Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Micro 4/3 rangefinder?

Subject: [OM] Re: Micro 4/3 rangefinder?
From: "Ken Norton" <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:38:49 -0500
 Moose thus grazed:
>I have no particular objection to such posts on the list. They are more
>photography related than many other subjects. As a matter of freedom of
>expression and religion, Luddism should be able to have its say. I do
>believe, however that they should stand on their own, not as replies to
>other posts.
As you'd expect, I'm going to choke a little on your terminology.  Per the
common definition, a luddite is someone who is opposed to technological
progress and technological change.  I am NOT espousing opposition to
either.  What I am saying is that not all technological change is
technological progress. Viewfinders, for example, are a posterchild of
technological regression.

>Although I happen to enjoy many more aspects of contemporary
>photographic technology than do you, there are other areas of
>contemporary technology that I eschew so far...

A lot of my opposition is financially based.  I'll admit it.  If I could go
out and buy a "new shiny" every six months like some people, I'm sure I
would.  And I'd look back at the "good old days" of using the Olympus OM
system and think "oh, how quaint".

> think, chose your rant to allow me one
>of my own on subjects dear to my own heart.
So tell me, the fact I have long hair--is that a good thing or a bad thing?

>As do I sometimes in this and other areas. I always get a twinge when I
>run across my dad's old K&E Log Log Duplex slide rule. It's a beautiful
>piece of design and craftsmanship.

The one thing that a slide rule is superior about is the ability to
illustrate "relationship" of numbers.  How do two calculations relate to
each other.  Also, it is possible to reduce human error because you know
through experience when something is not looking right.  With a calculator,
one mispressed button will give you the wrong answer, but without that
visual cue of something being amiss, you'll accept the wrong answer as
gospel.  Some of us are "visual" in our mind's eye.  When calculating
numbers in my head, I actually visualize my own variation of a slide rule.
Unfortunately, over time, the numbers get worn off.  :(

>Indeed, a great example; I like to think the greatest, of one era in
>camera design. I was using one for some time while you were using a 2s
>and extolling it as the greatest thing going. As I recall, my posts to
>that effect that I thought the OM-4 to be a superior body got short
>shrift.

Ah, you don't think I'm giving up on the OM-2S that easily, eh?  Nah, it is
still chugging away and still getting used.  There are certain circumstances
where I find it to be THE superior camera.  The live spot-meter is one such
feature as well as the ability to so quickly flip back and forth between
auto and a preset manual exposure.  The OM-2S is an OM-2n with two features
I find most valuable to me:  Mirrorbox metering and the spot-meter.
However, the control interface remains elegantly simple.  I think the OM-2S
is the better "handheld" camera, whereas the OM-4T is the better "precision
photography" camera. But the differences really are nuances and not major
design shifts. Next weekend, I've got a huge wedding to photograph and it is
going to be photographed both digitally and on B&W film. Most likely I'll
use both OMs--one with the 100/2.8 and the other with the 24/2.8 or 35/2.8.
Of course, the E-1 will hold down digital duties.  I know, I know--you can
use that 5D and accomplish everything with one camera and one lens.  :)
Someday, when I forever swear off film, I'll join you in that mantra.

>But I can't nail a bird in flight with any of them, while even many
>lowly, early models of AF cameras do it with ease.

I agree.  I much prefer photographing birds with my E-1's AF.  Hmmm.  Oh,
wait.  I'm still using manual-focus telephotos.  Oops.  ;)  Point well
taken, though.

>All a matter of perspective and experience. I've never liked
>rangefinders much, for various reasons...

Me neither.  However, there are occasional circumstances where I long for
certain capabilities of the rangefinder cameras.  Nighttime photography
comes to mind.  Focusing on stars is a pain with an SLR, but with a
rangefinder it's easy to find a celestial object bright enough to line the
two dots up with.

>The 5D with the aux IR light of the 540EZ can focus at 40 feet
>with no other illumination at all.

The quickest AF in available-darkness conditions I've ever encountered is my
IS-3 with G40.  It casts a nifty barcode like pattern and the AF just
absolutely nails it.  Zip-click.  That's all there is.  A buddy of mine has
the latest/greatest Canon gear and even he is amazed at how quick the IS-3
is in that specific condition. Speaking of AF, I really like AF in weddings
during the processional and recessional.  One gets really spoiled not having
to count pews.

>However, I don't see what most of this has to do with the original
>question of relative focus accuracy with the two systems. I guess we'll
>just have to get someone to loan a Leica or two, get together, and run
>some tests.  ;-)
On this, we agree!!!!!

AG

http://www.zone-10.com


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

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