AG Schnozz who swings both ways wrote:
>Earl The Analog wrote:
>
>
>>I find these results helpful and very interesting.
>>I'm more and more thinking that, superwides aside,
>>the biggest problem one would encouter with OM lenses on an
>>E thingy is metering and perhaps wide open.
>>
>>Thanks for posting this, even though it sucks me further
>>toward digi .... AAARGH!
>>
>>
>
>Due to the increased magnification (2X crop factor) of the 4/3
>sensor, you do get some variations on what works and what
>doesn't. For instance, the 100/2.8, of which I've bragged about
>the bokeh forever, doesn't work quite as well on the E-1 as
>there are very tiny donuts in the OOF highlights which show up
>on digital which are not present in film--no matter how closely
>you look. These donuts are subtle, but present. Why? I'm not
>sure, but I'm thinking that I'm actually encountering aliasing
>artifacts with the sensor. Further testing will reveal what
>distances and F-stops these happen at.
>
>
Too bad, but I wouldn't use a 200mm (equivalent) lens that much anyway.
Maybe the 85mm would fare better. Whatever, I'd be more interested in
the bokeh performance of the 50/1.4 or 50/1.2. Very fast lenses for
portraiture to better tame the DOF issue of the smaller sensor.
>As to further "look and feel" issues, I'm intruiged by the
>35/2.8. It has a beautiful, linear, feel to the bokeh and it
>produces outstanding images on either film or digital.
>
>
>
That is intriguing, especially since there is no 70mm OM system lens
(outside of zooms), i.e. it's an interesting focal length on the E-1.
Not sure it would be something I'd use a lot, but yesterday I was at a
wedding and put the 100mm on the OM-1n to do some casual
head-and-shoulders isolation shots of guests during the reception. It
was a bit too long for some shots. Yes, I could have moved back, but
these were quick grab shots, and I would have missed the shot. I often
find myself wanting a prime in the 65-80mm range. Even when I had an M3
with a 90, I was often wishing for a 75mm.
>What about exposure issues? Well, yes, your exposures outside
>the F4-F8 range will be a bit off. How far off depends on the
>lens used and the position of the brightness in the image.
>However, if you look at the lens tests you'll see that F5.6-F8
>is the sharpest anyway, so unless you are needing to shoot
>wide-open or closed all the way down, you'll be fine.
>
>When in doubt, I take a picture and view the histogram and make
>exposure adjustments as necessary. Think of it as a "proof
>shot". Once this is done, I may use manual exposure mode to
>lock in for a sequence of shots.
>
>One obversation about using silvernosed lenses on the E-1. Do
>not use auto-white-balance. There is a yellowing tint to most
>of these older lenses and the AWB algorithm rarely gets it
>right.
>
>Earl, the prices of E-thingies continue to drop. I suspect that
>in a few more months the prices of E-300s will be silly low.
>Once they get low enough there will be little reason to not get
>one to supplement the OM bodies. Hang in there, but remember,
>even Walt tossed in the towel.
>
>
>
That's what I was thinking. And I've got a brace of Vivitar 283s to go
with either system. :-D
Of course, there's always the siren song of the ZI RF and its digital
follow-on, or an updated Epson R-Dx to worry about. Sorry to be
blasphemous.
Earl
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|