Howard writes/asks:
<< I'm not sure that I understand all the acronyms (e.g. WYSIWYG) that
you have used herein >>
What you see is what you get. You know, the concept that Lotus 123
brought us back in the DOS days. You don't see exactly what you get with
a rangefinder camera, or a point and shoot. Which makes fill the frame
type of shooting very difficult. And if you don't fill the frame, you
are wasting away image quality.
<< I was surprised to read your statement that [paraphrasing] after
"using most every camera there is. The Olympus system won out...& I have
no
plans on changing till the day I die." By this do you mean that the OMs
[1, 2, 3 & 4Ts] are superior to comparably priced wonderbricks made by
its competitors?? >>
No, they are simply superior for me and my way of shooting 35mm. Once
you learn to shoot instinctively, changing systems will slow you down.
I find no compelling reason to change systems, although a Nikon FM2 and
FE2 has a way of catching my glance, like the cocktail waitresses at the
casinos, I reckon. Plus now I know all my lenses and their strengths
and limitations. Hand picking a lens arsenal was my #1 reason for
testing.
<< Since with current rebates the top-of-the-line Ca*on EOS 1V costs
roughly the same as an OM-4Ti, the question arises as to which is the
better value and why?? >>
That is the million dollar question that only the photographer
themselves can answer. A camera is much more than just its bodies. One
needs to examine the entire system and its costs. When buying used, the
cost/performance ratio changes dramatically. I think if we buy the OM
System used, we get maybe 4X the cost/performance that current
production model AF equipment can give us. The low supply/high relative
demand Zuiko/OM items are an exception to that rule.
<< Moreover, inasmuch as you are relatively a young man, is it not
conceivable that your plans could change? >>
Only if it becomes an eyesight issue. As long as I can beat the AF
threshold accuracy of 50 l/mm with my eyes in an OM, I'm a happy camper.
<< Which Zuiko lens do you consider to be the best? IOW, which Zuiko
lens, irrespective of costs, delivers the sharpest images? >>
I've covered that subject in the past and don't want to repeat it. The
results are on the lens test site and subject to however one wants to
weight the various data. Some might favor distortion over resolution,
for instance.
<< And furthermore, is this lens' performance superior to the sharpest
35mm lens produced by C*non, N*kon, Min*lta and P*ntax? For example, do
you consider the Zuiko 350 2.8 superior optically to the C*non 400 2.8
or even C*non 300 2.8?? Ditto as to comparisons between the other major
35mm lens makers, as I know virtually nothing about any non-Zuiko lens
(except what I read). >>
Oh, that is for others to test and ponder. I've given a sampling of
lenses which passed through my fingers over the last few years and
motivated me enough to do the arduous task of grading them. I gave
special attention to Canon FD because it was historically a "what if"
scenerio for me, like in "What if I had picked an AE-1 instead of an
OM-1?" We always wonder what would have happened if we had married
someone else, eh?
<< Have you tested a C*non 70-200 "L" f/2.8 or any of the other highly
regarded (By whom, right) C*non "L" lenses? If so, how do they compare
in absolute terms? >>
I didn't do any L series lenses because no one stepped forward with a
loan and I've never sold an FD series L lens. I'm out of film, have a
busted photoflood which I'm loath to repair (the replacement part failed
after 3 months) and am happy being loyal to my Zuikos. My mid-life
camera system crisis is over and I'm settled down and back to shooting.
Someone else can further our knowledge on this subject. A macro
shoot-out at 1:10 would sure be nice to see, hint hint.
Hey, wasn't that LUG comment a hoot about testing just the lens mounted
in cement? I sure as heck don't care what a lens will do in the absence
of a body and film. What's the point if it isn't the resulting image
itself? Which is a product of the body, the lens, perhaps the filter,
the film/developing and the photographer's technique. The equation for
image resolution is, if I recall, summing the max. possible resolution
for each component and dividing by the number of components. And then I
think its a bit less than that. That is why no matter how good a film
or lens you choose, it's going to be constrained by one or the other.
Regarding camera support: I used an old Bogen 3040, with interior leg
braces and double legs for the top 1/2 of their length. I hung whatever
heavy things I could from it and I often set the thing on ice (it froze
into the ice rink). Earlier I worked on a cement floor of a storage
unit. I used two tripods for many long lens tests. Conclusion: if a
camera has a kick, it's gonna kick, no matter the support. Makes sense
to dampen the action with ones hands, as per Olympus' recommendation.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< 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 >
|