The Lost Compact DSLR System: Part 1 1/2

At the beginning of 2001, it was reported that Olympus and Kodak was joining forces to create a consortium, based on a new standard for digital photography. Since then, Kodak has sadly folded, but the group has gone on to add more members. Of course the "old" standard is now pretty much dead, or some would say that it's morphed into the current "mirrorless" version of micro-4/3rds. 

No, that's not me, or my dad for that matter. That..... is the famed Yoshihisa Maitani. He joined Olympus in 1956 at the age of 23, and would go on to create the Pen, Pen F, and the M-1 (which we know as the OM-1) system while working for that company for the entirety of his illustrious career. Yeah, I have a little bit of a "man-crush" on him. 

Just looking at this cut-away of the Pen F; makes my jaw drop a little bit. It's a single lens reflex, but the mirror box has been turned sideways and so there's no tell-tale penta-prism. The guy is just unique.... and so were his designs. 

In the last few posts, I've been talking about the concept of the compact SLR which he pioneered when the OM-1 was introduced in 1972. The comparison with the then contemporary Practica is stark. One could still pass for modern today, and the other would look at home on the front seat of a Edsel. 

But to me, an even more astounding comparison is this image of if and the Nikon F fully configured for "combat" in their "professional" get-up, complete with motor drives..... WOW! No surprise that some pros were woo'd away to at least give it a try. 

This image is of the E-420. In September of 2006, it's almost identical predecessor, the E-400 was launched for Europe only. However, the Spring of 2007 saw the introduction of E-410, along with the E-510, and E-610 siblings. While the 510/610s had more features, the 410 pretty much had the same capabilities. This would be true of the follow-up model, E-420 as well. In these machines, Olympus finally fulfilled the promise of really compact dimensions that the smaller 4/3rds sensor should have given all along. 

When compared side by side, the differences between it and the Canon EOS Rebel XTi don't jump out at you, but it's really the disparity in mass that's the big thing here. Much of that is due to the size of the Canon lens. It takes a lot more glass to move the difference in light necessary to cover the larger sensor! So, with the bigger sensor, doesn't that make the Canon the clear winner here? Technically true, but in real life in the hands of photographers that these cameras are aimed at? Not even..... the difference isn't going to be anywhere near apparent. So, what do you gain? Well: there's size, there's weight and..... there's innovation. This isn't disparaging of Canon, or any other company for that matter. It's just that Olympus has carved their niche in the photographic world through innovation. They were the David of the Japanese camera manufacturing world and they still are! 

From the very beginning, Olympus has been committed to having a complete professional system. Like Nikon, Canon, and now Sony (previously Konica/Minolta), they have everything under the sun. But more importantly, there's a level of commitment to their product that some manufacturers simply don't have. 

If it's all that awesome, why don't I shoot with it, instead of Nikon? It was a close thing. My cameras could very well have been the above pictured E-3, and E-410 vs. the D-300, and D40 that I have sitting on my desk right now. When I made to switch to DSLR, it was one of the systems under consideration. The main difference came down to my desire to have at my disposal the literally millions of lenses that have been made for the Nikon "F" mount. That, and the availability of the 18-200mm VR super-zoom that not even Canon had at the time. However, I often wonder what it would have been like if I would have gone with Olympus instead of Nikon. 

I will tell you one thing: I'd have been darned irritated when the consortium dropped the old 4/3rds standard when they brought out m4/3rds in August of 2008! But if you don't mind using a "dead" standard and are happy with the lenses that were available for it, then this is a really nice system to be using. They are a little bit harder to find, but they send to sell for less than similarly equipped Canon, Nikons, and even Sonys. So, if yo have a penchant for the quirky, this might be the system for you.


 


 

Rebirth of the Nikon "E" Lenses

Way back when I was in high school (seemly eons ago), the then king of all things professional photography, Nikon, decided to dabble in the lower end of the amateur market. Yes, I'm well aware that they had the Nikkormats, and even the ill-fated/short-lived Nikkorex out for a decade or more, but for those of use who had priced the Nikkormats in those years, they were simply "slightly less expensive" Nikons, and not really competitors of the Pentax, Olympus, and Fujicas that sold in far larger quantiies. By the later part of the 70's, the handwriting was already on the wall in the form of the wildly successful Canon AE-1. Between it and the Olympus OM-1, and misc. clones such as the Pentax MX, ME, it was obvious the the highly lucrative advanced amateur market was clearly headed toward compact, electronics oriented camera with a LOT more plastic in the build. While many consider the 70's the decade that the Japanese SLR reached it's pinnacle, the same could also be said of the "third party" glass manufacturer, with the "Big Three", Tamron, Sigma and Tokina, not only reaching acceptability, but dominance in some sectors of the market. Included with them were the brands created by marketing consortiums such as Vivitar, Soligar and even the "house brands" such as Cambron (Cambridge Cameras), and Spiratone. 

In 1979 Into this high-speed, high-profit and highly volatile part of the market steps, Nippon Kogaku of Tokyo, otherwise known as Nikon, with (for them) a revolutionary product line; the "E" Series. This would be based on the "beginner" camera the EM, which was wildly different than anything the Nikon had ever done before. It was mostly plastic, mostly automatic and aimed at a part of the market that they hadn't attempted entry since the ill-fated Nikkorex 35 of 1960....and some would argue that even those weren't aimed at the beginning photographer either. 

 As would be typical Nikon, they didn't just bring out a camera, but an entire system, complete with a flash, motor winder and several lenses designed to not only complement the small size and light weight of the EM, but the price-point as well. In order to accomplish that in those days of the brass helical focusing mechanism, Nikon designed in (gasp) quite a bit of structural plastics in the construction! At that point in time, coming from Nikon it was a shock and these lenses were routinely panned in the press and snubbed by most users. Over their production run, not nearly as many of these lenses were produced as one would think given the price and the Nikon glass that they contained. It would have been a very sad end to some very decent lenses had not a weird thing happen on the way to technology's dumpster, ........AUTOFOCUS, then DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY. What the.........?!!?

By the late 80's, auto-focus was sweeping all before it's onslaught on the photographic landscape, and as a part of that, it became evident that focusing via motors could not be accomplished efficiently using the traditional helical mechanism. There was simply too much drag. So, virtually all modern lens use the pin-in-slot method, though much more efficient, doesn't give that satiny smooth mechanical feel of the traditional manual-focus lens. 

Then digital photography happened, and a number of weird things converged together to create a strange set of circumstances. With APS-C sized sensors, or smaller such as 4/3rd, Micro 4/3rd, older lenses designed to deal with a "full-frame" 35mm were quite often found to be very sharp since you were only using the center of the glass. Then it was found that these lenses could easily be used on many cameras through an inexpensive adapter. This made the old Nikon lenses especially popular since: 1. they were some of the best glass, and 2. the relatively long back-spacing requirement allowed them to be easily adapted. This is especially true for the so-called "mirrorless" cameras such as the various Micro 4/3rd and the Sony Nex (although there are many more).

This combined with the advent of DSLR based video, has caused a boom in the "old" manual focus lens market. Many lenses that were considered inferior whether by perception or actual comparison of their time have become popular....which brings me back to the Nikon "E" Series. Ultimately, it's been found that they are not only highly competent, but given their compact size and low weight they make a good physical match for modern digital cameras. Even their focusing action is seen as comparatively smooth compared to modern autofocus lenses used in manual mode!

For me personally, it began with my slightly odd obsession with the "pancake" lens. I've always liked them in an "ugly duckling" sort of way and have thought that a slightly "wide" focal length would be perfect for my "street-shooter" project. However, the price has always been an issue. If I was somebody else, I'd probably just shell out the $500 or so that it cost to buy the Cosina made Voigtlander SL II, 20mm or 28mm lenses. And neither is the priginal "pancake", Nikon 45mm/f2.8 that I've previously written about. Of course the updated 45mm "P" of 2001-2006 has attained collectors status (~$600+ range), they are nowhere close to the budget of a frugal person of any kind.

Therefore, back to the "E" lenses. They seem to have been made over most of the 80's. There was of course the 50mm/f1.8, as well as the very typical range of 28mm, 35mm, 100mm, 135mm as well as a few zooms, 35-70mm, 70-150mm and 70-210mm. Some of them have even attained a mythical status (eg. 70-150mm). As it happens, I actually have one of them, a 50mm/f1.8 which came attached to the a broken EM that I traded for, which I've tried out on my D300. And let me tell ya; it's not an accident that it's often referred to as a "pancake" lens. It balances oddly on the D300 which is a big camera (especially with the MB-D10 attached), but it has the linkages to meter with the old AI lenses. However, what I REALLY liked was that lens attached to the D50 "Plastic Fantastic" camera! Wow, it is super-compact and easy to handle! Two problems though: 1. 50mm equals 75mm on my DX sensor'd cameras, and 2. it doesn't meter on the camera that I'd really like to use it on. What to do?

What you can see here if you look closely on the mount of this old Nikkor 80-200mm zoom is electronic contacts from modern AF mount. Apparently you can buy these things in kit form complete with a jig that helps you to correctly attach them to the mount of an old lens which allows it to send the lens data to the modern Nikon DSLRs! About $50.

So, what all this amounts to is a nice little project shaping up. I need to chase down a 28mm Nikon "E" Series lens (~$50 or so), add a "chip" and get the equivalent of a 42mm lens in a very compact form attached to a compact camera, thus creating a "do-it-yourself" street-shooter.