Let's see if I get this. You venture out to do *field macro* work in
the honkin' wind. You've got an OM-3Ti and a 35-80/2.8 zoom. And
you're wondering about a Leica rangefinder film camera? You mean one of
those things with inappropriate viewfinder, serious parallax error and
even slower flash sync than the OM-3Ti.
Umm... I think your brain cogs have slipped a tooth or two.
Chuck Norcutt
On 5/16/2011 10:37 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> This recent discussion about doing the minimalist equipment packing had me
> thinking over the weekend. Those of you on facehook may have seen the two
> pictures I posted last night. One of some Blue Phlox and another of a
> railroad crossing gate. Both were taken with the Panasonic L1 with Zuiko
> 35-80. (I'd post the links here, but I'd rather not deal with the grousing
> from the facelessbook crowd).
>
> Yesterday, I went for a several hour hike. It has rained so much that it was
> a slippery, gooey mess and I grew an inch in height from the clay packed on
> the soles of my hiking boots. My choice in gear wasn't all that compact. I
> had in mind to do some experimentation so I had a field macro configuration
> in the bag along with a pair of Vivitar 285HV flashes and modifiers. The
> wind was honkin so I knew that any macro photography would have to be with
> flash and I was most certainly correct about that. But the weight of the
> kit, combined with my back-pain conspired to make it a rather uncomfortable
> hike.
>
> So, as is usual when out hiking with cameras, (the cameras are usually an
> excuse to get out and hike), I think about cameras and photography. I
> thought about a Leica kit. If I purchased Leicas, what would be my preferred
> lenses to get? Probably the 35, 50 and 90 focal lengths. Maybe a 28 or 24.
> Would I get a digital Leica? Oh, mamma, yes. If the funds would allow. But
> not with my finances the way they are right now. So, I like film, so maybe a
> film Leica would do? Sure, no problem. If I had a Leica I could shoot B&W
> and be happy.
>
> OK, OK, so I'm rambling...Hey, this is my post, I'll ramble if I want to.
>
> On Saturday, I used the OM-3Ti along with the L1 for some archetechural
> pictures. It never ceases to amaze me how blasted easy it is to focus the
> OM-3Ti. There is absolute confidence in focus and the IMAX view through the
> viewfinder is inspiring, to say the least. The metering system is completely
> opposite of the guesswork system we have with digital too. Score one for the
> OM.
>
> For several pictures, over the weekend, I sought to do best possible working
> methods to maximize image sharpness. Well, within reason, that is. The Zuiko
> 35-80 is a fine lens, but I've had plenty of pictures which were not sharp.
> What's up with dat? Turns out, the problem has nothing to do with the lens,
> but everything to do with technique. Anytime I can stop camera or subject
> motion, the image quality goes up dramatically. The 5.6um pixel pitch of the
> L1's sensor was pretty much maxed out by the lens. The E-1 masks the lens
> resolution so much with the hyper-active AA filter that you really have no
> clue how sharp things are, but the L1 is a bit more brutal and remains one
> of the edgier sensors around.
>
> If I do my math correctly, as the 35-80 zoom is at least as sharp as the
> L1's sensor, I think that pretty much reflects the limits of almost any
> reasonably usable film. So, inotherwords, the 35-80 bests film. Score one
> for the Zuiko.
>
> Back to the Leica question: I would expect to get 35mm and 90mm lenses.
> Granted, formfactor of the lenses is much diffrent than the 35-80/2.8 and
> I'd probably want the F2 versions (or 1.4 of the 35mm--dream dream dream),
> but overall, I'd be looking at an almost pure overlap of the 35-80 with the
> Leica lenses. For film photography, the question is: If all of these lenses
> max out what film can capture, then is there any gain from one over the
> other?
>
> An age-old question, for sure. One that open up many cans of worms, but
> suffice to say that the OM-3Ti and 35-80/2.8 really are in an unique
> position as together they represent a "best of format" configuration.
> Granted, they aren't "better" than a Leica or Nikon equivalent, but at some
> point they have attained maturity of design AND have exceeded the limits of
> the medium.
>
> So, to bring this back around to a point. Oh, screw the point, can't I just
> ramble once in a while?
>
> OK, OK, the point to all this is that a person could do rather nicely if
> he/she had JUST the OM-3Ti and 35-80/2.8 zoom.
>
> For the upcoming trip, this summer, I ask myself if I could be so bold as to
> take ONLY the OM-3Ti, 35-80/2.8 and B&W film? Nothing else except the tripod
> and filters? No digital, no color. Just the B&W film?
>
> Hmm....
>
> AG Schnozz
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|