TommiRulz Loc: Corpus Christi, TX

I think I will keep my lenses and wait for (a possible) new version of the G9 - meanwhile nursing along my old one.
I am not mentally prepared to buy an OM-1, my brain can't handle another system.

Canisdirus

Never said it was killed off...but numbers are numbers.
Financials are financials.

Numbers get past the you tube videos...bias.

I'm not attached to my gear.
If something better comes along...I'll use it.

Panasonic is making a real run at FF now...which costs.
OM-D...is treading water financially...solvent but no wiggle room.

Pan is the only micro corp with any pockets.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

You still haven't answered my comments.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

The OM-1's menu is better than pervious menus and the OM-1 and OM-5 are very good cameras. But I think you are right to consider staying with what is more familiar to you. The wait may drive you crazy, but I feel it is the right way to go for you. And in the future, you could always buy a used Olympus or OM camera body to be a backup to your system and still be able to use all your lenses.

There are some differences but all basic OM and Panasonic lens functions work across all OM and Panasonic bodies. My new 90 f3.5 macro lens will have 6 stops IS in the lens. It is my understanding that the algorithms will use my seven stops IBIS and one stop ILIS when shooting normal and will eventually change to 6 stops ILIS and 2 stops IBIS at full macro. With a Panasonic G9 or "G10" and the OM 90 lens you would have to choose either the IBIS or the 6 stops ILIS. But the lens would work on either OM or Panasonic 4/3rds bodies - just not identically. This is also vice versa for a Panasonic lens on a OM body. All basic functions work, but there will be no syncing of the ILIS and the IBIS like there would be with a Panasonic lens on a Panasonic body. This is the main reason for you to stay with a new Panasonic body.

gwilliams6

Thanks,

User ID

Rolleis new digtal TLR will, likely as not, join the m4/3 fraternity.

gwilliams6

Some real doubt about all that, and there is absolutely no reason for any Twin-lens reflex with a digital camera, other than for nostalgia .

https://petapixel.com/2023/03/23/rolleiflex-says-its-back-and-will-release-a-new-digital-tlr-camera/


Cheers

User ID

Rolleis new digtal TLR will, likely as not, join the m4/3 fraternity.

Also likely as not, there will be plenty of second guessing.

The past just aint what it used to be :-(


When you need a TLR, you need a TLR.

(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I agree. I had a YashicaMat 124G TLR (Rolleiflex knock-off) in the 1970s. Hated it. Terrible form factor, parallax, and hard-to-use controls. It occasionally let me make good images, but it just felt wrong.

User ID

.

As is typical, the collective of Hawgster "experts" actually know shamefully little about their supposed fields of expertise. Behold this fine vintage 14x21mm TLR.

(Download)

The TLR concept has been around the block and back more than a few times.

(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I inherited a Stereo Realist from a deceased uncle. My reaction? "Thanks, Aunt ----." (Privately, "Just because you CAN make a stereo 35mm camera doesn't mean I have to like one.")

I still have it. I don't know why. I never could find a practical way to view the images.

User ID

TWIMC: NOT stereo, just normal 35mm.

(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I didn't mean to imply that it was, just that there are lots of cameras of questionable design intent. It's cute, like the three-lens Stereo Realist is cute, but both are oddballs.