More film love.
The mention of Ctein and missed opportunities to pick up OM gear on the
same Post reminded me that UPI mandated all staffers use OMs.
When tjey closed the DC bureau they tons of lenses and all kinds of
accessories, too.
Sadly, with a kid at Oberlin, all I could afford was a half dozen leather
lens cases... MT of course.
Think I paid 50 cents a piece. Maybe less. Bodies and lenses had the same
markdown ratio.
Wawawa😥
Would I do differently today?
Probably not.😘
On Mar 27, 2017 1:20 AM, "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 3/25/2017 10:48 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
>> ContraMoose wrote:
>>
>>> Gotta disagree, dood. The E-3 and 5 just weren't good enough beyond the
>>> faithful.
>>>
>> I think that is what I said, albeit rather clumsily.
>>
>
> It didn't translate in here.
>
> Had Olympus put a decent sensor in the E-3,
>>
>
> I have wondered if some of Brian's trouble with highlights might lay at
> the door of limited DR on his E-3. I looked at some E-3 samples, against
> others (5D?), and they just didn't measure up.
>
> it would have clobbered the universe.
>>
>
> Was the world ready to believe that the smaller sensor size was up to
> their (imagined) needs? There's a gap out in the marketplace and
> blogosphere between legend, imagined truths and the nuts and bolts of
> making photos.
>
> But
>> you can't play in the pro photography realm with a sensor that just
>> isn't competitive. The E-3 is excellent at many things, but going
>> head-to-head with a 5D series camera isn't one of them. But the lenses
>> that Olympus did create were absolutely wonderful, dollar-for-dollar,
>> against the competition. But we were saddled with substandard cameras.
>> Hmm. History did repeat itself.
>>
>
> Is this true? I don't think the OM-(T(i)) was substandard, when it came
> out. At a modest price in time, it finally cured the aperture vibration
> yips. Remember, it had the only really capable TTL-OTF flash. OTOH, looking
> back, I think the lenses, overall, were generally not best in class, being
> slightly compromised in favor of the compact model. Some are certainly up
> there.
>
> In any case, spending to create the superb 4/3 pro lenses shows a serious
> schizophrenia in Oly at the time.
>
>> My opinion is that 4/3 was already terminal, in the marketplace, but for
>>> the
>>> shouting and hand wringing, before µ4/3 debuted. Fortunately, they made
>>> the
>>> move before it was too late for them in the camera business.
>>>
>> Actually, I think it was too late. They really only had about a year
>> jump on Fuji and Sony. Sure, O/P had multiple cameras before that
>> time, but they were "toy" cameras, not professional or enthusiast
>> cameras.
>>
>
> As above, as much perception as hard fact reality. Those who looked only
> at actual performance would find them fully pro for many uses. Ctein was a
> super early convert who makes his living from photography and sold lots of
> prints from his E-P1. I have two of his 17x22" (image area 15x20) prints
> from the E-P1. The first is a spectacularly sharp and detailed shot of the
> SF Bay Bridge and moon, several years old. The second is a brand new IR
> image, taken with the E-P1 after conversion to dedicated IR camera.
>
> But I do agree that the buying public wasn't ready to believe.
>
> It pains me to say this, but there really isn't a m4/3 camera
>> that has more than a passing interest for me.
>>
>
> Wait until they are obsolete, then you will love them. ;-)
>
> When I do go mirrorless, it's either Sony or Fuji or heaven-forbid, Canon.
>> (when they
>> eventually get it together).
>>
>
> I am curious why. Not about Sony, I have an A7 for FFFun.
>
> I don't get the Fuji thing. When folks were posting all over the place
> about the superiority of the Fujis with 16 MP sensors, I looked closely,
> and I couldn't find it. Compared to the 16 MP µ4/3 sensors at the time,
> there didn't seem to my, possibly inferior, eye, any superior
> non-measurable rendering superiority. No DR or noise advantage.
>
> I took DPR studio Raw shots and stacked them in layers in PS, so I could
> flip instantly back and forth.There were differences in fine detail, but
> really subtle; nothing that would ever show in a web sized image or print
> of even enormous size. My conclusion was that each very slightly bested the
> other on particular parts of the test frame, with Oly maybe having a v.
> slight overall edge.
>
> As to the new generation, remember the format difference. Nominal height
> resolution is 6000 for 24 MP Fuji, vs. 5184 for 29 MP Oly. A 16% increase
> in linear resolution is below the visible threshold when not pixel peeping.
>
> Then, Fujis are "just" god competent cameras. Oly has spectacular IBIS, an
> amazing HR mode and wonderfully powerful and useful focus bracketing. One
> may simply do many photographic things with them that can't be done with
> any other brand.
>
> They have allowed me to do thing that I've wanted, but couldn't do since I
> was a kid in a B&W darkroom.
>
> Yet I have three Four-Thirds bodies that aren't going anywhere. In
>> fact, I'll take advantage of the abandoned system like I did with the
>> OM system and acquire a couple more lenses for it. I really want a
>> 14-54 Mk2 and the PanaLeica 14-150. But I'm spending all my money on
>> school right now.
>>
>>
>> I don't know how it will play out, but with the E-M1 II, they've taken
>>> another big step forward, bringing overall speed and AF into full
>>> competitiveness with all but the monster pro DSLRs.
>>>
>> AF performance and speed is a constant moving target. Where it is
>> right now is excellent for all but the rarest of applications. If I'm
>> a NFL Super Bowl game from down at the line, I'd be renting the best
>> Canon bodies and lenses from LensRentals.
>>
>
> Yup, of course. But how many of us are doing that, or anything even nearly
> comparable? Ctein's test is close up and personal Roller Derby (really?).
> But it will be months before those results are in.
>
> The point is that they have joined the top tier, and are now faster than
> all but the mega size/$ cameras.
>
>
>> The people I think may have lost their minds are the µMF/FF+ makers.
>>> Depends
>>> a lot on whether their sales projections are realistic or not, I suppose.
>>> Lots of sound and fury on the fora and blogs, but what kind of sales will
>>> that turn out to be?
>>>
>> I think you are referring to the new breed of mirrorless medium
>> formats? I'm actually a little surprised at one brand that is missing
>> from the list. It's been my understanding that a certain "much loved
>> brand" here on the list had this in development since 2007.
>>
>
> I sure hope Oly doesn't jump into an already overcrowded segment now, late.
>
> Sizeable Moose
>
> --
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|