Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [OM] Re: Old Zuikos sharper than new Canon Zooms?

Subject: RE: [OM] Re: Old Zuikos sharper than new Canon Zooms?
From: Marc Lawrence <mlawrence@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Apr 2002 20:04:02 +1000
> Stephen Scharf [mailto:scharfsj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> Mike, I think you're right, it was a consumer level 28-70, 
> not a premier zoom.

Sorry mate - my presumption came from the fact that it was
an EOS 3. This is Canon's second to top-level body (and
accordingly pricey), and I presumed that if he was using
a 28-70, it would have also have been the wellknown (amonst
EOS users) L-series (as mentioned, also pricey). I don't
think the 28-70 consumer (ie. relatively cheap) is even
made any more (they've had a 35-80 and 28-80, and now
28-90 for a while). Very few of them have any halfway
decent reputation (the 28-105 and the 28-135IS arguable
have good rep's).

Sounds like your mate did what I did - spend good money
on a perceived half-decent body, and not so much on the
lens (no offence to your mate meant - purely presumption
on my part). Shame I learnt that after my purchase too. 
That's one of my reasons for venturing into OM territory -
affordable, more compact, quality (build and optics)
lenses.

> More to the point (which no one seems to have picked
> up on) was that I think he is getting interested in OM
> cameras and lenses now, having seen my photos.
> I think he is wondering why he bought this 
> wonderbrick with the quality of photos he's seeing from it.

Well, that was sort of the implication behind my EOS-for-
zooms and OM-for-primes comment. To get similar quality
from my EOS, and certainly if I want to do it with zooms,
I'm going to, and obviously your mate too, be spending a
fair whack money on my/his EOS (though there still might
be a 70-200 2.8 IS L somewhere in my future, [crosses
fingers, wishes on stars, hugs a loved one more as
it gets closer to my birthday]).

To get quality from my OM1 is going to cost significantly
less buying primes, and check out size and weight a 135 2.8
against a 28-70 2.8 L or 70-200 2.8 (not a fair comparo
against the other benefits of zooms, but for me, when I
look at price and convenience - that is, size - OM's a
better and less wishfull option. That, and Zuiko lenses
ain't exactly hard to love).

I reckon your mate might fall for the OM. I'm still
trying to figure out what appeals so much about it to
me, and why I like the OM1 with 50mm lens combination
more than the EOS 50E with 50mm lens combination. It's
not size (I actually like the 50E better for size, and
even more so with the battery-pack on the bottom), it's
not weight (I think they're similar). I'm starting to think
something which would seem counterintuitive to many
(thinking modern camera owners including myself), that
it's the manualfocus (both viewfinder setup and "feel" of
manual focus ring of lens). For some not quite rational
reason, my photos with the OM combo are better (and I'm
talking composition) than the EOS, and that makes no sense
whatsover to me. Am I hitting an irrational (as in,
emotional and creative) unforeseen benefit of working
with something more manual, or self-chosen? Is the more
manual process more agreeable to the "creative" process?

I don't know. Clearly though, I'm missing my in-for-
a-service OM1. [sigh]

Cheers
Marc (who's also clearly in a talking-too-much-had-a
few-drinks-after-softball mood)
Sydney, Oz

< 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