Matthias Wilke wrote:
> 1.The German magazine GEO published in the middle of the eighties a
> photography special (maybe some German list members remember). On the last
> pages there were many photographers, who have taken photos for this
> magazine, and they told which equipment they use. Among them there were
> many (at least 20 percent), who used OM equipment.
Another user of Olympus gear is the biologist and geologist Uwe George,
he wrote several articles for GEO and provided the pictures for them as
well. At least in some of them he used Olympus macro gear. In one
spectacular expeditions to explore Venezolanian Tepuis, I remember to
have seen him with the 135mm Macro on the Auto Macro tube. Tepuis are
table mountains up to 3000m high with an very humid rainforest climate
and difficult to access due to the rough surface, rocks, swamps etc.
An task at least similar difficult for the OM stuff as that for the
equipment of our orchid photographer. I wonder if George had used an
mechanical or electronical OM?
> In 1996, there was a actual photography special from GEO, and
> there was no OM-users left, only one photographer had an XA among his
> equipment.
This pages show only a small number of the photographer who are
photographing for GEO. It was definitly Nikon biased, but normaly it´s
not marked in the Magazin which camera was used, so it´s difficult to
judge the percental share of the use of a camera brand.
One observation is, that there are a relative high number of pro
photographers who use such an exotic brand as Leica. So if they can live
with camera bodys missing bells (AF) and whistles (matrix metering),why
shouldn´t I? Actualy Leica sports some canera bodys which an even more
"outdated" concept than my Olympus.
> 2. When I bought my first OM-2n fourteen years ago, a classmate also bought
> a 35mm SLR. He told me, that he has asked the dealer about OM cameras and
> that he was informed by the dealer that the OM-system is old fashioned. So
> he bought a Minolta X-500.
LOL X-500...
My dealer wasn´t that stupid. I did consider the X-500, Contax 139 and
eventualy the OM-2SP (much more expensive but with spotmetering). Asked
about his opinion he told me, that the aperture simulator is better
located in the Contax and Olympus (inside the bayonet) and that the make
and finish of the Olympus and Contax is much better.
I bought an OM-2SP with 50mm/1,8, because of the spotmetering and the
large numbers of (resonable priced) lenses. I wasn´t aware of the other
qualities of the OM system, bad advertising at that time already.
Another thing I remember is, that the today so dominat Nikon brand
wasn´t that present in the shops, at least not with interesting cameras
(just ugly FGs, looking like toaster of the 50´s ;-).
Regards
Richard
< 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 >
|