Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: odd lens question

Subject: [OM] Re: odd lens question
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 21:21:46 -0700
Winsor Crosby wrote:
> Gee, Moose. I disagree with each of these.
>   
Excellent! Otherwise it would be pretty dull around here.

I say "Besides, I seriously dislike rangefinders cameras." and you 
disagree, saying I feel some other way about them? Well, how do I really 
feel about them? :-)
> At the speeds that shutter and aperture vibration are a problem few  
> people have the ability to hold the camera still for the entire  
> exposure. Hand holding does not seem to me an alternative to a sturdy  
> tripod.
>   
I was just making the point that the particular way Gary did his tests 
could easily lead those who aren't thinking it through to think these 
lenses are a problem in ordinary, hand-held shooting - and they are no 
more a problem than other lenses.
> I thought available light reportage and street photography was just  
> about invented the way we think about it with rangefinder cameras.  
>   
And I'm not interested in either one.
> Somehow people were able to see with them before and after SLRs were  
> around. It was a long time before SLRs displaced the Leica on news  
> teams. 
So viewfinders for cameras were generally crappy before the SLR. In 
fact, they were crappy before the pentaprism viewfinders. My dad's 
original Praktica SLR is worse than a RF, can't see a thing in the 
little finder. People used what was available and often liked it because 
it was better than something else. I really liked my 1955 Chevy, which 
was better than the 39 Plymouth, which was better than a buckboard. 
Today, I would find that Chevy a pretty poor car compared to what I'm 
used to. None of that means I, personally, have to use or like 
viewfinder systems that I don't like now, or for the last few decades. 
And no one else is required to share my preferences.
> I assumed you were talking about the viewfinder, but maybe you  
> were talking about the rangefinder portion. I don't remember noticing  
> a problem with my Leica M3 in low light, but it was a pain to focus  
> on fine detail like the surface of water.
>   
In those cases where viewfinder and rangefinder are separate, I'm 
complaining about that; why should I have to look through two different 
windows? When they are combined, I'm complaining about the crummy little 
yellow area where I have to line things up. I'm complaining that it's so 
easy to forget to take off the lens cap and take nice, dark shots of 
it's interior.

I liked broccoli when I was a kid, I liked it when it was what was going 
to save us all from cancer. I like it now. I didn't like parsnips as a 
kid, and I don't like them now. So what?
> I seriously like a good rangefinder....... So what is  
> not to like? Bright, clear viewfinder, easy focusing system, light,  
> solid, quiet, superior single focal length lenses not crippled with  
> retrofocus designs.
>   
Parsnips.
> But as a friend once told me that is what makes for horse races.
>   
Indeed. If more people were like me, you could get a nice used M3 for a 
song.

Moose

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

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