The specifics of what started this thread have vaporized into
old vs new design discussion. I believe it goes well beyond
just the lenses.
Nearly every NEW lens design for 35mm cameras has been either a
zoom or an extreme focal length. As far as primes go, well
they've gone. People don't buy new normal primes these days.
Zooms have improved to the point that they really are as good as
primes in sharpness and weight. I believe that the newer
designs are more appropriate for the purchasing masses that are
not artists, photographers, or desiring to carry a mammoth bag
full of stuff around.
Take the IS series of Olympus cameras. Like it or not, I
believe that Olympus really did develop these products for the
modern masses that desire a hair more quality than a pocket
camera would give them. The 35-180mm zoom in my IS-3 is
excellent and the camera is a breeze to carry, use, and hand to
a non-photographer to take your picture with. That said, the
lens is SLOW compared to my Zuiko primes (and at 2.8, they are
slow).
Modern lens designs match modern camera designs. Using a Nikon
F5 with old manual focus lenses is a mismatch, just as using AF
lenses on a manual body is a mismatch. I love my IS-3, but
recognize that the real beauty of the camera is that it is a
"package deal" with the lens. Features that make the IS-3 stand
out (distance flash control, fill flash, size/shape), just
wouldn't work well (if at all) with manual focus lenses. For
900f my photography (people, events, family) the IS-3 is the
best setup I own. However...
For artistic control, selectable kit size, detail work and most
importantly--repeatability, there is no substitute for the more
manual designs, both exposure control and with focus. If I'm
shooting with tripods, the OMs are a bit better, but handheld
work, the IS-3 is better.
How does lens design play into all this? As I said previously,
the IS-3 meets the usage criteria 900f the time. It's that
remaining 10% that can get you. Does the flash disconnect from
the camera? Can you get a wider-angle lens? Is the lens fast
enough? Is the lens as sharp at 5.6 as the faster prime is at
5.6? Finally, does the lens render the image in such a way to
work with your artistic vision? If your only tool is a hammer,
the entire world is a nail.
I have found that for lockdown (tripod) shots, I don't do nearly
as well with the IS-3 as I do with the OMs because I'm having to
"teach" the camera to do what I want it to do. There is a
difference between "teaching" and "telling". The OM-4T borders
on "teaching" with the multispot metering.
The camera/lens must be an extension of your eye--strictly a
tool. Modern designs (lens and camera) do more to dictate "how"
you see: Slower lenses mean faster film, flash, tripods, etc;
Multiple flash modes give you more options, but provide
"ready-made images"; Auto-focus has replaced zone focusing,
caused centered subjects and other awkward focusing
requirements; Even the camera controls are designed for mode
changing not adjustment.
When the N90s came out and you could get all the additional
flash controls (fill, 2nd curtain, higher-speed sync, etc), we
had a spate of about four years where certain types of
advertisements all had the same special effects and flash
tricks. They were nothing special--they were just the presets
in the equipment. The EOS-1 and the F5 brought new baggage of
the high-speed motor drives. Suddenly we were seeing
advertisements with a bunch of sequence shots.
Right now, the main development isn't on lenses, but on digital.
For the past two years (and probably the next couple), we've
actually gone backwards in feature development, not forwards.
When the development is in making a new technology "as good" as
the old technology we've temporarily stagnated. Once digital
has truely "arrived" we will then head off into improving or
developing new "looks" to our pictures. Meanwhile, advertising
style has suddenly embraced the more traditional imaging styles
from 15 years ago.
Who knows, the next major photographic advance may be in the
zero to infinity DOF lens. Or maybe, imaging by radar.
I'd NEVER buy a new manual focus camera system at this point.
I'm a firm believer in autofocus and some of the features that
depend upon it. If I were to switch 35mm systems it would be
for a Nikon F5. But with digital screaming onto the scene and
the siren song of medium format calling, I'll probably go Mamiya
or Contax 645AF. Changing 1000ver to any new 35mm system
makes about as much sense as buying a new non-HDTV entertainment
center here in the states or buying Enron stock.
I'd still be tickled pink to get a 15 year old 350/2.8 for my
OMs.
AG-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
< 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 >
|