Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Technical mumbo jumbo

Subject: Re: [OM] Technical mumbo jumbo
From: "Lex Jenkins" <lexjenkins@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 23:52:05 GMT
Glad to hear your endorsement of Provia-F, as I'm considering an alternative to Kodachrome. I'll try a roll.

Like you, I really like T400CN. Try it on metallic or glass objects - wonderful smoothness. With studio lighting it's perfect for photographing fine firearms, knives, pottery, etc., where form is more important than color. And I definitely agree with you about exposure - it doesn't tolerate underexposure, but works well between 100-400.

If your peepers are getting lazy, don't give up on those Zuikos. Try an iS-3, especially if you can borrow one and shoot a roll or find a store that will let you shoot a test roll. I occasionally borrow my mom's iS-2 when I know the shooting will be fast and furious. It hasn't let me down.

As a longtime fan of Can-not-an-OM-non's, with an eye toward eventually adding the EOS line to my FD stuff (my oh-so-delicate eyeballs just cannot tolerate Nikon bokeh where bokeh is an important element of an image), I'm seriously rethinking what I'd use AF for. I don't like messing with a lot of lens changes, especially since the great majority of my shooting is within the focal lengths already covered by the iS-3. And the flash quality is excellent. Keep an OM for super wides, macro and shift work.

Best of all, the iS lenses share the bokeh of the OM Zuikos. I'd compare it, at worst, with the 75-150/4, and better depending on focal length, aperture, etc. Naturally, with a variable maximum aperture of f/4.5-5.6 there are certain limitations.

But for my purposes this may be the best camera I've handled for fast shooting situations of people and action.

Regarding Nat'l Geo photos, I don't look at the mag as often as I did years ago. But I did notice in a series on caves and rock formations in the American West a couple of years ago some significant softness and distortion at edges and corners. I just assumed it was the lens.

Lex
===

From: Ken Norton <image66@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] Technical mumbo jumbo
Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 11:51:30 -0500

Ok, here is a laundry list of random thoughts that have been backed-up and
in desparate need of an email enema.


Provia-F:  Hubba, hubba.  I nearly cried when I looked at the results of my
Badlands trip.  This film is incredibly sharp, smooth and controlled.  This
film is absolutely a direct replacement to K25 in my book.  Shadow detail
held very well and saturation is moderate.  I had experimented with
Provia-F previously, but wasn't overly impressed because of my shots were a
bit substandard.  I am convinced that this film is better than what any
scan could show.  What tickled me was that in expanses of sky that the
gradients were perfectly smooth with absolutely no visible grain.  For
those who haven't tried it yet, beware, Provia-F could make a believer out
of you.

Kodak T400CN:  I'm liking this film more and more.  However, it is
imperitive that you over-expose this film to maximize it.  Don't worry
about the highlights burning out as the lattitude on the highlights goes on
forever.  Shadow detail suffers long before highlights burn.  This film
isn't overly contrasty as compared to Pan-X, but the lattitude exceeds
Pan-X by a few "octaves". Best of all--no grain.  I got some doozy pics out
west that I'm just chompin at the bit to print.  I found that shooting this
film at ISO 200 works out the best with occasional forays into ISO 100.
Shot at ISO 400, it looks just a hair softer than HP-5 at 400.


Will I stick with Olympus long-medium term?  Good question.  I'm at the
point where I doubt it.  It is getting more difficult for me to focus and I
really need to upgrade my optics and bodies anyway. The only problem is
that I so very much like the bokeh of the Zuikos and prefer the image
smoothness to Nikkor glass.  I think what camera system I settle on is
driven more by the digital revolution than anything else.  Where I'd like
to get a Nikon F5 before too long there won't be enough difference between
35mm and digital to justify film anymore.  But if I settle into medium
format then there will be a substantial difference for some time to come.
Hmm--maybe 4x5?  Nyet.

Departing shot:  I was thinking that maybe it was a flaw in the optics of
the cameras used, but I'm starting to think that National Geographic is
using some cheeseball scanner and not removing the film from the mounts.
I'm getting sick and tired of seeing blurry corners of so many of the shots
in the magazine now. Anybody else seeing this too? Or am I being too picky?


Ken Norton

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com


< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz