1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

OM-D vs OM grip

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Prtyphoto, Aug 13, 2013.

  1. Prtyphoto

    Prtyphoto Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Aug 10, 2013
    why is there a constant complaint about the OM-D not having enough "Grip" Wasn't it the original idea of Olympus to have a classic camera back in the day and that is what the OM-D is modeled after?
    I'm puzzled about all the complaints....
    If I like a grip that much I could buy a Canon or Nikon DSLR

    I wish Olympus becomes a niche camera maker like Leica and make HIGH Quality cameras that keep their value.
    Perhaps offer that mu43 format as a "cheaper" model and make a Full frame like Leica. Chage half of an M9 price and voila.... Good bye Cani
     
  2. Prtyphoto

    Prtyphoto Mu-43 Rookie

    11
    Aug 10, 2013
    oh yes if anyone knows what did an OM cost back then? What would that be in today's money?
     
  3. IDLookout

    IDLookout Mu-43 Regular

    124
    Apr 26, 2012
    Northern Idaho
    I read somewhere that an OM-2 with 2 lenses was $500 in 1979, which is $1,700 in 2013 dollars. Oh, found an OM-2n in a magazine that was $350 with 50/1.8. That'd be about $1,100.
     
  4. Ian.

    Ian. Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2013
    Munich
    Ian
    I bought my OM-2 body only saving up my first wage packets at 19 pounds per week in 1979. It cost 275 pounds. I later went on to get the Winder 1 for 89 pounds. Motor wind at 1-3 fps was very useful compared to manual winding on.
     
  5. IDLookout

    IDLookout Mu-43 Regular

    124
    Apr 26, 2012
    Northern Idaho
    So that would be (at 2:1 rate) $550 American - expensive in '79!
     
  6. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    There's a reason almost every other camera maker has gradually evolved into cameras with good-sized built-in grips, with shutter releases on top of the grips: They are ergonomically superior.

    Yes, a key goal of the OM-D was apparently to look like a 1970s vintage camera. The OM-D brings that, along with all the ergonomic flaws cameras of that era had, and other makers have solved.

    As for becoming another Leica, good luck. Leica gets away with their prices not only because they make excellent equipment (in fact, some of their gear has been decidedly mediocre by any objective measure), but because they have a history and a reputation, and people are willing to pay for status.

    Olympus doesn't have that reputation. Even in the days of the OM-D Olympus was never one of the really big players, and never heavily adopted by pros. The orthodontists and lawyers who account for most of Leica's sales today would never buy an Olympus instead. It simply wouldn't impress their friends, and would look out of place next to their Mercedes and BMWs.

    For Oly to invest millions in a complete new camera system, and lenses to go with it, and expect to be able to sell it at anything near Leica prices, would be a quick trip to bankruptcy court (or Japan's equivalent).