Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Now I remember why... (somewhat wedding equipment off topic - lo

Subject: [OM] Now I remember why... (somewhat wedding equipment off topic - long)
From: "Ken Norton" <image66@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 11:23:42 -0500
(Warning This post is long and somewhat off topic for most Oly people, so
cruise on if you have no interest in any medium format discussion)

Saturday I went down to St. Louis to take a look at some MF equipment and
also to buy flash equipment and meter to replace what was stolen.

I've been kicking myself and wondering why I ever sold my MF equipment
several years ago.  I had a Mamiya 645j that was in mint condition and also
a Mamiya C220 (with wide, normal and telephoto lenses) in mint condition
too.  Well, since I've taken on wedding photography again, I've been needing
to get another MF camera.  Unfortunately the prices on them have doubled (if
not tripled) over the last few years.  But, with some insurance money
burning a hole in my wallet, I cruise on down to the shops and do some
serious comparitive shopping.  But in the process, I remembered just why I
got rid of the MF equipmnt.

At Schiller's I do a side-by-side comparison of the 645's by Mamiya, Pentax,
and Bronica with a Hassleblad and my OM-1 and OM-2s for points of reference.
I guess it wasn't totally fair to bring my Olympus cameras into the store,
but I just love tweeking the camera store geeks that always try to tell you
that you are NOTHING unless you are shooting Nikon F5s and Mamiya RZ-67's
and have $3000 in studio lights and have at least a Minolta 4F and $800
handheld spot meter.  I may be NOTHING, but at least my photo business is
debt free and I'm able to make sellable images and my clients aren't
complaining and doing it longer than he can imagine.

Ok, off the high horse now...

For my tests, We matched every camera as closely as possible to each other.
That meant 80/2.8 lenses on everything (35-70/2.8 zoom and 100/2.8 on the
Olympus cameras for comparision), grips, and eye level finders (with
corrective optics when available).

The Bronica had the greatest magnification in the viewfinder.  The image was
very large.  Unfortunately, it was also very difficult to see the entire
image at one time too.  Unless your eyeball was almost touching the glass
you had a hard time seeing the full image.  The focus screens were pleasing
to look at and the split prism in the center didn't "grab" my vision like
the Mamiya did.  An all-matte version of the focus screen was very good and
I liked it the best of all the MF focus screens I looked at Saturday.
Light-loss in the viewfinder was substantial and appeared to be at least 2
stops lower than the OM-1 with 1-4 screen.  Focusing was mildly difficult as
the dim screen didn't have much "snap" to it.  Feel and balance of the
camera was good, but the noise level woke the dead.  The Bronica felt good
when held for verticals.  Is it me, or does the camera feel like it is
twisting in your hand during an exposure?  Film loading was best.

The Mamiya 645 had a lousy feeling focus ring in comparison to any other MF
camera.  It was stiffer and less comfortable to use.  I checked out every
other Mamiya 645 lens, both new and used, and they were always stiffer than
any other make.  The viewfinder image was much smaller than the Bronica and
was only slightly brighter.  The finder screen was extremely distracting
with huge circles of focusing aides in the middle.  I had this screen on
mine and I hated it!  My wife and Baby acted as my "models" for the in-store
testing and I couldn't get them in focus most of the time.  Trying to focus
on anything quickly was nearly impossible (in comparison to the others).
The viewfinder bokah was aweful.  For the MF camera I'm most familiar with,
I was most disappointed in it.  Noise was lower than the Bronica and similar
to the Hassleblad.  Film loading was typical Mamiya, different, but doable.
Feel and balance was good, because I'm used to it.  Firing the Mamiya feels
like a Harley-Davidson.  Fortunately, most of the shock and vibration is
AFTER the exposure, but still it is rough feeling in comparison to the
others.

The Pentax 645 (non-AF) is the "wonderbrick" of MF cameras.  It is a MF
equivelent to the IS-1 with program modes, auto exposures, built-in motor
drive, etc.  The focusing screen is BRIGHT.  Well, actually, it's about the
same as the 1-series OM screens.  Unfortunately, what would be a perfect
viewfinder is marred by the fact that your eye has to be precisely centered
on the viewfinder (similar to using binoculars).  The corrective optics in
the Pentax were the best.  The focus screen's split image was decent and
usable without distracting the eye.  The Bokah was unusual but tracking my
"models" was very easy.  The image "snaps" when in focus.  The image was
similar to that of my new 2-4 screen, just not as bright.  The Pentax didn't
hold as well as the Bronica for verticals and the viewfinder's pickyness was
a pain as there wasn't anyplace to stabalize your face against the camera.
Film loading in ALL SLR-MF cameras is a pain and the Pentax is still no
exception.  I dislike inserts and someday when I'm king of the world, I'll
ban them all to Mars.  Overall, I liked the Pentax the best, and if I ever
get a 645 again, it will be a Pentax or a Bronica.

The Hassleblad 500C/M was used for comparison, and I must say that it
focused the easiest as the image jumped out at you when it was in focus.
The tonal range in the viewfinder was most pleasing and Bokah was great.
None of the screens tested were Beaties, but I wouldn't hesitate to grab
this camera if I could have afforded it.  The lens ergonomics of the
Hassleblads are wonderful.  That all said, Karen thought it looked quite
ugly and "art-deco."  But she did say that it didn't look as "evil" as the
RB67.

The store had a Mamiya 7 so I asked to look at it.  The ergonomics of this
camera are excellent and the viewfinder is bright.  Film loading is a breeze
and the whole camera was basically an oversized Leica.  The focus spot is a
bit too bright though and the frame lines move so agressively across the
viewfinder during focusing that it can be distracting at first.  I ratcheted
through several exposures and you literally couldn't hear the shutter at all
in the store.  We didn't even know it worked unless you were staring into
the lens when firing.  This camera felt as light as the OM cameras.  One
idiot salesperson said that you would have to be a moron to get a
rangefinder camera.  I asked him how often he flash syncs his Mamiya 645 at
1/1000 of a second.  That shut him up for a minute.

The result of this trip is that I'm purchasing a Mamiya Press (Super-23)
with 6x7 film back from an individual in LA.  The Super-23 has full swings
and tilts built into the back and a ground-glass focusing screen besides the
normal rangefinder viewfinder.  This is a heavy camera, and large, but
should meet and exceed my requirements for a MF camera.  If I like this
camera enough, I'll get a 50mm lens and 6x9 back for it!

I realize that I'm most familiar with my OM's, but during the testing, I
picked up my OM-1 and ask the question:  "Why can't the 645's be as good as
this?"  The arrogant saleperson responded, that my OM's were trashy P&S
cameras in comparison.   I ended up going over to City Photo to buy the
flash meter and flash equipment.  His comment cost him over $500 in sales
Saturday!

BTW, I also looked closely at the Nikon F5.  For some reason it doesn't seem
as impressive in person.  It's big, heavy, and requires a Masters Degree in
computers to figure out how to turn it on.  I would love to have one, but
I'd have to keep the OM's to actually take pictures with.  The Nikon F3
looked like a tiny toy in comparison.

Ken Norton


< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz