I think I am starting to miss the aperature ring.

Woolburr wrote in post #12303949
I used an OM-1 for a while after my F-1 and FTbN were stolen. All I can say is I was never so happy as I was the day they recovered my cameras. The Olympus was designed by an idiot.

Your sentiment was certainly not shared by all. Interestingly, in an extremely unusual act for a Japanese company, the OM-1 was actually designated in honor of its primary designer, Mr. Maitani, as the M-1 (the "O" for Olympus was added later to avoid a trademark dispute with Leica). At the time, Olympus propelled Maitani as a design-star in their advertising, as I said, a personal recognition extremely unusual for a Japanese company to do.

It was remarkable in being a camera of full professional robustness (equal to Nikon or Canon's top professional cameras), yet had the brightest and largest viewfinder image ever of any SLR--it's never been surpassed by even the most modern DSLRs--and was also the lightest and quietest SLR ever. It was barely noisier than a Leica.

The Zuiko lenses were some of the best made--better than Canon's. In fact, some of the wide-angle Zuikos are still some of the best wide angles you can adapt to a Canon DSLR.

It went on through four models (including a titanium model) and was indisputably the most popular and most critically acclaimed camera Olympus ever produced.

RDKirk wrote in post #12304459
Your sentiment was certainly not shared by all. Interestingly, in an extremely unusual act for a Japanese company, the OM-1 was actually designated in honor of its primary designer, Mr. Maitani, as the M-1 (the "O" for Olympus was added later to avoid a trademark dispute with Leica). At the time, Olympus propelled Maitani as a design-star in their advertising, as I said, a personal recognition extremely unusual for a Japanese company to do.

It was remarkable in being a camera of full professional robustness (equal to Nikon or Canon's top professional cameras), yet had the brightest and largest viewfinder image ever of any SLR--it's never been surpassed by even the most modern DSLRs--and was also the lightest and quietest SLR ever. It was barely noisier than a Leica.

The Zuiko lenses were some of the best made--better than Canon's. In fact, some of the wide-angle Zuikos are still some of the best wide angles you can adapt to a Canon DSLR.

It went on through four models (including a titanium model) and was indisputably the most popular and most critically acclaimed camera Olympus ever produced.

You can put whatever spin you want on it....for those that actually used the camera....it was a piece of crap, with one of the most awkward designs ever implemented. Smaller is not always better and the OM-1 was proof.

20droger wrote in post #11258343
So buy a Zeiss fully manual lens! You'll have your aperture ring. Of course, the absence of wide-open focusing then becomes an issue, but hey! You can't have everything.

And modern AF technology does affect the use of an aperture ring. Modern AF is all electronic, which is why the aperture ring is missing. An aperture ring and its associated mechanical linkage is just too slow.

This does not take away from the fact that the aperture remains in the lens; the body merely controls it.

We could, of course, go back to a mechanical aperture control, but only at a significant loss in AF performance.

All things considered, I prefer to stick with what we have.

....couldnt the aperture ring be electronic?

Nowone says the aperture cant still be electronically controlled, just put the aperture ring back on the lens and have it duplicate the function of the rear dial...

KenjiS wrote in post #12307809
....couldnt the aperture ring be electronic?

Nowone says the aperture cant still be electronically controlled, just put the aperture ring back on the lens and have it duplicate the function of the rear dial...

Duplicate functions are, well, redundant. Such a scheme is bound to cause confusion and error on the part of most users.

Keep the ring manual (lens control) but with an "automatic" position (camera control). This is exactly what has been done with the µ4/3 Panasonic-Leica lenses (see posts 18 and 19 in this thread).

20droger wrote in post #12309054
Duplicate functions are, well, redundant. Such a scheme is bound to cause confusion and error on the part of most users.

Redundancy is one of the key benefits of making the control electronic, as long as the user can choose which to turn off. That's why there are multiple ways to do most tasks in PhotoShop.

Well, on an EF lens, it can't be "manual." It's going to have to be fly-by-wire.

RDKirk wrote in post #12309282
Redundancy is one of the key benefits of making the control electronic, as long as the user can choose which to turn off. That's why there are multiple ways to do most tasks in PhotoShop.

Not the same! If you make a mistake in PhotoShop, you can go back to the original and start over (unless you're an idiot).

Sure it can. What's to stop it?

"EF" means "electronic focus." Focus is not the issue here; aperture is.

Manually setting a lens to f/8 simply means that the minimum and maximum apertures are both f/8. The camera will act accordingly.

Also, the "fly-by-wire" technology (invented by Olympus) affects manual vs. automatic focusing, not aperture.

20droger wrote in post #12309385
Not the same! If you make a mistake in PhotoShop, you can go back to the original and start over (unless you're an idiot).

Just like any other switch that can be reconfigured, turned off, turned on, et cetera, in Custom Functions. The fact that, for instance, focusing can be controlled by the shutter release or a rear button doesn't cause any problems.

What we're really talking about here is electronic control versus mechanical control. The aperture cannot be controlled mechanically--it must be an electronic control. That will be "fly by wire"--not invented by Olympus...Olympus was actually behind the power curve on that aspect by nearly a decade, with Canon out in front with their fully electronic EOS system.

The electronic control can be anywhere on the camera and in a multitude of different formats, and it can be automatic or manual.

RDKirk wrote in post #12309474
Just like any other switch that can be reconfigured, turned off, turned on, et cetera, in Custom Functions. The fact that, for instance, focusing can be controlled by the shutter release or a rear button doesn't cause any problems.



What we're really talking about here is electronic control versus mechanical control. The aperture cannot be controlled mechanically--it must be an electronic control. That will be "fly by wire"--not invented by Olympus...Olympus was actually behind the power curve on that aspect by nearly a decade, with Canon out in front with their fully electronic EOS system.

The electronic control can be anywhere on the camera and in a multitude of different formats, and it can be automatic or manual.

I suggest we stick to terms accepted in the industry. A "fly-by-wire" lens is a lens whose focus is effected by a focusing motor even for manual focusing. This was invented by Olympus, and has nothing whatsoever to do with Canon's EOS system. EF lenses, for example, use a mechanical means for manual focus, and a motor for automatic focus. These are not "fly-by-wire" lenses.

There is nothing in the EOS system than prevents the use of direct mechanical control of aperture. This is proven by the vast number of non-EF lenses than can be used on Canon cameras (with a suitable adapter).

What is needed for a mechanical aperture on an EF lens is feedback to the camera so the camera knows what aperture is set. While not having explored all functions, I would guess that such feedback should limit the camera's modes to Av and M exclusively, since the camera would lose the ability to change the aperture.

Having an electronic aperture ring could, of course, be done, but such an approach is asking for trouble. This would result in two simultaneous ways of controlling aperture, and is bound to cause confusion and error.

This is not the same as having autofocus controlled by the shutter button or the "*" button. Those methods are not simultaneous. You can have one or the other, but not both.

Now, one could have an electronic aperture ring that replaces the camera's aperture control. However, there are two major problems with this approach.

Firstly, the pins carrying signals between the lens and the cameras are not configured for this, necessitating a new configuration that does not exist. This would immediately pose compatibility problems into the EOS system.

Secondly, the camera would operate differently depending upon which lens is attached, or worse, depending upon how a lens is currently configured, i.e., whether or not the aperture ring is set to the "auto" position. This would lead to confusion, even if only momentarily, which in turn could result in lost opportunities. Not a good idea.

I think this aspect of the aperture ring subject has been beaten to death. Take it or leave it, I'm done.