>> >Of course one should keep in mind that a modern OM with 50/1.2 and a
>>>modern fast 35mm film would be smaller, lighter, faster, and produce
>>>a better image.
>>>--
>>>Winsor Crosby
>>>Long Beach, California
>>>
>>
>>Not necessarily - it was medium format and had a rather good lens I believe
>>- basically, a compact body built around a very special lens.
>>AndrewF
>>
>
>Are you serious? You think the medium format camera was smaller,
>lighter, faster than an OM F1.2? You don't think high technology35mm
>film with stacked crystal technology and uniform thickness can
>capture with less light what was captured by an emulsion spread by
>hand on a glass plate? You don't think you could improve on the
>example images or even most medium format images from the 20's with
>an APS camera? Sorry, but it is hard for me to believe someone could
>have such a technological marvel as a modern camera and not
>appreciate it for what it is.
>--
>Winsor Crosby
Winsor -
This thread was about compact medium format cameras! Try as it might, my
OM2n with a 50/1.2 although light, fast and small won't produce an MF
negative. As to glass plates - have you seen the quality of some of the
images produced?
Oh, and I saw an object of desire advertised the other day for around $1200
- Plaubel Makina wide version, Nikkor lens. Last of the rangefinder
folders?
AndrewF
< 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 >
|