Hi Iwert, Ken, Bill and all,
From: iwert bernakiewicz <zuikooh@xxxxxxxxx>
>I can't get warm or cold by (this) leica M. I'm just no rangefinder
>person I suppose.
Well, it's an alternative way of thinking... different tools for different
tasks, I imagine. I however do like rangefinders a lot -- and the OM system
is in fact the SLR closest to a RF!
>No DoF preview (try focussing @ f1.2?).
Yes, but the RF patch is accurate enough if you know where to focus -- I
have no big problems to focus @ f1.4, even in very dim light.
>Close focus practically
>nonexistant,
Sure, although some super-wides can get very close.
>what you see is what you guess.
Yes, but... what about longish exposures? The SLR viewfinder is totally
dark, whereas with the RF you can actually see the subject _during_
exposure! Even with film you don't miss chimping -- you _know_ when you have
to discard a pic because the subject (or the camera!) moved.
>An OM(3Ti) is far more compact than the M9 with, @ your choice:
But the M9 is digital and the OM are film based, not fair... the Bessas are
no bigger than the OM bodies -- if not smaller. And the lenses, at least
standards and wides, are smaller indeed... and let's not talk about their
performance...
>35f2.8,
It's funny, I don't see the point of such kind of lens for a SLR -- looks
more like a P&S format to me. Anyway, I had that Zuiko for some time, but
sold it long ago -- at least my copy didn't perform any better than the 35/2
(which I _hated_)
And again, Voigtlander has a 35/1.4 (two stops faster) which is roughly the
same length, nut narrower. And if its optical performance is half as good as
the (nearly identical) 40/1.4, then it's light years ahead... And then the
Jupiter-12 (35/2.8, Russian copy of Biogon) blows them all away ;^)
>40f2,
My favourite OM lens... but see my comments above about the 40/1.4. However,
I have to admit that the Zuiko 40 has a very beautiful bokeh, while the
Voigt 40 is so-so in this respect.
>28f2,
This Zuiko is remarkably small, at least compared with other SLR makes,
although (like the 40/2) lacks some punch when wide open. The Voigt 28/1.9,
large by rangefinder standards, is no smaller, but a much better performer.
And it renders a beautiful tonal scale, too.
When speaking about lenses' size, please have in mind that the RF lacks the
mirror box, so the whole systems (body + lens) is actually a couple of cm
shorter.
>21f2,
This is the most remarkable lens in the whole OM system, IMHO. There's no
match for it from any maker, AFAIK. And it's a good performer even wide open
-- maybe not up to the 24/2 level (another gem, for sure) but even a bit
smaller than it and definitely better than the 28/2 and, ahem, the 35/2.
But if you check its smaller brother, the f/3.5 version, compared to the
Voigt 21/4 it's bigger (the whole system lenght) and performs worse --
although still remarkable for a SLR lens.
>18f3.5,
Another gem of the OM system. Incredibly good performer and surprisingly
small, at least without the 49->72 adapter (mine is stuck!), but then
there's the protruding front element. The older LTM 15/4.5 from Voigtlander
is really small but has no filter thread, so it's difficult to compare. But
the newer M-mount version has integrated hood _and_ 52mm thread, and its
still very small -- same optics than LTM, superb performance.
>100f2, and maybe even the 90f2.
Here the advantage of rangefinders it's lost, I admit -- different tools...
;^)
>Couldn't they have made a nice ISO dial over there? And the back is
>totally out of proportion.
Yeah, it's a shame that a digital sensor would allow easy ISO switch... but
the control is usually buried below menus and/or click-and-spin controls :-(
From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Secondly, the shutter-delay of an SLR isn't much, but it
>actually is just enough to change the timing of the "decisive moment" a
>little.
Yes, and thanks God the OMs (except the 2SP) are comparatively quick. But
modern SLRs, even without AF, can be painfully slow -- I sold my Contax Aria
because of this!
>From the winter of 1977 to 1986 (ten years), I owned Yashica Electro-35
>GS/GSN cameras.
And so did my dad... _awful_ ergonomics but superb 45/1.7 lens!
>The shutter-delay was non-existant. The sound of the
>leaf-shutter nearly silent.
This is a great advantage in some situations. The Oly XA seems _loud_ by
comparison!
>The auto-exposure actually worked halfway
>decently--unfortunately, it didn't have manual-exposure
Yes, but it was capable of rather long metered exposures.
>Alas, I hated the cameras for one reason and really only one
>reason. They weren't SLRs. Only the poor kids had rangefinder cameras.
The same happened to me... :-)
>The 35-80 is THE lens to use when one camera is the primary or when you are
>shooting dual format (BW and Color, or Film and Digital). It is an amazing
>lens, for sure, and has the advantage of really covering both the
>wide-normal and the long-normal/near-telephoto in a single lens.
However, for my taste 35mm is just a standard lens, the ideal being 40. A
28-70 would be much more useful for me!
>From Bill Pearce:
>I had a friend in California that was a very
>well-to-do businessman that loved to travel. He shot travel photos and sold
>them to one of the most famous travel publishers of the time, name I
forget.
>Money follows money. All shot on Kodachrome with a Yashica Elector 35.
Kodachrome 25 is what my dad shot with the Yashica. Most of my child
memories are recorded that way.
Cheers,
--
Carlos J. Santisteban Salinas
IES Turaniana (Roquetas de Mar, Almeria)
<http://cjss.sytes.net/>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|