Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: 35mm Film

Subject: [OM] Re: 35mm Film
From: "robert smith" <robnruth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:48:35 -0000
Hi Simon,

The first pictures I had back from peak were far sharper than anything I had
recieved back from Tesco or Boots so I have decided it would be good to
stick with them.

I have a 50mm f1.4 and a 35-70 f3.6 on the way.

I would like to get a 135 f2.8

Playing around with my father-in-laws 300mm zoom at the weekend made me
realise that I ought to eventually get a 300 f4.5.

My use of 200 ASA films came from using my OM10  infrequently and using a
200 would cope with whatever I might do.
Now that my OM1n and it is coming up with better pictures than I could ever
get with my poorly Om10 I will use it far more and choose more appropriate
films.

I shall scribble down what you have said and go shopping.

Rob

from Sawtry


----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Worby" <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2005 8:18 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: 35mm Film


>
> Rob Smith wrote:
>
> > I am currently getting a few lenses to enable me to make
> > better use of situations.
>
> Going for the 1.4 lens makes a significant difference. IMO The 1.2 (I
> only have the 55 1.2, not the 50) is also a great lens. I really like my
> 35-105 and also my 200/4. The 24/2.8 I have is very impressive. TBH the
> only lens I haven't thought was absolutely fine (i.e. better than my own
> skills!) is the 35-70/4.
>
> > I have now found that using Peak Imaging as a developing and
> > printing company they come out better than they did sending
> > them to Tesco or Boots
>
> I also use Peak. There is a huge difference between Peak and Boots -- as
> there is in the price.
>
> > Is it worth me getting better films?
>
> Personally, I think so. I've switched almost exclusively to Fuji Sensia
> (slide film). It's certainly more difficult to use, but I like the
> challenge (like manual focussing!) The quality of 100 is superb
> (projected to 4' x 7' it is simply amazing what you can see). I also use
> 400, but the grain is noticeable. For me, one of the main benefits of
> slide film is that they can't play with it at the printing stage if I've
> messed up the exposure, so if I've made a mistake I get to see it and I
> can learn from it. With negative film, it's so tolerant mistakes can
> easily be "covered up".
>
> > What should I be looking for in a good or bad one?
>
> I like low ASA and the real crispness only that can bring. The 400 is
> great for snapshots, but you can see the difference. To me (and I'm sure
> many would disagree) 200 offers neither the additional speed benefits of
> 400, nor the real clarity of 100.
>
> > Do some films (make and type rather than ASA) suit different scenery?
>
> Probably. Fuji do a massively complicated document on all their film
> which I can send you off-list if you like (as PDF). It's downloadable,
> but I'm not sure from where any more. I can't profess to have read it
> all, but what I did read and understand was very interesting.
>
> > Is there any simple advice or is this a completely open ended
> > question?
>
> I think probably the latter...
>
> I take it you're somewhere near Huntingdon?
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

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