On 09 Jul 2010, at 7:37 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> For a while there, I really though life couldn't get better than an
>> OM-1
>> for my needs (an all-manual camera) but boy was I wrong. And it's
>> actually got nothing to do with the multi-spot metering.
>
> 1/2000, right?
1/2000s is great, yes. But oh my, that viewfinder... There are many
subtle differences between the design of the OM-1/2 viewfinder and
the OM-3/4. OM-1/2 is bigger, yes. But oh my, the 3Ti/4Ti has the most
gorgeous, accurate-focusing, flare-free, bright, crisp viewfinder
ever made by man.
And yes, I have looked through a Leica R8/R9 viewfinder before.
A 3Ti/4Ti with 2-series screen offers a viewfinder experience which
is superior in every way for composition and focusing to any other
camera, including rangefinder cameras. It's simply... amazing.
I find it funny how one is supposed to be "more accurate" /
"quicker focusing" with wide angles and a rangefinder, but
my 21mm F2 with this viewfinder is simply apparently as bright
as what the subject seems with the naked eye. It's completely
unbelievable. And the "feel" one develops for the focusing through
the ultra-high-resolution focusing screen simply opens possibilities
not possible with any rangefinder.
I know I seem very Anti-rangefinder, but I was seriously, seriously
considering an M-series rangefinder with a fast 24mm or 21mm as my
"definitive" 35mm film camera. I tried some out. Verdict: There is
simply no comparison, a 3Ti is superior in every respect except for
greater noise and viewfinder blackout. Those are, simply put, the only
reasons to use a rangefinder in my opinion.
The Olympus Wides, especially the 21mm F2, are smaller, more versatile,
vignette less, and 95% optically as good as the Leica M lenses. For
hand-held photography, you will never see a technical difference.
The 3Ti has imparted a kind of "ultimate pleasure" in terms of the
OM system to me. I am re-discovering the wonder of the lenses as I
can now, for the first time, truly "see" the excellence and the
character of the lenses through this wonderful viewfinder.
> With auto-exposure, life is a lot simpler and easier. But how a manual
> camera affects me directly is I am constantly monitoring the light and
> seeing what it is doing. This greater awareness of light is
> translating into better pictures because I end up seeing things I
> normaly don't see. Let me try to explain:
>
> 1. Photographer with auto-everything camera sees subject. Photographer
> with auto-everything camera photographs subject.
>
> 2. Photographer with manual camera sees subject. Photographer with
> manual camera sees light. Photographer with manual camera uses light
> as part of the composition which usually requires relocation and/or
> exposure modification. Photographer photographs subject with improved
> light.
3. Photographer learns that if he uses an incident light meter all the
time,
he gets 100x better at "reading the light" (and ultimately no longer
needing a light meter for 95% of situations) than what any in-camera
meter
will teach him :-)
all the best, Ken -
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/
|