Carlos, I enjoyed your long and belated reply to my thread. Some
comments
inline below:
On 08 Jun 2010, at 12:43 PM, Carlos J. Santisteban wrote:
> Unless we're dealing with simple, theoretical thin lenses, the
> retrofocus
> issue is not qualitative, but _quantitative_. With so much optical
> trickery
> in any "modern" lens, it's really hard to tell sometimes, but the
> 'pupil
> magnification' (the diameter ratio between the exit and entrance
> pupils)
> could be an indicator of "how much" retrofocus is a certain lens.
I've never though about it that way, but it makes a lot of sense.
Wow, then the 21/2 is *very* retrofocus, the rear exit pupil is
very large compared to the front one.
>> (and no, they don't
>> - look at the Mamiya 7 lenses, for example)
>
> Much larger format means much larger lenses. Anyway, compare a
> Mamiya-7 wide
> with any equivalent MF SLR wide...
The Mamiya 7 super wide-angle optics are actually pleasantly small, I
find:
58mm filter size, comparable to small-ish 35mm SLR lenses. Unlike the
huge
and heavy RB7 lenses I use, they are monsters. At least they all take
the
same 77mm filter size, from 50mm to 250mm (all at f/4.5)
>> and at f/
>> 2.8, it's a full stop slower than the Zuiko 21mm f/2.0, yet it's
>> larger and heavier in all respects. I wonder why this is?
>
> It's an unfair comparison :-) The 21/2 is, IMHO, Olympus' Masterwork
> --
> there's NO match for it from any other maker. In fact, many SLR 21's
> at
> around f/3.5-4 ara much, much larger! It's also amazing that they
> were able
> pack the 'regular' Zuiko 21/3.5 into the small '50/1.8 form-factor',
> so
> early in the OM-system life.
>
>> but the genius of the Maitani team really is apparent when looking at
>> the remarkable 21/2.0.
>
> It _IS_ remarkable, nobody doubts it ;-)
I feel the same way, one of the very special lenses that the OM system
has delivered. Everybody who owns one is very very lucky...
> Sure, but what about other makers?
>
> ==Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 (Contax/Yashica)==
> Length: 90.5mm
> Filters: 82mm
> Weight: 530g
>
> And a pupil magnification of 3.04 (strong retrofocus). Roughly the
> dimensions of a Tamron 500mm (!) but only the front gets that wide...
The C/Y Distagon is indeed a monster lens. Alas, it's the best of
the best for 21mm SLR lenses as I understand. But the Zuiko 21/2.0
can probably claim title of "second best" SLR 21, and it's so much
faster and smaller.
>> Coupled with the fact that an OM-1 body is smaller (volume-wise) than
>> an M body (it's only higher at its highest point because of the
>> prism)
>
> But you're overlooking the _depth_ of the body because of the mirror
> box!
> That's what makes a SLR body-only hardly pocketable, unlike a RF body.
You're right, of course the OM mirror box is much deeper than the rest
of the body. It's well-disguised in the design, but it does make the
package
much deeper with almost any lens fitted.
> Back to the 21mm focal length, I did a graphical comparison:
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuiko21/3661112828/in/set-72157620559243432/
> >
I saw this shot a while ago, never realised it was yours! Nice
comparison,
brings the point across very well. The 21mm Voigtlander is incredibly
tiny.
>> I would say that, apart from noise and possibly higher shock caused
>> by
>> the Mirror, for low-light, wide-angle shooting, an OM body beats the
>> pants off any rangefinder,
>
> ...the viewfinder black-out during the crucial moment (the
> exposure!) --
> although nobody prevents you from using a 'fiddly, external finder'
> on top
> of a SLR :-)
I agree, but that'll make the SLR even much bigger. Nobody denies the
advantage
of seeing the subject at the moment of exposure, it would make up for
all the
rangefinder disadvantages in my opinion.
> And then there's the remarkable Bessa R4M / R4A with their built-in
> 21-to-50mm finder+rangefinder... BTW, looking thru this finder is a
> _completely different_ experience from the OM finder with a 21mm
> lens on it
> -- despite the slightly wider field (you can see a bit _outside_ the
> frame
> ;-) perspective doesn't look so exaggerated...
I have never used a R4* but I can imagine the 21mm finder to be
lovely. Can
one still accurately focus fast wide lenses, like the 35/1.2, you
think ?
>
>> "Contemplating black coffee"
>> <http://tinyurl.com/335lyon> <http://tinyurl.com/335lyon>
>
> A nice, relaxing picture... with a sad story behind. Really well
> captured.
Thank you Carlos.
>> The OM-1 is amazing for this sort of work, after
>> guessing exposure, I set shutter speed, aperture, and guess focus, by
> "feel"
>> while the camera was hidden on my lap, and then in an instant took
>> the
>> image.
>
> You could operate a RF the same way. It's not the camera who takes the
> picture...
Sure. My point was really that, this is a manner of working that many
rangefinder
users tout as being the exclusive domain of those cameras. What gives
the OM
the edge, in my opinion, is that it's possibly easier to set shutter
speed
by "feel alone" with the OM's bayonet shutter speed ring, and
furthermore
that one can set shutter speed, focus, and aperture quickly with one
hand
"by feel". Then again, anybody who knows their camera really well will
probably be able to do this.
>
>> I have had the pleasure of only shooting about 100 frames of Pan F in
>> my life, but I think I absolutely adore its qualities
>
> Much like the same here... although doesn't seem that hard to get, I
> can buy
> it even locally!
Lucky you. I am going to order a bulk roll from overseas sometime.
It's non-existent
around here.
al the best,
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/
|