At 12:37 PM 8/27/1999 +0100, Nicholas you wrote:
>From considering it seems that the OM-1(N) is the best for my desires
>camera to get. Particularly since I might do some high mountain climbing
>in NZ with it.
>
>I would think because the OM2000 has electronics as well, it might have
>the same problem.
>
>However, I had a look at it and I dislike the led light meter compared to
>the gauge in the OM-1. It certainly doesn't feel as hard wearing or long
>lasting either.
>
I wouldn't hesitate on the OM-1N. I haven't yet used the OM2000 under
severe conditions, so I don't know if it has limitations. The jury is
probably still out on its absolute ruggedness, but I can't imagine that it
can compete with an OM-1 in that regard. Its electronics merely govern the
display, so you can always shoot it using the Sunny 16 rule. I'd recommend
paying attention to that rule even with a good working OM-1N, too. <G>
>
>So mow my consideration is find a cheap good quality OM-1 body, and maybe
>a couple lens. 8)
>
>I would think that the standard 50mm f/1.8 is probably a good cheap first
>lens option.
Yes, definitely. Every good Zuik has multiples.
>What would be a good initial zoom lens to go with this
>system for nature, landscape shots?
>
>I've seen a 75-150 f/4, which seems reasonable and in my possible price
>range.
>
The 75-150 is OK but one of the least impressive of the Zuiko zooms. My
ADITL shot from the first round was made with this lens (for what that's
worth), and I find it easy to tote around and really quite good up to about
135mm. Thereafter it is less satisfying. One has to be careful in
purchasing one of these to make sure the elements look clear and unfogged,
as they were prone to element separation. The lens has been around for a
long time, too, so there are just a lot of abused ones in circulation,
given no doubt as gifts in the heyday of SLR proliferation and left in
glove compartments or rolling around in car trunks for months at a time.
It's a good example, however, of a lens that has great ergonomics, IMHO of
course: light and feels good.
Any of the 35-70's (3.6, 3.5-4.5, 4) would be good, although I would
recommend going right to the 35-105 Zuiko if you can as being great for
landscape. You can handhold it (not as easily as the 35-70's) but it's a
serious lens for tripod-mounted landscape shooting. You'll find a 35-70/4
to the most commonly available of all the 35-70's.
The absolute greatness of a lens in terms of resolution and contrast can be
completely negated if it doesn't fit your shooting style. If you're not
going to carry a tripod, the heavier lenses just are not good picks unless
you really learn terrific handholding technique or like to use fast films.
I can get better quality photos (for me) with the 35-70/3.5-4.5 under a
bigger range of conditions than with most of my heavier lenses simply
because it is so light and svelte, and yet it isn't what I would consider a
"great" lens. I guess there are just a lot of variables in taking good
pics, and the biggest variable is the protoplasm behind the camera. So try
stuff!
Good luck.
Joel Wilcox
Iowa City, Iowa USA
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|