On 29 Nov 98, at 19:42, Ingemar Uvhagen wrote:
> Friends,
>
> I would also like to quote a part of a text on one of the sites:
>
> There is no difference in performance between
> a new high-quality lens and a high-quality lens made
> twenty years ago. For normal, everyday photography there is no
> reason to be obsessive about the latest developments in lenses. The
> quality of reproduction is good enough even without the latest
> lenses, and so long as you are not all thumbs you can get great
> results with old lenses. The picture, after all, is much more about
> the sharpness of the person standing behind the camera
> than the sharpness of the lens.
>
> So true.
> This only proves what one might guess: Don't despise old lenses and
> cameras. Unfortunately many people do that today and only looking for
> the latest in hope to get good pictures.
>
Yes, very true. Last weekend, we viewed family slides taken from ~1962 to
~1988, with the early ones taken using a Konica, and those after 1976 with
an OM-2, and most on K64 or K25. The main visible difference was better
exposures with the OM-2 - sharpness and contrast with the earlier
camera/lenses was usually just as good. Several of the early shots won
amateur contests at the time as well, and could still hold their own today.
Shawn & Janis Wright
swright@xxxxxxxxx
http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/~swright
(Olympus List Archives)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|