Here are some of my considerations, of minimum OM-kits:
1.) Real minimum point is sure a OM-2000 or OM-20 (OM-G?) with
the 40mm/F2 Zuiko: 430g-Body + 140g Lens = 570g to carry.
And It can be reduced another 140g when a Olympus 35 RC-rangefinder is used <g>.
( Other OM-Bodies are somewhat heavier)
2.) Among two lenses kit`s there is the classical 35 + 85mm combo, which I
prefer.
But taking the 28mm/F2.8 and the 100mm/F2.8 would even save 40g weight at the
same size.
3.) Three lenses-Kits contains classicaly one wide-angel, a standart and a
medium range
telephoto, with lot`s of combinations possible. When combining a set of 3 or
more primes
I alway`s keep in mind, that each lens has a built in "zoom-step" of 1.5 when
the
camera is turned from landscape to portrait.
I Guess that is why a 135 mm isn`t too much use combined with a 85/90mm,
and 135mm to 200mm is the same gap.
The 24/35mm Combo, I had last journey, is also in the critical range.
Adviced lens-stepping is either 1.4x for a large kit or 1.6x to ~2x. I found
these values in older Magazines, but seem`s to make sense. There I also found
the tip to use
a stepping explicit more than twice. This assures each part of the kit has
it`s own
job to do.
A classical line-up is: 24(28) - 50 -135
Extendet to 4: 24(28) - 50 - 100 -200
Suggested Extreme Kit: 20-85-300
My lineup: 24 -40- 85-200
Frieder Faig
On Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 06:42:05PM -0400, miaim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> When I last went out of town on a combined buisness/pleasure trip I carried
> 3 different camera bodies representing 2 formats and 7-8 lenses, a flash
> unit, pc cord, 6-8 filters, 2 tripods, a clampod, winder, light meter,
> cleaning gear, spare batteries, vast quantities of film. All in all my
> jumbo sized shoulder bag plus additional dedicated med. format luggage
> couldn't even carry it all and each day I had to decide between med. format
> and jumbo OM kit. That recent trip was an interesting learning experience.
> I started wondering why carrying what has been lauded as one of the
> smallest of SLR cameras was causing bursitis in my shoulder. Clearly I was
> doing something very wrong.
>
> Since then I've started a photojournalism course (just for fun) and my
> ideas of a carry kit reflect some of the things I've learned from the last
> couple vacations as well as plenty of around town & country ventures. Today
> I just got in from a photo interview with a horse enthusiast.
>
> My "assignment package" consists of an OM-4 w/winder 2, a Sunpak 383 flash,
> a single Zuiko 28/2.8 MC, a circular polarizer, 2 rolls of either Tri-X 400
> _or_ 2 rolls of Iford HP5+. That and a tripod. Period. That's just for a
> "shoot this assignment for today" type scenario. (OK, sometimes I put
> either a Yellow or Green #11 filter into my shirtpocket.)
>
> Sure, I often still have the jumbo Lowepro Nova 5 shoulderbag with backup
> OM1n and 6-8 more lenses from 19mm to 500mm, from macro to tele. in the
> car. But the more that I use and appreciate the 28/2.8, the less inclined
> I am to immediately assume that I'll need more. When one of the instructors
> first mentioned that he shoots the bulk of his work with a 24mm and an
> 18mm, frankly I thought him a bit odd. But the more I get used to the
> merits of the 28, the more I think I might eventually get a 24mm. I'm not
> at all suggesting that these wide angles are the mythical ideal focal
> length or perfect for every situation. Rather, I'm just saying that for
> "get the interview" or "do a photo essay" type things, they make life
> easier due to greater depths of field, more coverage and the ability to get
> up close and personal and their inate ability to tolerate handheld shots at
> lower shutter speeds and less critical focusing. When I started this, I'd
> assumed that my tele-zooms and/or 135mm would be getting a workout, since
> they're more often thought of in terms of portrature. Quite the contrary
> has wound up happening so far.
>
> At the moment, I can't think of too much that would fall under the category
> of routine documentary type stuff that couldn't be done with a battery
> consisting of just a 28mm/2.8, a 50 macro, (for those odd occasions) and a
> 100/2.8. There are occasions when other focal lengths would come in handy,
> but I can't imagine too many scenarios were their lack would mean the
> complete absence of printable images. (Assuming we're not even talking
> about long distance wildlife photos and that ilk.)
>
> I'm still very much learning this craft and would appreciate comments from
> those who've tried this approach and found it lacking.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike Swaim
>
< 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 >
|