> Richard F. Man [mailto:richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> Of course, if the reason is simply that you want one, that is
> fine too. My point is: clarify your expectations, so you won't
> be unnecessarily disappointed.
I recently bought a Y*sh*ca M*t 1-2-4 (*) off the evil one. I don't
really know why - the bigger neg's won't/probably won't make
much any difference to the maximum size of print I usually do (and
I've potentially gone a touch backwards with the c5050z digital if
going far beyond that is a goal). The C*n*n
50*E and the OM1 are probably the perfect happy medium (ie.
35mm film) for the type of work I currently (and perhaps always)
do, though the "manual" nature of the OM1 will probably
be a closer match to the T*L*R - it is most likely going to
be the light meter for it. The OM1 (and 50/1.4) slowed me down and
improved my photos. Perhaps there is benefit in the T*L*R in that
it is going to slow me down even more (for starters, there's less
photos between roll-changes, and I'm yet convince myself to
"burn" film under the "film's cheap" idea <g>). I will likely
have both around my neck when I'm "on assigment" (ie. when
I'm walking around taking photos :-)).
I think, though, that you hit the nail on the head for me,
Richard. I just wanted one. I think TLR's are the nicest
*looking* (not "for looking through" <g>) of all cameras.
Of course, the Y*sh*ca is a fair whack cheaper than the Fuji's
too! Now, anyone got a mint R*lleifl*x 2.8 they can sell me for
about AUS$50.
(* This disguising names to avoid false hits on searches is
starting to get tricky. I don't think I missed one <g>)
Marc (who is not really sure *what* he is doing in photography at
the moment...obviously <g>)
Sydney, Oz
< 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 >
|