OM-D too small?

Started 6 months ago | Discussion thread
Mike_PEAT
Veteran MemberPosts: 8,997
Like?
Only noticeably smaller in length...
In reply to joharis, 6 months ago

joharis wrote:.

The first film OM-1 was the smallest of the OM series and in that time the smallest film SLR. Dimensions were 136x83x81mm.

Dimensions of the OM-D are 122x89x43mm. So it's 14mm smaller, only 6mm higher and has nearly half the thickness. I think you can not say that the OM-D is normal SLR sized, it's really noticeably smaller.

Let's look at dimensions of various cameras from that era (all measurements are in mm):
Nikormat FT2146-95-54 Canon Ftb144-93-43 Minolta SRT-101136-86-51 Pentax Spotmatic143-92-88 my Exakta I used for 20 years133-85-50

122-89-43 Olympus E-M5i

Srt101 is shorter, and FTB is the same thickness! As for width, E-M5 is not as long since it doesn't have to accomodate the roll of film, so it's only 2.4cm or almost 1inch less long than the LONGEST camera on this list...But as your left hand should be holding the lens anyway, you shouldn't notice that difference. Hardly noticeably smaller!

BTW the list came from someone else who also argued that film cameras were much larger than the OM-D...I was the one who found the numbers.
Edited 6 months ago by Mike_PEAT
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow