>> >Of course one should keep in mind that a modern OM with 50/1.2 and a
modern fast 35mm film would be smaller, lighter, faster, and produce
a better image.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
Not necessarily - it was medium format and had a rather good lens I believe
- basically, a compact body built around a very special lens.
AndrewF
Are you serious? You think the medium format camera was smaller,
lighter, faster than an OM F1.2? You don't think high technology35mm
film with stacked crystal technology and uniform thickness can
capture with less light what was captured by an emulsion spread by
hand on a glass plate? You don't think you could improve on the
example images or even most medium format images from the 20's with
an APS camera? Sorry, but it is hard for me to believe someone could
have such a technological marvel as a modern camera and not
appreciate it for what it is.
--
Winsor Crosby
Winsor -
This thread was about compact medium format cameras! Try as it might, my
OM2n with a 50/1.2 although light, fast and small won't produce an MF
negative. As to glass plates - have you seen the quality of some of the
images produced?
Oh, and I saw an object of desire advertised the other day for around $1200
- Plaubel Makina wide version, Nikkor lens. Last of the rangefinder
folders?
AndrewF
That Plaubel is pretty nice. I have heard the lens mount is not very
rigid, but the one I looked at seemed fine to me. A really elegant
looking design too, at least compared to something like a Fuji.
--
Winsor Crosby
Long Beach, California
< 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 >
|