On my next year's to-buy list is a Nikon Coolscan 9000, so that I
can scan my MF and 35mm stuff. For now, it'll be optical printing for
me with an old (but huge) Omega D5 XL enlarger we got. I am a complete
amateur when it comes to chemical-based photography and printing, but
I am
looking forward to learn.
I am going to check out your work, Chris, as soon as I have a moment.
Cheers!
On 24 Sep 2008, at 1:55 PM, Chris Crawford wrote:
> I use my OM for black and white. I develop my own film and scan the
> negatives in a Nikon film scanner. The results are beautiful. I
> wouldn't
> give up my OM-4T bodies and Zuiko lenses for anything.
>
>
>
> --
> Chris Crawford
> Photography & Graphic Design
> Fort Wayne, Indiana
>
> http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
>
> http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
>
> http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
>
>
>
> On 9/24/08 7:49 AM, "Dawid Loubser" <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Ah, that is good news: What good is a 24mm lens if you can't jam it
>> up
>> close to something to exaggerate perspective! :-)
>>
>> Anyway, one of my big motivations of getting into the OM system
>> and analog printing is to get away from pixel-peeping, and to just
>> focus on the image and the message.
>>
>> Which of you members still regularly do your own B&W prints with your
>> OM?
>>
>>
>> On 24 Sep 2008, at 1:45 PM, Fabio Fiorellato wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Some say the f/2.0 has moustache-shaped distortion, and is less
>>> sharp than
>>> the f/2.8 (nothing that a razor and a handful of shaving cream
>>> cannot cure,
>>> anyhow :) but it is definitely better in the close focusing range
>>> (thanks to
>>> the floating elements that the humble f/2.8 doesn't have).
>>>
>>> I do own the f/2.8 and it is amazingly small, sharp and corrected.
>>>
>>> Ciao!
>>>
>>> Fabio
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Dawid Loubser <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The olympus.dementia.org site is pure gold, thank you so much for
>>>> the
>>>> reference!
>>>>
>>>> In anyway, in the opinion of you experienced OM shooters, is the
>>>> 24mm
>>>> f/2.0 worth
>>>> it over the f/2.8 version? I am getting one in anyway, but I was
>>>> wondering if there
>>>> are any pertinent areas where the f/2.0 does worse than it's
>>>> smaller,
>>>> slower sibling?
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Dawid
>>>>
>>>> On 24 Sep 2008, at 11:32 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As Iwert has explained, Dawid, that was a tease. Here's an image
>>>>> of a
>>>>> 24/3.5 (for sale at www.ffordes.com , and no connection, it's not
>>>>> mine!)
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://secure.ffordes.com/Shop/Images/used/370684.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is quite a bit bigger than the 24/2.0 and nearly 2x the
>>>>> weight -
>>>>> you can
>>>>> get all the detailed information from the renowned eSIF at
>>>>> <http://olympus.dementia.org/eSIF/om-sif.htm>, and parts diagrams
>>>>> etc are at
>>>>> <http://olympus.dementia.org/Hardware/olympus_hw.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Piers
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>>>> On
>>>>> Behalf
>>>>> Of Dawid Loubser
>>>>> Sent: 24 September 2008 09:47
>>>>> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Subject: [OM] Re: Greetings from a new member
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Piers,
>>>>>
>>>>> My reason for going with the f/2.0 is that I really do quite a bit
>>>>> of
>>>>> low-light shooting. Tell me, is the f/2.0 much inferiour to, say,
>>>>> the 2.8 or
>>>>> 3.5 in terms of bright-light, stopped-down photography? I
>>>>> understand
>>>>> it has
>>>>> pronounced distortion, but apart form that (and bigger physical
>>>>> size) am I
>>>>> compromising on too much?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am itching for the 18mm.... very much so.... Especially since
>>>>> there now
>>>>> one for sale on this list at a reasonable price :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> And yes, I can understand the term "Zuikoholic" looking at the
>>>>> addiction
>>>>> these lenses seem to cause, but I am trying to keep things within
>>>>> moderation, based on the sort of photography I do. And one big
>>>>> reason for
>>>>> going this route is also the compactness, it's really not always
>>>>> feasible to
>>>>> lug the big canon kit around. I am not a "collector"
>>>>> but rather a "user" and I will happily try something out and then
>>>>> re- sell
>>>>> it is it doesn't suit my style... so I am hoping the Zuikoholic
>>>>> tendencies
>>>>> will be kept at bay for me.
>>>>>
>>>>> I want compact, top-quality, reliable kit for walk-around and
>>>>> contemplative
>>>>> photography, and a couple of lenses should cover that. I do see
>>>>> the
>>>>> merit
>>>>> of, staying say within the 24mm - 90mm range, having two sets of
>>>>> lenses, one
>>>>> low-light (and bulkier), the other ultra-small travel kit for
>>>>> daytime
>>>>> photography, with similar portability to Leica M kit, but I do
>>>>> prefer a SLR
>>>>> for the type of work I do in terms of close- up and precise
>>>>> composition.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 24 Sep 2008, at 9:38 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "That should do it for now, eh?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh my, have you got something to learn Dawid!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's a nice start - you will need the 18/3.5, and probably
>>>>>> should
>>>>>> have opted for a 24/3.5 instead of a 24/2. Welcome to the top of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> long slippery slope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Piers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-
>>>>>> owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
>>>>>> Behalf Of Dawid Loubser
>>>>>> Sent: 24 September 2008 07:04
>>>>>> To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [OM] Greetings from a new member
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * What appears to be a mint OM-1n + 50mm f/1.8 MC
>>>>>> * 24mm f/2.0
>>>>>> * 50mm f/1.4 (SN > 1,100,000)
>>>>>> * 90mm f/2.0 Macro
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That should do it for now, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> ==============================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ==============================================
>>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>> ==============================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> The definitive answer to the meaning of life, universe and
>>> everything else
>>> is: 42.
>>>
>>>
>>> ==============================================
>>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> ==============================================
>>
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
