Last year I bought an Olympus D-620L and several sets of NiMH cells. Their
capacity is amazing -- the camera seems to just keep going and going and going
on a single charge. Nor do the cells rapidly self-discharge. (The NiMHs John
Hermanson put in my motor-drive battery pack went over a year before needing a
recharge.)
I tried the NiMHs in other products, most notably the ITT Magicflash for the
Polaroid SX-70. It has to pump out a lot of light -- about as much as an AG-1
bulb -- which requires a substantial charge. That means a long recycle -- the
Magicflash normally takes about 20 seconds, even with fresh alkaline cells.
With NiMHs, it recycles in 12 seconds!
If anyone is getting worse results with NiMHs than NiCds, Something Is Wrong.
Why do the British call cookies "biscuits" -- they aren't cooked twice. (Of
course, "cookie" could apply to ANY food that's cooked!) Anyhow, the very best
commercial cookie is make by Keebler. It's two thick chocolate cookies with
chocolate "fudge" between them. Forget about Pepperidge Farm Milanos (or
whatever they're called). Too sweet.
Despite the appalling lack of lenses, I have to admit that the Contax N-1 is
the first camera in the past 25 years that might tempt me away from Olympus.
The LCD "previewfinder" is neat. (I predicted this 30 years ago in a letter to
Bert Keppler.) The possibility of a compatible digital back (using a new
Philips sensor) is also attractive.
Pentax is also scheduled to bring out a body using this sensor. Isn't it about
time we started griping to Olympus about the digital OM body we so richly
deserve?
I just saw something about a 16Mp sensor using cheaper CMOS (rather than CCD)
fabrication. It's scheduled to be used in a back for the Hasselblad, in a
three-chip/RGB filter arrangement that should provide truly film-like images.
I enjoyed Doris's over-reaction to my over-reaction. I basically agree -- if
you don't "know your tools," you're not going to get the results you want. I've
also been an audiophile and equipment reviewer for many years -- my "prejudice"
is towards literal accuracy. From a strictly objective (joke intended) point of
view, you might not like the way a lens renders the scene, but a lens can never
be "too contrasty," any more than an amplifier or speaker can be "too
accurate."
The "operating procedures" of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston do not provide a
valid example in this case. Most of their prints were hand-made, with selective
dodging and burning-in that would override any considerations of lens contrast.
There's another aspect to "contrast" that Doris only hinted at. I don't
understand the optical principles involved, but it's possible to design lenses
that have a high MTF for low spatial frequencies, and vice-versa. The lens
looks "contrasty" because the large areas are rendered with full "intensity,"
but the lens lacks detail. It's rather like having an amplifier or speaker with
flat bass and midrange, but rolled-off treble. This aspect of lens contrast has
nothing to do with flare or scattered light, of course.
< 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 >
|