The viewfinder on an SP appears larger than an RC; it just "sees" and
feels different. I haven't tested the SP's viewfinder accuracy, but now
I suppose I will. For years I used a 35/f2.8 silvernose as my
"standard" lens on a single digit OM. I still consider it more
"standard" (for me) than a 50, but I go on spurts will where the 50 on
an OM1 or OM2 is the only thing I use. My philosophy is that frequent
exercises of using only one lens for a period and exploiting it is good
for the photographic soul.
Yes, slides. Or b&w negs visualized and printed full frame. On a
single digit OM. Or my M3, when I had one. Hmmm, wonder what the
accuracy of the Zeiss Ikon finder will be...
I hate the "shoot sloppy and crop later" style. Not that it's not
sometimes necessary nor that some great photos have been salvaged by
cropping. But it's just not in my genes/training/philosophy to do it
unless I have no other choice.
Earl
Wayne Culberson wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Earl Dunbar" <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 7:57 PM
>Subject: [OM] Re: 7519772104 reasonable 40f2
>
>
>
>
>>Well, 40mm (or 42mm) used to be pretty much a standard for Oly 35
>>compacts. I particularly like them better than the 40mm. We've gotten
>>used to 50mm as a "standard", for sure, but that little bit of extra
>>width, with the completely natural and unobtrusive perspective, makes a
>>helluva difference to ME. If I could afford the Zuiko OM pancake, I'd
>>have at least one. If Maitani were still at the helm, I'd be emailing
>>him every day for a 40/f1.2. I'm sure no one else at Olympus today
>>would listen.
>>
>>Earl
>>
>>
>
>The 35RC with it's 42mm lens is still my favorite camera. I shot several
>rolls of slides with mine last month in Bolivia. But I don't know as you
>really see in the 40mm range with one, as the viewfinder (guidelines) are
>less than what the lens sees.
>
>If one really sees significantly better in 40mm range, rather than in 35mm
>or 50mm, with an OM, then I suppose you could always put the much cheaper
>35/2.8 on an OM10, and you probably would be actually seeing in about 40mm.
>Given this list, I suppose someone will figure it out accurately :-) I used
>my RC and OM10 so long before I found this list and subsequent single digit
>OM's, that I've never learned to see that accurately. If I really have to
>have 40mm rather than 35mm or 50mm, I suppose I could pick from one of
>several zooms I have. But I know, it wouldn't be f2.
>
>The whole digital thing pretty well renders accurate framing obsolete
>anyways. Just shoot enough, and crop it to where you want it. Everybody here
>probably already knows perspective doesn't change until you take a step
>forwards or backwards. When we're talking accurate framing, we're pretty
>well talking slides aren't we?
>
>Wayne
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|