Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus Micro Four Thirds (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-micro-four-thirds-103/)
-   -   Dumb question about E-M1 (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-micro-four-thirds-103/dumb-question-about-e-m1-208791/)

SammyKhalifa Nov 7, 2013 12:40 PM

Dumb question about E-M1
 
Why does it it have a "smaller" number than the EM5? Are they painting themselves into a corner with changing up the naming convention?:confused:

James Emory Nov 7, 2013 6:26 PM

Well in the film days I believe the OM1 was the better camera of the OM series but I'm not absolutely positive. I think it sold for around 500 and that was a lot of money back then.

SammyKhalifa Nov 7, 2013 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Emory (Post 1361337)
Well in the film days I believe the OM1 was the better camera of the OM series but I'm not absolutely positive. I think it sold for around 500 and that was a lot of money back then.

Ah, I see. I read it as being four "worse," haha.

So I guess an eventual EM1 successor might be like an EM1A or something

Greg Chappell Nov 7, 2013 8:40 PM

It's a fairly common deal with most of the traditional camera makers. Note all those high-end pro Canon EOS DSLR's are EOS 1-something, and Nikon D3, D4 pro bodies vs. the high-end consumer D700's and D800's. I don't imagine too many pro's would pick the higher numbered D800 if they could be using a D4.

The OM1 was definitely the earliest OM. The best mechanical OM was the later tank-like OM3. The most technically advanced pro OM was the OM4 and titanium-version OM4T.

James Emory Nov 8, 2013 2:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Chappell (Post 1361345)
It's a fairly common deal with most of the traditional camera makers. Note all those high-end pro Canon EOS DSLR's are EOS 1-something, and Nikon D3, D4 pro bodies vs. the high-end consumer D700's and D800's. I don't imagine too many pro's would pick the higher numbered D800 if they could be using a D4.

The OM1 was definitely the earliest OM. The best mechanical OM was the later tank-like OM3. The most technically advanced pro OM was the OM4 and titanium-version OM4T.

You sure know your cameras Greg.

Steven R Nov 8, 2013 3:04 PM

Yes, Greg is correct. In the 35mm film days, the OM series started Olympus glory days of a small but well-built camera that would appeal to both advanced amateurs and pros. Built like a tank, but smaller than the competing Nikon F, and the Oly had a huge array of accessories and high grade Zuiko optics. (They actually initially called it the M1 but Leica already had claim to that and Oly changed it to the OM-1.) That was followed by the OM-2, OM-3, and OM-4 variants.

In answer to Sammy's initial question, the M1 is not a "smaller" number than the EM-5 because the "EM" series is a completely different series than the "OM" series. The digital OM and EM will continue with their own separate follow-up models and remain separate lines. The next camera in the EM series will probably be called the EM6, and the next camera in the OM series will probably be named the OM2.

chiPersei Nov 9, 2013 10:44 PM

My introduction to 35mm photography was the OM-1. Still have my original and also bought a second OM-1 body about a year ago at Goodwill for $35. Love that camera but they just sit on the shelf anymore.

Steven R Nov 10, 2013 5:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chiPersei (Post 1361459)
My introduction to 35mm photography was the OM-1. Still have my original and also bought a second OM-1 body about a year ago at Goodwill for $35. Love that camera but they just sit on the shelf anymore.

Yep, I still have my Om-2. It was my favorite camera.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:26 AM.