I know nothing about third-party lenses for the OM system. I've always used
Zuiko, always with excellent results. At the time they were issued no other
system had the same quality--not Nikon, not Leica, not Canon. And I have to
wonder if the art and science of lens making today has really outstripped
this technology. I can readily believe that with improved methods (I assume
CAD) the low-end lenses have made significant improvement over what they
offered 35 years ago, but have top-end German optics gotten any better? Are
the lenses for the Nikon and Canon professional gear improved?
Anyway, even back in the mid-seventies the real-world line of demarcation
between actual received value and rapidly diminishing returns when it came
to realized print quality resided with film emulsions, and I would argue
that the same absolute stop on quality exists today: there simply isn't a
film emulsion extant which can accurately render the image captured by a
quality lens. Which brings us approximately back to the size, weight and
ease of use of the Olympus system, and that's not even to mention the
incredible build quality. (This more or less speaks to the primary reason
why digital imagery is so fast overtaking the "purist" side of our hobby
and the profession--that, and the sheer convenience of use and storage and
speed of rendering and transmission of images with the digital method.
Let's face it, the days of film emulsions have actually passed. What's left
out here is a dying breed of people who appreciate the artistic side of the
greater photographic process. In ten years the question of relative quality
between film and digital will have long since been rendered quite moot.)
The only good reasons I could see for sticking with Nikon (the only real
pro-gear system ever) back in 1975 were 1) ownership of an existing (and
expensive) set of equipment, and 2) the ready availability of quality
specialty lenses at organized events for short-term rental. Almost all of
these events were sports related, by the way, and only photographers
working for major publications who footed the bill could avail themselves.
These were good enough reasons, nevertheless. When money's absolutely no
object, and you have a ready place to rest your gear occasionally, then
it's tough to argue with the combined variety and quality of the Nikon
system. Wouldn't want to take that stuff anywhere into the field, though.
And consider this. Even if you did work for Sports Illustrated, if you were
the guy who had to actually lug all that gear around with you for three or
four or five or six hours . . . wouldn't you be on the lookout for a more
streamlined and logical approach? For me, just out of grad school and
starting out in the field in 1977 it was a nobrainer, and I have never
looked back nor regretted my decision. I began with a black OM-1 MD, the
first Winder and your basic three-lens kit (35/50/200). Today I carry
around a beat up black 4T w/Winder 2, just ordered another black 4Ti used
from B&H, with a fairly good assortment of glass, and I am threatening to
buy a new 3Ti, though I don't know--I kick around as an amateur these days
with no market for my work, so there has to be a limit. (Well . .. doesn't
there?)
One thing is for sure: both of my present camera bodies and collection of
Zuiko's w/filters will one fine day find themselves handed down to any
surviving family members I leave behind who have an interest. And all that
gear will probably still be the best in the world even then. In fact,
that's all but guaranteed.
Tris
At 11:26 PM 7/9/01 -0400, you wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:16:19 -0700, you wrote:
> Be careful. The superiority of the Olympus system might well
> slap you upside the head when you least expect it--and they don't
> give that glass away!
Well, they might not give the glass away, but compared to prices for
Canon EOS glass or Nikon glass, I'd say used Zuiko is pretty
affordable.
One thing about which I wonder though, is whether a Zuiko zoom, of
1970s or early '80s vintage, is as good as what I could buy from
Tokina or Tamron today.
Granted, in general fixed focal length lenses (excluding some of the
exotic ones) haven't gotten remarkably better (at least optically)
over the last 20 years. But most zooms have.
--
Fountain Pen Michael (a.k.a. Michael Zimmet)
< 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 >
|