OK, I've read a lot of articles on this topic this week, and most I
agree with; from my personal experience, this is what I have noticed
(from greatest influence to least)
1. Tripod!! ~ The pictures off a tripod (good heavy one, not the
toothpick ones) are stunning.
2. Shade!! ~ I had taken a few pics with a friend holding a screen
over me and my lens, MUCH better color saturation from the pictures then
the same shot, without shade. I suspect that a lens shade does that also..
3. 1/focal length violation ~ I find that with the exception of my
28mm, this rule works very well, anything below it and you can visably
tell quality degradation due to handshake (tripod's not withstanding)
4. Lens. ~ Yep, surprised the hell out of me, but most lenses that are
prime from a decent brand is generally of good quality. I don't own a
zoom, and so I can't speak for them. But on a tripod with good metering
and good screening from stray light, my Zuiko's performed very well
against Minolta's and Leicas. Absolutely no visible difference at 4x6.
So I guess a good tripod is essential as far as where to spend the money.
5. Filter ~ I had a bad filter before and it really tweaked the clarity
of the picture
6. Mirror lockup ~ Less vibration is always a good thing right?
7. Film ~ Reala or Provia. 'nuff said. The Kodak Gold 200,400 is TRASH.
These things said, the lens I thought would be very very high up on the
list, but it's not. That's said, I'm very happy with my Zuikos.
Albert
< 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 >
|