Richard F. Man wrote:
Albert, I do not think I have heard a convincing argument from you on
why you want to get a MF camera. I mean, there's nothing wrong with
spending your money on whatever you want, but think about the #1 thing
that MF gets you - big negatives and higher print quality.
Richard, it's not my fault.. I blame it on those around me... (honestly!)
So I get my pictures back, and I think they are beautiful. So, next to
me, someone also got their pictures back...
While I made 4x6 prints, he didn't. 645 slides, easy to see with the
naked eye, details I can't capture..
Then someone walked between the two of us at the counter.. and got his
slides. "When you are doing with the light box, can I use it?" he
asked, holding 6x17 trannies in hand..
Now, normally, I'd chalk this up to the "need to be macho" problem..
But it's not. I'm not a "comparison, need to be macho" type of guy, (if
I were, I'd buy a Canon white lens already ;-)
But I was just struck by how beautiful trannies from a medium format
was, and that is just something I can't get from 35mm. I look at trans
from a 35mm, and I mean, the first thing you say is "where's that
loupe???" With 645, or better yet, 6x7 or 6x9, no loupe needed. You
just look, and are breathless.
I like the ECB coatings too. On velvia, it's so unnatural as far as
saturation. It's just something I'm not able to get from 35mm.
My expectations? I'm not throwing my OM out, not by any stretch of the
imagination. But for those BIG scenic shots, where I'd like them on
trannies big enough to see with the naked eye without a loupe... That's
what an MF is for..
Now, I can "keep practicing with the 35mm until I'm ready", but what I
noticed is, while there are certain things like "exposure" etc.. that
will always remain the same regardless of format, there are things that
change with format... Like composition. The dude sitting in the
background, he looks like an ant in my 35mm. In 6x9's let's say, he's
huge, and something to consider, when it's not a consideration for me in
35mm. So perspective, or more accurately, perception changes..
Albert
OK, from what I understand, you are very happy with the sharpness of
your Zuiko 50/1.8 and the Tokina 90/2.8, so what exactly would a MF gets
you? I went through similar exercises a few months ago. My main criteria
are sharp pictures in hand held shooting in low light wide apertures. I
am happy with my decision. I just thought that you should quantify why
you want a MF before getting one.
Remember you were almost ready to chuck that OM-1 when it turns out to
have a faulty meter!
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.
Best,
// richard <http://www.imagecraft.com>
<http://www.dragonsgate.net/mailman/listinfo>
< 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 >
< 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 >
|