On 5/7/10 3:22 PM, "Dawid Loubser" <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The rational side of my brain says "true, true" - but the other side
> of my brain
> has seen how fanatical camera "collectors" can get.
>
> It's clear now that Chris, for example, has placed me (and all other
> OM-3Ti
> fans / owners) in that category, but I simply want the best OM body I
> can get
> for MY needs, and I really don't want a battery-dependent camera for
> where I plan
> to take it, nor do I enjoy auto-exposure (then I may as well have
> stayed with
> a digital SLR with a much better auto-exposure system to begin with).
I was talking about the people who would pay for the one on ebay; you got a
much better deal from John. I think you wasted your money though, and here's
why: You said in a previous post that you wanted it for taking pictures with
less vibration than the OM1 gives because the site that has all the OM lens
tests showed the OM-1 gave less sharp results than an OM-4 or 4T that was
also used for the tests. Here's the thing: The OM-4/4T gave less vibration
because the guy doing the tests used the self timer, which locks the mirror
up and stops down the lens 10 or 12 seconds before the shutter fires. The
OM-3/3Ti DOES NOT HAVE A SELF TIMER. Now if that wasn't a factor and you
just wanted it for the bragging rights, and you had the money, then you got
a good deal.
You know what 35mm camera I have used that gives the absolute least
vibration? I have a Nikon F4 that I got in high school. Its big, heavy, and
I rarely use it anymore, but the shutter makes NO vibration, even with the
mirror slap. It offers mirror lock up but I don't think it really makes much
difference. The F4 shutter had a metal balancer that moved the opposite
direction of the shutter blades to counteract the movement so the camera
doesn't vibrate! Its really neat and it works. The Oms vibrate horribly, as
does my Leica. They produce pictures as sharp as the Nikon does, but if I
did macro work the Nikon would probably win out.
You may well find that it does little better than the OM-1, and I consider
the OM-3Ti to be a pretty battery dependent camera. The whole reason for
buying it or its cousin, the OM-4T, is the metering system. No battery = no
meter.
>
> But I am dead serious. If I had the extra money, I would buy that new
> in box
> sample, store it for 10 years, and put it on the Japanese market. I
> think
> one would make a heck of a lot of money, and it's got nothing to do with
> "reason".
I'd not invest money that way. I would make FAR more by buying a camera and
actually USING it, like God and Mr. Maitani intended, and selling the prints
that come from it. You spend $2000 on that overpriced camera and if the
economy doesn't totally collapse, you might double or triple your money in
10 yrs. Last year I sold $7000 worth of prints. The investment in cameras to
use was a FAR better investment than any collector camera. I carry a 35mm
camera everywhere I go, and my cameras show it in their appearance.
>
> Do you think the guy that runs the "Red Book Aid Nikkor" site actually
> *uses* his Ultra-Micro Nikkors? I have seen equally fanatical Olympus
> OM collectors. We're a mild bunch, the real fanatics don't belong to
> lists
> like these.
>
> Anyway, just a thought... The auction ended, one bid, so somebody did
> actually buy it for $2000. I bet you that same person would just as
> easily
> have paid $2500.
>
> I might be wrong.
>
> Dawid
>
>
--
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-424-0897
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|