I wrote:
> Can you imagine what the photo would have been like
> if it was a MC lens?
John L. wrote:
> there's nothing wrong with the silver-schnoz glass you're
> using! FWIW I don't believe MC vs SC makes as much
> difference in the longer, simpler prime lenses (5-6
> elements)
That was, precisely, my point. I doubt that there would have
been any visible difference between the two. There are times
that I would have preferred having a less flare-prone lens
(especially in 24mm), but I have tended to be much more careful
about flare by shielding the lens with my hand when necessary.
For these two shots, flare wasn't even a remote problem.
> BTW, the "painting" quality the opening image has to
> it is beautiful (is it just the digital scan or does the
> original show that?).
The original is georgous. Digital scans (especially beginning
efforts) don't do it justice. I must rescan this slide (Velvia)
to recapture the colors AND the original framing. This was
scanned for a background image for projection systems. You
should see what it looks like on a 12 foot screen with a 3000
lumin projector! The flower shot is getting an additional
week's "showing". The water shot people looked at and thought it
was brocoli. Oh well, the hazards of abstract.
The "painting" effect in the water is especially unique. Can't
say that I've ever achieved that before. Typically, my water
shots are in the 30 second range, but this one was just short
enough to let the bubbles create this texture in the water. I'm
anxious to scan and post the entire series of photographs taken
down at that spring. There is a 24mm shot (taken in both TMAX
and Velvia) to die for. Don't know if digital will do it
justice.
> I've been impressed with the bokeh that can be extracted from
> the 85/2, 135/2.8 and 200/4. I've used all three with
> extension tubes for macros,
I've seen and played with the 85/2 a little and will agree that
the bokeh is creamy. I'd get one, but it pretty much duplicates
my 100/2.8. I looked through Joel's 135/2.8 and was impressed,
but alas, it was MC. I'll stick with the 100/2.8 as it splits
the difference between 85 and 135. I've always enjoyed the
200/4 for macro and I dug through the files looking for some
older shots worthy of sharing (we'll see... I've improved a lot
since then).
As far as the question about a digital camera missing something.
Absolutely. Velvia in 35mm is capable of "storing"
substantially more data than today's best scanning technology
(even drum scanners) could ever hope to get from it. I know all
the arguments about film resolution vs pixel size, but pixel
count and grain isn't the whole story.
Regarding digital cameras: Frankly, I've been looking at these
"brag photos" taken with the ES-10, and think that most of these
"best efforts" would be my throwaways. I guess I have different
expectations in terms of sharpness, color and contrast. I
despise color fringing and it pains me when I have to scan a
photo that results in it, but when digital cameras produce
fringing on anything of extreme contrast as a matter of
course...
Guess I'll wait a little longer--at least until they come out
with a silver-nosed, single-coated lens for the digital cameras.
Then, I would know that it's good enough for me.
BTW, thanks for the compliments.
Ag-Schnozz
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
< 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 >
|