On Fri, 17 Dec 1999, Doug Cooper wrote:
> Optically, the Contax outpeforms the Leica at virtually every focal length
> (with the possible exception of the wildly expensive 100mm macro from
> Leitz).
I found the G2 viewfinder decidedly inferior to the M6 (for that matter,
to M3 & M2 & 4. But that's just my opinion, and I do not want to start
any wars on this matter. It is just a very different camera from the
mechanical M's. The AF lag and lack of true manual focusing also bugged
me. I still consider it a grand camera, and would like to have at least
one and a few lenses, specially that Hologon !
> Olympus seems to offer a lens at every focal length that holds its own,
<snipped paean to OM sharpness>
I also love the 24 focal length, have
three in OM mount. My Nikkor 24/2.8 is also a wonderful lens, all
of them being, IMO, of fully pro quality. We worry too much about
sharpness, and other things. The real question should be: How do these
lenses interface with one's own personal vision ?
Ernst Haas said he used Leitz optics because they weren't too sharp,
much like the human eye. :-)
At the risk of being defrocked as a Zuik Low Priestess,
I'll add that my partisanship to OM is because of the visual flavor of
the lenses and secondarily because of the size and ergonomics of the
hardware.
RFs are a different way of working, not better or worse. Speaking of
Ernst Haas, he even used them in nature shoots. Some of the shots in
his "Creation" book (a simply stunning set of images, IMO, unmatched
to this very day) were with RFs. Whatever makes for more and better
pictures for you is what matters.
*= Doris Fang =*
< 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 >
|