OK, this might be a long one. I think it's most your historically
repeated coupling of a term like "bragging rights" with the 3Ti
which forces me to elaborate a bit, although I'm not sure it'll help:
On 07 May 2010, at 9:48 PM, Chris Crawford wrote:
> You said in a previous post that you wanted it for taking pictures
> with
> less vibration than the OM1 gives because the site that has all the
> OM lens
> tests showed the OM-1 gave less sharp results than an OM-4 or 4T
> that was
> also used for the tests. Here's the thing: The OM-4/4T gave less
> vibration
> because the guy doing the tests used the self timer, which locks the
> mirror
> up and stops down the lens 10 or 12 seconds before the shutter
> fires. The
> OM-3/3Ti DOES NOT HAVE A SELF TIMER. Now if that wasn't a factor and
> you
> just wanted it for the bragging rights, and you had the money, then
> you got
> a good deal.
Hi Chris,
You make good points, for sure. I understand that Gary Reese used self
timer / mirror
lockup for his test shots, but for any kind of non-static subject,
that's not all
that useful.
For those types of situation, I rely (and intend to rely even more) on
Macro
flash, after receiving the beautiful Macro flashes from Clay last
year. I love
using the OM-2n for flash work, but am very frustrated by the "henry
ford"
style of shutter speed choice it, and the OM-4, provides: You can have
any
speed, as long as it's 1/60.
I specifically want more control over background brightness,
especially with
high-magnification Macro (1/60s will pretty much always be pitch black
when
you're using the 20mm Macro) - and I don't have 4 flashes and the
necessary cords
to fully artificially light my scenes fully.
I find it interesting that you think that I would obtain a 3Ti for
bragging
rights, in this era where almost nobody knows what film is anymore.
Heck, almost
nobody knows what a Leica is, never mind an extremely obscure Olympus
body.
Who am I going to brag to? Do you think I also obtained the 250/2.0
for bragging
rights?
I gave up a ~$10,000 Canon EOS system to get into the OM system, is it
wrong of
me to want the best that this (discontinued) system offers, in order
to realise
my photographic vision? Well anyway, we each do things for our own
reasons.
I spend every week-end in the darkroom.
> You know what 35mm camera I have used that gives the absolute least
> vibration? I have a Nikon F4 that I got in high school. Its big,
> heavy, and
> I rarely use it anymore, but the shutter makes NO vibration, even
> with the
> mirror slap. It offers mirror lock up but I don't think it really
> makes much
> difference. The F4 shutter had a metal balancer that moved the
> opposite
> direction of the shutter blades to counteract the movement so the
> camera
> doesn't vibrate! Its really neat and it works. The Oms vibrate
> horribly, as
> does my Leica. They produce pictures as sharp as the Nikon does, but
> if I
> did macro work the Nikon would probably win out.
Probably, yes. However, true high-magification Macro work makes up 1% of
my photography, and an OM body in a human hand is supremely dampened,
certainly the only Nikon I've handled that's smoother than my OM-1
"in-hand" is an F6 (that thing is amazing). But it's also 2x the volume,
and the lenses are often massive.
You obviously decided to purchase a Leica M4 for a reason. I almost went
down that same route, but decided on an OM-3Ti instead for my "one 35mm
body". The OM-1 could *almost* make me happy forever, but there are a
couple
of things on the 3Ti which will address that.
> You may well find that it does little better than the OM-1, and I
> consider
> the OM-3Ti to be a pretty battery dependent camera. The whole reason
> for
> buying it or its cousin, the OM-4T, is the metering system. No
> battery = no
> meter.
I really don't care about the meter. I am a 100% incident metering
guy. If I could buy a mechanically excellent 3Ti with dead electronics
for
$500 I probably would. I want the best mechanical shutter Maitani and
his
team ever made, and I want that small, robust body, and I want the
viewfinder,
and I want 1/2000s.
> I'd not invest money that way. I would make FAR more by buying a
> camera and
> actually USING it, like God and Mr. Maitani intended, and selling
> the prints
> that come from it. You spend $2000 on that overpriced camera and if
> the
> economy doesn't totally collapse, you might double or triple your
> money in
> 10 yrs. Last year I sold $7000 worth of prints. The investment in
> cameras to
> use was a FAR better investment than any collector camera. I carry a
> 35mm
> camera everywhere I go, and my cameras show it in their appearance.
Same here, so then we understand each other. I don't collect. Still,
you present
no argument here: You could still sell your prints, as well as make
money off
selling a highly collectible camera you happened to have picked up for a
good price.
But, as a *user* camera, the 3Ti is probably the most technologically
advanced, sexiest,
most durable mechanical camera made. And they only made 4000. It's
special.
It's an "ultimate" of sorts.
So why on earth do you have such a problem with people wanting one?
You must have
a field day on rangefinderforum.com with the Leicaphiles?
Will you regard my work less when I no longer only use an OM-1?
Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|