> Yes it will (still be cool). Especially if you make analogue prints in
> the darkroom.
I figure I'll eventually do an NSURIT and get my MFA at about the
perfect time for analog photography to be the in thing. (like an MFA
would ever be in my future--I don't even have an AA; see previous
posts about ADHD).
> I have shot almost exclusively B&W film for a couple of
> years now, and the tones are, and will forever remain, very different
> to any digital monochrome image I have yet seen. If you value this look
> as I do, there is no point in *not* using cool old analogue equipment
> to make analogue prints.
I'm so close to that myself. DIgital for the paid work, B&W film
exclusively for my own personal work. There is far too much personal
desire in that arena that has to be fulfilled. Yet, at some point I
might just say "bye" to the paid work. Or not.
> The F and the M3 each have some really sexy aspects...
> Still, when I pick up my OM-3Ti again and when I print images from the
> negatives, there is a "sum of the parts are greater than the whole"
> thing going on. I really like this stuff, flaws and all.
You've named the three iconic cameras from the great era of 35mm film
photography. The Nikon F (the entire series) represents the best of
SLR. The M3 (entire M series, with the exception of the M5) represents
the best of rangefinder. The Olympus OM (the entire single-digit
series) represents the best blend of the two. If you are looking for
the best SLR, it won't be Olympus. If you are looking for the best
camera for rangefinder style shooting, it won't be Olympus. If you are
looking for an SLR that shoots like a rangefinder or a rangefinder
that shoots like an SLR, the Olympus filled that role.
Preaching to the choir here, but the real joy of the OM system was
really less so the bodies. Frankly, there are far too many compromises
for the bodies to be competitive even against its peers. Flash sync
was too slow, aperture vibration, lack of some advanced features and a
general downgrade in overall ruggedness. I love the OM-3Ti and OM-4T
bodies for what they are and do, but do recognize that they aren't
always the best first-grab cameras for every application. A Nikon F
series camera was usually the most complete multi-purpose camera
available. No, the bodies are great, but always a compromise.
The real joy of the OM system is the incredible series of lenses. Not
to diminish the brilliance of the OM-3Ti or OM-4T, but the lenses are
the true legacy. With rare exceptions, the size of the lenses is
closer to that of Leica lenses than Nikon F-series lenses. The overall
quality of the lenses is simply astounding with several of them being
pure standouts that fall far inside the category of "legends". The
50/3.5, if it had "Leica" stamped on it instead of "Olympus" would be
astronomically priced. The 100/2 would be totally unobtainable. There
is nothing comparable to the 250/2. The 35-80/2.8 has no equal.
>From an image rendering perspective, nearly all Zuikos tend to
"express an opinion". I would not consider them to be "neutral" or
"transparent". Hardly! Zuikos will taint the image with all sorts of
unusual characteristics--some people would consider them "flaws" which
color the image and taint the accuracy. Well, I say "taint away" as I
find that it's these design flaws which apply a stylitic process to
the image. Think of it as the "Zuiko Plugin" for Photoshop.
I would consider the Z-Falls picture (Bond Falls) to be a shot that
really needed the OM Zuikos to pull off. I've seen many versions of
this shot--some otherwise absolutely identical, but mine have a
different look which I blame (praise) on the lenses. Especially, the
100/2.8.
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/
|