come out with a 4/3 rangefinder, I'd be fascinated by a new lens lineup. Present 'digital' lenses have mainly done away with accurate DoF scales and large, precise focus actions, because there's no need for them - the body handles everything.

Maybe I'll wait a little longer before committing to the big L...
 
I don't really think that a proper rangefinder design would be that popular and would be a backwards step tbh. I believe the vast majority of users want autofocus.

They could make a similar design using an evf and Oly have said that there will be another m4/3 body coming out with evf. However, I did read that Panasonic did a lot of research on body shape when designing their m4/3 which does use an evf and they found that people preferred the faux dSLR shape.

There have been attempts by manufacturers to produce different body designs but they are never well received and it seems camera buyers are quite conservative. Oly shifted the lens to the right side of the body in the E1 but have gone back to a more symetrical design. Their e300/330 got rid of the prism bump on top but wasn't popular. Panasonic went for a retro design with an aperture ring on the lens and shutter speed dial on top.

I think Oly are producing an OM/m4/3 converter so perhaps a future Oly m4/3 body with an evf that shows focusing and manual om lenses will be the most similar although it wouuld have the issue of being ff lenses on a 4/3 sensor.
 
^^^ :thumbs: :agree:

There is nothing remotely old fashioned about this new Olympus, except the styling and the marketing hyperbole. It is entirely new to the point of cutting edge. The shape of things to come, and this type of camera will eventually wipe out DSLRs IMHO.

If folks really want those tiresome retro features like manual RF focusing and manual exposure, which most people couldn't wait to get rid of, then there are plenty of beautifully made film cameras about at ridiculously low prices. Contax is the pick, I think, with some nice Zeiss on the front, but it wasn't exactly popular even pre-digital.
 
Steve Smith said:
It was popular on people's wish lists. Just not affordable for most.

Steve.
Click to expand...

Steve, it may have been as expensive as a top end SLR in the 1990s, but it's not today. You can pick up a mint outfit for the price of a modest DSLR and a few lenses.

The killer point is that not many people actually wanted one then, and they don't now. Lovely machines that they are, if you just want to take pictures, they're a pain.

They are a bit like classic cars - wonderful idea but a driving nightmare. People prefer a new mini, or a new Fiat 500. That's what this Olympus is, retro style and all those illogical emotional links, none of the grief.

Not getting at you here mate, but people that say let's have true rangefinder focusing and manual exposure have either never used those old cameras, or have very short memories. You wouldn't want those features back any more than you want crossply tyres and drum brakes.
 
I have a Leica M6 and TBH it's a right pain to use properly...so much so that I never use it all any more...it sits there on the shelf looking pretty instead...
 
This is my Rangefinder, well it's not excactly one :) but it still fun to use & it's great fun developing my own negitives.

trip004.jpg
 
HoppyUK said:
Steve, it may have been as expensive as a top end SLR in the 1990s, but it's not today. You can pick up a mint outfit for the price of a modest DSLR and a few lenses.
Click to expand...

I did mean back then rather than now.

HoppyUK said:
Not getting at you here mate, but people that say let's have true rangefinder focusing and manual exposure have either never used those old cameras, or have very short memories. You wouldn't want those features back any more than you want crossply tyres and drum brakes.
Click to expand...

I still use rangefinders sometimes, though not in the Contax/Leica league. They are not for everyone but I like the way they work.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
I still use rangefinders sometimes, though not in the Contax/Leica league. They are not for everyone but I like the way they work.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know what you mean, and I'm not trying to dis that for a minute. I would love a 5x4 technical camera again, and get lost in the wonders under that black cloth, same sort of pleasure from the craft and practise I guess.

I also have a mechanical watch, which I like for various illogical reasons. It doesn't keep very good time though :D
 
HoppyUK said:
I also have a mechanical watch, which I like for various illogical reasons. It doesn't keep very good time though :D
Click to expand...

That's a coincidence. I almost bought an old mechanical watch last weekend. Someone at a boot sale had quite a few.

I wanted one for those same illogical reasons. I like the idea that you have to wind it everyday otherwise it just stops.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
That's a coincidence. I almost bought an old mechanical watch last weekend. Someone at a boot sale had quite a few.

I wanted one for those same illogical reasons. I like the idea that you have to wind it everyday otherwise it just stops.


Steve.
Click to expand...

I still wear my Dad's mechanical watch that was a 50th birthday present for him back in 1965,still keeps perfect time and because of its simplicity often attracts comments,much like old fashioned rangefinders do
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top