Rambling Joel wrote:
> I'm about to borrow a friend's E-500 for some testing to see if its
> capture is reminiscent of the E-1's with a few pixels to spare. He
> also owns the 510 but I've been enabling his venture into the OM
> system and he's pretty much gotten lost therein. You might get a
> chance to meet him if the Zuikofest cum ribs is on for this weekend.
>
Well, the Zuikofest is Ztill on for Zaturday. Don't know about the ribZ as
my time availabilty during the week is extremely limited thiZZ particular
week. RegardleZZ, I'm quite poZitive that I know how to fire up the barby
and Hyvee is having a meat Zale this week.
BTW, I still haven't been able to contact Tom Scales. Could you see if you
can rattle his door or cause his home landline to ring?
Anybody else coming? We'll have a nice little outing in the Grinnell area.
I've got a couple of locations planned out for aiming the Zuikos at. Hiking
shoes recommended.
However, to qualify for that kind of longevity, I think the camera
> needs the feel and handling of the E-1. My E-330 is probably
> technically superior to the E-1 in terms of capture and it has those
> two lovely LV modes. But held up to the eye, it's just sort of
> tolerable compared to the E-1.
>
LOL, it's all relative. The E-1 is just sort of tolerable compared to the
OM system.
> If you get a chance to score a 50-200, old type or new, at a good
> price, go for it...
Agreed. It's one of the best lenses made for digital from any
manufacturer. it combines reasonable brightness with extremely good
handling and excellent optics. The bokeh characteristics are terrific too.
> All this fits in the commuter bags of my BMW motorrad ("Wow, I didn't know
> BMW made cars too!").
LOL, yeah right. Would you care to explain the presence of "Ol' Blue"?
I have finally found a way to make digital and film work
> together, where the E-3 works as a means to proof some of the things I
> think might work well on film as well as to capture occasionally
> things that I would otherwise miss shooting slide film in particular.
> I might start carrying the DZ 1.4 TC in the digital kit to get a wee
> bit more length now and then, but the 14-54 pretty much gets it all
> done for me.
>
Very similar for me too. The E-1 or A1 is used for proofing and the OM
system does the heavy lifting. The 14-54 does a fine job for event work and
general purpose photography but just lacks that "Zuikoness" that I love
about my old lenses. Speaking of event photography, the 35-80 has really
served extremely well and is everything* *I expected and hoped and it
functions as a terrific 70-160/2.8 zoom (35f equivalent) on the E-1. Yet,
the lens-camera combination I really find most comfortable is the OM with
35/2.8. I can shoot all day with that setup. Someday, I'd like to try the
28/2 as a one-lens solution as 35mm just isn't wide-enough when working
close and 24mm is too wide, but in the meantime, the 35/2.8 seems to be the
near-perfect balance of lens size, weight and performance while sitting
comfortably on an OM body.
The E-3 is such a pleasure to use that its relative size and weight is
> not a deterrent. I'm really hooked on the viewfinder in particular,
> but I need to work harder on figuring out my base settings.
I continue to maintain my "Amish Approach" to the E-3. Every few weeks I
get to fondle one and I know just how nice it is, but I'm very quick to
return it to the owner so I don't develop too much lust.
> I brought along the PL, thinking it would improve my photos. Well, it
> does and it doesn't. It really improves clouds and sky, but it so
> flattens foreground plants that it almost appears to mess with color.
>
Was this with that big 72mm PL that you bought in Des Moines? Mine has been
pretty similar, but my old 49mm polarizer seems to be just fine.
> I was actually kind of disappointed with a couple shots on digital
> with PL that I think will be OK on film with PL. I just think that's
> kind of weird, but I guess we have to remember that a sensor is not
> the same as film. In practical terms, I'm still learning what that
> amounts to. I see it working in a more nuanced (i.e., trickier) way
> with ND grad split filters as well as PLs.
>
I'm equally dismayed with my results of polarized digital images. It's
something that I've fought and remain flummoxed. Maybe we can figure this
out this weekend.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|