Martin Walters wrote:
> I finally picked up my OM to Pen adapter and new ball head in the
> States. Soooo, I have posted a few pictures taken with my Pen F and some
> OM Zuiko lenses, primarily the 100/2. They can be viewed at:
> http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/mwalters@xxxxxxxxxx/my_photos
>
> As tests of camera/lens and tripod/ball head, subjects were those close
> at hand, i.e., plants around the house. The photos were neither taken
> nor chosen for artistic merit. Also used the cat - as others seem to
> have done recently - as a subject for some tests. Of course, he woke up
> part way through and moved about, which didn't help. The B&W shots were
> taken either hand held or with a monopod, the colour ones with a tripod.
>
> By chance, I also had a roll (Blacks/Fuji)in my OM2 to finish, so there
> are a couple of comparison shots with the 100/2 on this camera.
>
> Films used were:
> - Ilford FP5 400 ASA, developed and scanned as half-frame (grey scale)
> at local pro shop;
> - Blacks (Fuji) 400 ASA colour negative film, scanned as half-frame
> (Picture CD) by W*lm*rt; and
> - Fuji 200 ASA colour negative film (same process, same W*lm*rt).
>
> Interestingly, the half-frame scans end up being essentially the same
> size (1024x1453 pixels) as the full-frame ones (1024x1544 pixels). To my
> simple brain, this means that the scanners are effectively giving a
> higher resolution scan for half-frame.\
That 100mm is just fine! Great bokeh...
Which lens is it? A Pemn F lens or some other one?
I ask because you said you got an adapter for your Pen F.
anyhow, I like them.
when I get my F up and running, I'll post a few too.
keith whaley
> The photos are as they came from the labs, absolutely no
> post-processing. With the colour film, I'm pleasantly surprised by the
> lack of grain on all the scans (OM and Pen) and the resolution. The
> Ilford, however, is full of grain, though I can remove it in
> post-processing. This assessment is based on looking at them on my
> (cheap) Dell LCD monitor, and not as prints.
>
> Other very subjective observations:
> - the Pen viewfinder is quite bright and focussing is relatively easy
> using OM lenses, though the central microprism area is useless (works
> fine with F lenses);
> - the aperture ring on the Pen lenses moves the other way to the OM
> lenses.....;
> - on my monitor, at least, photos taken using the wide angles (21/3.5.
> 28/2) don't look anything special (especially the 28/2);
> - the 100/2 seems to do equally well on both cameras, as do the longer
> Tamrons (180, 300/2.8);
> - the 135/3.5 also does well (as it does on the Oly digitals); and
> - I like the Pen 70/2 (just acquired as a result of Iwert's subtle but
> effective enabling).
>
> In retrospect, I should also keep better notes on which lenses I used.....
>
> Martin
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|