And yet Ken, whenever someone brings up the notion that camera makers are
now deliberately trying to kill off film because planned obsolescence makes
digital that much more profitable, that person is laughed off or shouted
down. At the very best, all the big players in the camera markets are
indifferent toward film and film shooters. Nikon quit making new scanners
long ago, and none of the big boys have even shown the slightest interest in
making a relatively inexpensive, high quality scanner. And don't tell me it
can't be done, because my Plustek was less than $500 and does a reasonably
good job. I'm sure with their resources, Nikon or Canon could come up with
an even better dedicated scanner, at the same price point. Actually, I take
it back, Canon did release their Canoscan 9000f this year, so they are at
least showing a passing interest.
Just one of the many reasons why I'm keen on learning traditional darkroom
printing.
>Well, back in the golden days of film, the cameras were more likely to
>need the occasional CLA. It wasn't that the shutter would fail, it
>would just become less accurate. Today's cameras are not really
>intended to be CLA'd. There is more likely to be a catastrophic
>failure requiring a service call or total replacement.
>My OM-2S has over 100,000 and still going relatively strong. It has
>other issues needing a CLA, but I have no doubt that it would last for
>a long time yet.
>I've seen a couple Hasselblads that had over a million actuations on
>them. The problem wasn't the mechanicals--it was the film back
>mounting system that completely wore out.
The 24 shift and the 18/3.5 are two Zuikos that I would like to enjoy one
day, though they hold more interest for me as collector's pieces, not really
as practical tools. I don't shoot enough architecture to justify the cost
of the 24 shift, and even if I did, I'd probably get a dedicated Nikon
camera w/ PC lens simply because it's so much cheaper. As for the 18/3.5,
it's even more expensive than the 21/2 these days. I'd be afraid to take it
out and use it!
Thanks for confirming my hunch about the Mamiya system, Ed. It looks like
it would be a MF camera that would best suit my particular style.
>All the OM wides are great, particularly the f/2 versions of course but
even the slower ones. I >have all of them and can't pick a favorite.
Probably for extreme width the 18 is unbeatable. I >shot a car show with
just the 21/2 and 24/2 and that was a great combo. I haven't used the >28/2
as much but I like that focal length a fair bit, it can work ok on people
w/o crazy >distortion in the corners. Speaking of 24s, the 24/shift is an
amazingly versatile lens, even >when not requiring shifting. And not even
all that big, compared to lenses from canon, etc....
That 100/2 is a sweet lens! Before I got one, I heard people say "it's
great but it's big and heavy." Not true. I mean, I guess it's true for an
OM Zuiko, but it balances really well on an OM body.
>Not only holds its own... There really has been no substitute for the
>250/2 or the 350/2.8. And let's not even bring up the subject of the
>100/2...
I need to pick up another copy of the 35/2.8. They are really cheap, and
going back looking at shots I took with that lens, it really was a great
performer.
>My "death grip" lenses remain the 35/2.8 and 100/2.8. When all else
>goes, those two will remain. I was feeling a little guilty about
>neglecting the 35/2.8, so a few days ago I shot exclusively the 35/2.8
>on an entire roll of film.
Thanks Bill!
>Nice shot, I guess you wre close enough!
>Billl Pearce
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|