From: William Sommerwerck
>
>The "aesthetic" of using a rangefinder camera is decidedly different
>from using an SLR. So your distaste with the Nikkormat might have had
>nothing to do with Nikkormats, per se. Which, in turn, raises the
>question of how you eventually "came around" to OM cameras.
>
>If you have the time, could you discuss this in more detail?
>
Okay. I bought the Nikkormat FT outfit from the photographic shop that I was
working for. It came from a pile of stock from another camera shop that ours
had taken over and was going for a price I could afford. It had three
Nikkors, 35, 60 and 105mm - I don't remember their max apertures - and it
was a delight to use, which I already knew because I'd had plenty of time to
play with it. I took several black and white test films using all three
lenses and discovered that the flash synch was intermittent. I so revered
this camera that I wouldn't risk it in the post but took the body by train
to the then UK Nikon importers (Rank Photographic) in Goldhawk Road,
London - and never saw it again! It was reputed that there were only three
technicians to repair all Nikons in the UK and you had to be a 'name' to
qualify for any prompt service.
While waiting for the camera's return I processed its films to find that
none of the three lenses produced the sort of sharpness that I was used to
from the much cheaper SLRs that I'd owned previously (Aires Reflex 35,
Petriflex V and 7). After a couple of months had gone by without the return
of the body, the shop took in part exchange a mint Nikkormat FT and I
prevailed upon the management to let me have it in its place. I put a film
through it to check that it worked, got the same disappointing results and
saw an advertisement offering a Leica M2 with 35, 50 and 90mm lenses for a
Nikkormat outfit, which I jumped at, not because I wanted to replace an
SLR. with a CRF but I did want better sharpness than those Nikkors
could provide, and from my previous experiences with screw Leicas IIIc and
IIIf I felt sure that I would get it that way. And I did. Remember that at
that time there was nothing else very exciting in the SLR field, except
the Alpa 9d, which was way outside my price range, and the Pen FT, which I
already had.
I later traded that M2 outfit for medium format stuff (huge mistake) to do
weddings for a former employer who had bought a studio. When he sold it
again a year later, I disposed of the m.f. stuff and bought a Kiev 4 (yes,
another CRF) with four lenses, with which I was happy for many years
until I became aware of the OM-1. My disappointment with those Nikkors
didn't have any effect on my decision to buy my first OM-1 because I didn't
have to go by hype or reputation as I'd already had plenty of experience
with Zuikos, having owned various Olympus half frames and a 35RC.
My OM-2n followed a couple of years later and I doubt whether I'd swap that
for a Leica M2 now, though I still have, and use, 'vintage' CRF cameras -
Retina IIIc, Voigtländer Vitomatic IIa and, of course, the 35RC.
Regards,
Keith
keith_r.k.berry@xxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|