Hello everyone,
I have been lurking for a while, so I suppose it's about time that I
introduced myself.
I'm Alasdair Mackintosh, I live in Cambridge (in the UK, that is) and I
work in the software industry. Without boring you with my full life story,
here's a brief summary of my involvement with the Olympus marque.
The summer before last, we were out walking on the countryside with some
friends. When we got back to the car, my friend took a picture of me. I put
my camera bag on the ground, as I thought the picture would look better
with my hands empty.
We got in the car, and drove off. Half an hour later, I wondered where my
camera bag was.
We went back. I wondered where my camera bag was now. It wasn't on the
ground where I'd left it.
This was rather sad, for inside had been my trusty OM-1, with 28 and 50mm
Zuikos. (Plus a Bell & Howell zoom, which we need not mourn too deeply.)
The Olympus and I had travelled widely together, picking up the occasional
scar and dent, and taking a few good pictures on the way.
Ah well.
I looked round the local shops for a replacement cameras. All of the OM
stuff I saw was overpriced and in poor condition. But (and, in the context
of this list, this is a sad and misguided "but") one shop had a sound,
solid, Nikon F2 at a not unreasonable price.
So I bought the F2, and, over the next year or so I gradually built up a
Nikon system.
The F and F2 are not without merit. They have a number of good features,
that in some ways surpass the OM series:
The viewfinders are very bright and clear, and show 1000f the negative
area.
The viewfinders are removable. If you take off the viewfinder, the camera
will only weigh 60% more than an OM-1, instead of 100% more.
If you go camping and forget to bring your mallet, you can always hammer
the tent pegs in with an F2.
If you go camping and forget to bring your tent-pegs, you can always
weigh down the corner of your tent with an F2. It is unlikely to get
blown away.
I took some decent pictures with the Nikons, but there was always a
slightly nagging feeling that something was wrong. Perhaps it was the
permanently sore shoulder from the weight of the camera bag.
Then I made the mistake of picking up an OM-1 body in a camera shop. I had
forgotten quite how small and light it was. I moved the shutter-speed dial,
I flicked the meter on and off, I pressed the shutter release. Everything
simply felt right, and I realised that the Nikon's days were numbered.
I was still slightly concerned about the lenses. I'd aquired some decent
Nikon glass, including a 20/2.8 that I was rather fond of, and I was
wondering how easy it would be to find an equivalent Zuiko.
I ordered a 21/2 from Ffordes, a UK dealer with a large second-hand
stock. They had a 14 day return policy, which is just as well because the
lens was terrible, producing extremely blurred images. (Possibly something
wrong with the close-focussing correction mechanism?) To Fforde's credit,
they refunded the postage cost as well.
I ordered a black OM-1 from another shop. It was supposed to be in Ex++
condition, with very little brassing. The reason it had little evident
brassing was that someone had applied black paint to it. The camera looked
quite nice if you stood back from it and squinted. Or if you wrapped it up
and sent it back.
The search went on. I found an advertisement on Usenet for a 21/3.5. The
seller turned out to be a professional who does most of his work in larger
formats, but uses an OM-4Ti for his 35mm work. He was funding the purchase
of a large-format wide angle, and agreed to let me have the lens on a trial
basis. I took some slides with the Zuiko and the Nikkor, and scanned them
in.
I couldn't really tell the difference. The Zuiko vignettes slightly at full
aperture, and the Nikon is slightly faster, but it's also twice the size. I
sent the seller a cheque.
Now that I had the really important lens, other stuff just seemed to
appear. I got an OM-4 (with the Ti circuits) from MXV (another big UK
dealer) for 235 pounds. Fair amount of brassing, but it works
perfectly. Along came a 100/2.8 and the obligatory 50/1.8, on the grounds
that body caps are only slightly cheaper, and only fractionally lighter.
A camera fair netted an OM-1 and an 85/2 for 60 pounds each. Neither in
perfect condition, but at that price who's complaining? KEH in the US
provided a 35/2 for about $130. (The latter worried me at first, as there
are some marks on the coating, but the pictures I've taken seem fine.)
I should have posted an introduction earlier, as there have been several
recent themes that I could have commented on. (I think Nikons came up, as
did professionals using Olympus stuff.) But the thread that really made me
think that I ought to post something was the one on camera bags.
To my mind, one of the principle joys of the OM system is how compact and
lightweight the bodies and the lenses are. You can happily wander around
with one body on a strap, and a couple of small lenses in your pocket, and
you find that you don't need a huge great shoulder bag to carry it all
around in.
When I went round Mexico a few years back we were travelling light. I took
my OM-1, the 50 and the 28, and was able to take some great pictures
without having to weigh myself down with equipment. (And it's amazing how
heavy things get when you put them all into one rucksack and carry them for
any distance...)
Before my posting turns into the antithesis of an OM, I ought to sign
off...
Alasdair
< 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 >
|