On Monday, August 12, 2002 at 20:57, Larry J. Clark
<olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote re "RE: [OM] OM Owner Emeritus" saying:
> I did the comparison side-by-side (I did have 2 Om bodies and 14 or 15
> lenses to choose from).
>
> Sorry, but the OM system didn't win in the real world. The C/V 75mm is
> a little bit longer, but the 50mm, 35mm, 21mm, and 15mm are all smaller,
> and pack better, as do the R2 bodies. Camera body weight is too close
> to make a difference, and the two finders I need (only one if you know
> what you're doing) only weigh a few ounces each.
A toss-up. Not bad, considering the OM WA lenses have to be retrofocus.
How do the 28/2 and 35/2 lenses compare? The V lenses look big at
http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm
Where are the fisheyes?
Why didn't you get a Leica IIIb to go with the screwmount V lenses.
Then you would have a smaller camera with an improved rangefinder
because of the magnification. If you got the 50/3.5 collapsing Elmar,
it would be smaller still. I wish mine hadn't been stolen in Berkeley
33 years ago...very pocketable. Too pocketable... There's even one on
ebay right now, 1371769542 No meter, though.
> The "thickness with lens" figure you cite must be for some lens I don't
> have, because (again) the mounted 75mm is the only one that comes close.
> Flange to hood on the 21/35/50 lenses is only 32mm. If you include your
> OM's extra 15mm (for the mirror box?) you only have allowance for 17mm
> of lens. How many Zuiko lenses out there are 17mm long?
Yeah, that 40/2 is way up there at 25mm & 140g, and the 21/3.5 is 31mm
& 180g Your 21 looks narrower but deeper than the OM 21.
> The 15mm C/V is much smaller than my Tokina 17mm, and much better.
Accursed 3rd party lenses! Lets compare peaches to zucchinis!
> The 21mm is smaller than any 21mm SLR lens I've ever seen.
Yep, your 21/4 is 2mm less deep and 10mm less wide than the OM 21/3.5 -
but the OM has half a stop more light.
> I've never had a 35mm lens with the snap of the C/V 35mm f/2.5. You
> might have been looking at the measurements of the faster 35mm and
> 50mm lenses. Remember that you don't (or at least I don't) feel the
> same need for fast lenses with RF. The viewfinder is already bright.
> I rarely shoot SLRs with the lens wide open -- that old rule of
> thumb about the good stuff happening one f-stop down.
We're not always in charge of the light supply.
> I had the C/V system while I had the OM system. I reluctantly got rid
> of the OM system because it just couldn't do some very specific things.
> I would have kept both the C/V and OM systems if that need had not
> cropped up. But I'm enjoying shooting the RF so much I certainly wasn't
> going to sell that equipment off.
What are those specific things?
> As for the F100 manual...I haven't had a need to read a camera manual in
> any detail in about 25 or 30 years, until...I was taking that dang F100
> book to work to read at lunch. Jeez. :-0
Maybe there'll be a degree in it someday at Virginia Tech, or perhaps
you could download some Artificial Intelligence for it.
I suppose it's inevitable that you had to take Draconian measures....
Have fun, tOM
> ===================================================
> Paradigm Associates...
> "Providing Complex Solutions for Simple Problems"
> Visit our web site at:
> http://www.twodimes.org
> or set your navigation system to:
> 38-46.883N 77-15.818W
> ===================================================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Monday, August 12, 2002 1:20 PM To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [OM] OM Owner Emeritus
> >
> >
> > Dear Larry,
> >
> > Sorry to see you go, especially since those "compact" RF Cosina /
> > Voigtlander R2s you like weigh much the same as the OM-F, OM-G and
> > OM-PC, are the same size as all the OMs (except ~15mm less thick
> > without a lens - and just as thick with), and lack the spot metering
> > of the 2s, 3, 4. They are bigger and weigh more when you have to add
> > the viewfinder for the wider lenses.
> >
> > The only advantage I see is better wide-angle focusing and wider
> > rectilinear lenses of 12 & 15mm.
> >
> > I think we mainly lost you to the dark side - the N*k*n f100.
> > (A very capable machine, though the instruction book weighs even
> > more than
> > the camera.)
> >
> > tOM
> >
> > On Wednesday, August 07, 2002 at 19:27, Larry J. Clark
> > <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote re "[OM] OM Owner Emeritus" saying:
> > ...
> > > This evening I secured the last strip of packing tape on a
> > large box with
> > > over 88 individual pieces of OM gear - headed to a large dealer
> > as a single
> > > wholesale buy.
> > ...
> > > As you can see, my camera needs split right at the OM, with a
> > larger camera
> > > doing jobs the OM can't, and a more compact solution than even
> > the OM. So I
> > > really didn't need OM anymore, and the sale will buy me a 300mm
> > f/2.8, and
> > > several primes. A second F100 body is right around the corner.
------- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur -----------------
,__@ Tom A. Trottier +1 613 860-6633 fax:231-6115
_-\_<, 758 Albert St.,Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
(*)/'(*) ICQ:57647974 N45.412 W75.714
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Laws are the spider's webs which,
if anything small falls into them they ensnare it,
but large things break through and escape.
--Solon, statesman (c.638-c558 BCE)
< 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 >
|