Tomoko wrote:
>The list price is:
>OLYMPUS-OM Leica-M ?32,000 ??
>price in yen. I don't know the exchange between the yen and the Canadian
>dollar, but with the US dollar, it is 120yen to the dollar. It would be
$266 by
>list.
This is by no means a cheap alternative. But I guess it's relative to the
cost of the leica glass.
>>Now that my trusty OM-1n appears to have the shakes (best excuse I can
>>muster), I'm thinking about getting a Leica body (M4/6 probably). It
would
>>be a lot easier to rationalize the considerable expense, if I knew I could
>>use one or two of my Zuikos (21/28/35/85 are the ones I have in mind) to
>>help me through the transition.
>Don't jump to conclusion so fast, Glen, as to the apparent problem of the
OM-1
>on a tripod. With the 21/28/35 lenses, Gary's tests showed no problem.
The
>85mm might be the beginning of the problem with the OM-1. Even though it
is not
>long or as big, it is heavier probably because of the glasses to make the
f2
>speed possible. Gary's tests are rather stringent test on any lenses. If
you
>have been shooting with your OM-1 in your hand and getting your 4x6 prints,
I
>bet that you have not seen any problems.
No Tomoko you're right I haven't seen any problems. In fact, I spent a
considerable about of time in the darkroom this weekend printing (some
cropped 11X14s) and was very happy with the results. My comment was meant to
be more playful than anything. I really want a Leica outfit, and the shakey
OM-1 excuse was a feable attempt at humour. In fact, I still love my OM-1n
and will continue to use it--but I think there is enough room in my
heart/life for a quiet little M6 and a couple of cute little lenses.
>
>IMHO, attaching a camera to a tripod does not necessarily lead to better
>pictures. You can dampen the vibrations with your body better than any
tripods
>down to a certain shutter speed.
I agree. And as you already noted above, the lenses I'm most interested in
using tend to be short than 100. The fact that I'm most interested in a
camera for candids so hand holding is the way to go for me. It's
interesting that the most camera shake seems to come between 1/30 and 1/8 or
1/4 (if my memory serves)--the top end of this range is where I'm shooting
much of time (at least with the outfit I have in mind)--I wonder if it is
possible to hand hold an OM-1 steadier through here. Using the usual
structural supports--walls, knees, table, pianos etc--I know our hand
actually absord the shutter/diaphram shock, but are me more effective than a
tripod?
>And there is an OM-4(T) to think about if you want to upgrade.
I'm awaiting arrival of an OM-4 that I plan to use to replace my 2n, which I
most often use w/ my Tamron 80-200/2.8 and tripod. I was, in fact, happy to
read that the OM-4 (compared to an OM-1/2) is such a good shock
absorber--every little bit of justification helps.
Cheers
Glen
>
>Tomoko Yamamoto
>mailto:tomokoy@xxxxxxxxx
>http://www.charm.net/~tomokoy/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>< 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|