robhar@xxxxxx wrote:
>I find myself in a bit of a quandary. Please be gentle. I feel like a
>wanker to even be asking these questions to this august forum, but here
>goes. Skip has already heard some of this.
>
>Those of you who have owned Nikon or Leica systems and given them up,
>what prompted the switch to OM?
>
That was back in 1973. Nikon Ftn a big clunky thing, especially hiking.
OM elegant, svelte, light, capable of everything the Nikon could do.
Easy decision.
>Those of you who still use Nikon or Leica alongside your OM, what makes
>you pick up one rather than the other? What does each do best?
>
><>
>In a recent roll using incident metering, I was pleased with the
>closer-focusing of the 50/1.8 Zuiko lens vs. the Nikon 50/1.8 Series E.
>Image quality was comparable. I love the feel of the OM.
>
You mention lenses again below, but never tell us what Zuiko 50/1.8 you
have. It can make a huge difference. If you bought yours in 1976, it's
just not fair to compare it to a modern ASPH Summiron. They made
millions of 50/1.8s over many years and there were at least 5 design
changes over that time. My original 1973 version is not a stellar
performer, ok for snapshots, but....... The last series are called "miJ"
here because the serial number, which was on the front ring on all
earlier versions and the 'made in Japan' designation, which was back on
the rear, switched places on these lenses. This latest version is a
really good lens, conpetitive with any 50mm out there. The miJ Zuiko
outperformed a Summicron-M 50/2 in Gary's tests.
>As far as SLR vs rangefinder goes,
>
That's easy for me, I have never liked rangefinders. Guess I don't 'get'
them.
>As far as Nikon MF vs. OM goes...I love the compactness and lightness
>of the OM system. That's what drew me to the OM in 1976, when I traded
>in my Minolta for the OM-1. The match needle metering is just so easy.
>I got the FE2 hoping to approximate the OM-1 in that regard. Turns out
>the FE2 is quite a bit more sophisticated and capable--offering AE,
>plus TTL flash. The FG offers a full Program mode. THe FG is actually
>about the same size and weight as the OM-1.
>
Lots of apples to oranges stuff here. Comparing the OM-1 to the FE2 and
FG is not really valid. The OM-2(n) is very comparable to the FG (which
I happen to have; nice capable little camera.) except for the Program
mode. Then the OM-2S/P adds program mode and trumps the Nikons with spot
metering. The OM-3 and 4 bodies offer more sophisticated metering than
any MFSLR Nikon (or anybody) ever made. Comparing mechanical manual
bodies with electronic auto bodies over decades of camera development
doesn't work very well. For match needle metering mechanical, nothing
has bettered the OM-1(n) for small, light and capable. The Nikons
available in the early years of the OM-1 were the Ftn and F2(a).
Eminently capable cameras that could also be used to pound nails.
Probably could pound an OM-1 into dust with minimal damage to the Nikon.
Had nice things like mirror lock-up with aperture shut down in the F2.
The price was something much bigger and heavier with bigger heavier
lenses. I still have an F2a and FG inherited, like your FG, from my
father. I carry the F@a around the house for a few minutes once in a
while to remind me of what I don't have to carry around. Should sell them.
> I'm imagining image quality
>with Zuiko lenses would be equal to the Nikons
>
I would expect the miJ 50/1.8 to be better than the Nikkor 50mm E, but I
gave the FM and set of E lenses to my daughter-in-law.
>, but...different...than
>the Leica's. It'd be hard to beat the Summicron 35/2 ASPH in richness,
>bokeh, tonal graduation, sharpness, three dimensionality...you know,
>that Leica thing they do so well.
>
Yeah, well, whatever. I"ve never used a Leica, by choice, they are
rangefinders, ick. Some people say their lenses are on a different plane
than anyone else's. Some say they actually vary in quality and are
overall no better or worse than other top flight makers. I suggest that
all top flight lenses are so good than extraordinary technique is needed
to differentiate between them in actual use. The Ken Rockwell site has
bombastic but interesting things to say on this subject.
>Mind you, I could sell the Leica kit and finance a vacation to some
>exotic place to actually _take_ photographs instead of talking about
>photo gear....
>
What? Are you crazy? (Not about selling the Leica stuff, about using
instead of talking about your phot gear.)
> We are in fact going to Australia in May, to meet my
>wife's family for the first time. She grew up in northern Queensland,
>sugar cane territory--Finch Hatton. The family now lives in Mackay.
>It's going to be a huge photo opportunity--first time all of the
>siblings will be together in ten years...but I want to avoid bringing
>ALL my cameras...
>
Ah, here's the really significant thing in all this, a cool, once in a
lifetime round the world vacation and family gathering. Don't let the
camera stuff get in the way of fully enjoying the people stuff.
><too much choice, head hurts...> OM-1 and OM-4ti, F280, 21/3.5, 35/2, 50/1.2
>and 85/2, and quit thinking so much.
>
Sounds good to me. How about adding a mid range zoom, one of the
35-70/105 Zuikos or a third party 28/35-80/135? Then you could spend
less time fussing with the gear when not being serious about photography.
>There, I've said it.
>
Feel better now?
>Thanks for listening.
>
My pleasure
Moose
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|