Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] What have I done?? (F)

Subject: Re: [OM] What have I done?? (F)
From: Dawid Loubser <dawid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 10:04:50 +0200
Interesting responses, everybody! (Moose, thanks for the nice read)

First of all, I can't believe that Bill, Ken, etc. think that I am  
ready to dismiss my OM goodies so quickly. Like, "no", - I am not  
giving my 250mm away! It's just a very interesting and different  
experience. I am rather young, yes, I was born way after the Nikon F  
era. It's great to experience it now for the first time... It's just a  
phase I think :-)

As a user of big cameras (Mamiya RB67, Linhof Technika) I must say, I  
do like how the heft of the Nikon F dampens vibration and sound.  
Still, this is a baby camera compared to any full-frame DSLR!

Dawid


On 30 Nov 2011, at 1:17 AM, Moose wrote:

> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/index1.htm
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f2.htm
> On 11/29/2011 6:21 AM, Dawid Loubser wrote:
>> I really, really like the Olympus OM system. I'm a full-blown
>> Zuikoholic fanatic - before I knew it, I had 3 bodies (including a
>> 3Ti) and about 12 very cool lenses, including four cool Macro lenses,
>> and f/2.0 from 21mm to 250mm. As far as 35mm photography is  
>> concerned,
>> the OM system has allowed me to realise my vision. A happy camper,  
>> you
>> could say.
>>
>> Then I went and did it. Just to experience the difference, I picked  
>> up
>> an absolutely pristine Nikon F "Apollo" with plain, unmetered prism.
>
> Backwards from my history. Although I had been using SLRs borrowed  
> from my dad for some years, I bought my own Nikon FTn
> around '68. I let it go for an OM-1 soon after they became  
> available, maybe early '74? I never moved from OM for film,
> although I left Oly for digital.
>
> My feeling at the time was that I had moved up in the camera. The OM  
> did everything the F did just as well, in my
> experience at the time, while managing to be ever so much smaller  
> and lighter. The F was likely more rugged if abused,
> but otherwise no more precise or reliable than the OM-1. Om-1  
> engineering is wonderful in almost all aspects, as was
> noted by reviewers who opened them up at the time.
>
> I didn't run into the aperture mechanism induced vibration problem  
> for many years, as I shot mostly hand held and didn't
> have the lenses where it is a particular problem until much later.  
> Still, it was an improvement in a way over the F in
> that mirror lock-up didn't require wasting a frame of film.
>
> My dad later switched to an F2a, at least in part for the improved  
> Photomic prism and the mirror/aperture lock that
> didn't waste film. I inherited his camera gear, kept the F2a, FG and  
> some lenses, passing the FE (?) and E lenses to a
> daughter-in-law. The F2a is a beautiful piece of engineering and  
> manufacturing, but I'm not convinced it's a better
> picture taker than my OMs.
>
>> It came with two first-generation (knurled metal focusing ring)
>> lenses, a Nikkor-H.C 50/2.0, and a Nikkor-P 105/2.5.
>
> That was where my original OM-1 purchase fell down. The 50/1.4 was  
> to expensive for me at the time, and the early 50/1.8
> was no match for the Nikkor 50/2. It wasn't long before i bought the  
> 35-70/3.6, an excellent lens. Funny how the Nikkor
> prime was better, but the Zuiko zoom was much better than the Nikkor  
> 43-86/3.5 my dad got at about the same time.
>
> My 50/2 was pre "C", meaning single coated. It was an excellent  
> lens. I still have record of it, taken with Rolleicord
> IVb. The scan isn't very good, made in two passes on a flatbed that  
> only would accommodate 35mm film. Next time I run
> across those 6x6 transparencies, I'll scan them on the 9950F.
> <http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous/Images&image=NikonFtncroof.jpg
>  
> >
>
>> I really did not expect this camera to be so nice. It's bloody  
>> marvellous,
>
> I forget how young you are. :-)   Everybody back then knew how  
> wonderful the F was.
>
>> in fact. I'm on my second roll of film now - going to develop both  
>> pretty soon.
>>
>> What do I really like?
>>
>> - The build quality is unmatched, period. It's a solid block of hand-
>> made Japanese pride, from a bygone era.
>
> Here again, I differ somewhat. Solid block, is right, but is it  
> necessary? If I had been a pro, subjecting it to heavy
> use and hard knocks, maybe. But for me, the OM-1 was better built,  
> as opposed to overbuilt.
>
>> ...
>> - The lenses are more solid, and focus more smoothly, than my Olympus
>> lenses (except the 250/2.0 which is impressively well-built I must
>> admit).
>
> Here, I agree, but with much the same caveat. I have a pre Photomic  
> 200/4. Built like a tank, solid, with smooth focus -
> but WAY bigger and heavier than the Zuiko 200/4. I find focus on the  
> Zuiko to be smooth - feels good.
>
> Of course, you haven't seen any images from the Nikon stuff as yet,  
> so this is all tire kicking so far. Unless it  is
> damaged, I know you will be happy with the 50/2's sharpness. Maybe a  
> touch contrasty, depending on taste.
>
> I've done one direct comparison:
>
> "... my interest in seeing how some old Nikkor lenses performed.
>
> Today, I did some simple testing of three 200 mm lenses on the 5D.  
> First round, the results from my Zuiko 200/4
> convinced me I must have mis-focused it. Another round . . .
>
> Looking at center and edges, f4, 5.6, 8, 11, the ancient "NIKKOR-Q  
> Auto 1:4 f=20cm" soundly whipped my Zuiko 200/4. The
> Zuiko 200/5 rather closely matched the Z. f4 at f5/5.6, f8 and f11.  
> Yes, the Nikkor is bigger and heavier, but it's sure
> sharper. I don't know if I have a poor copy of the Zuiko. It's in  
> excellent cosmetic shape, has clear glass and no signs
> of trauma of any kind."
>
> I should have mentioned that test shots were conducted using 5D,  
> mounted on a sturdy tripod with 5 lb. sand bag draped
> over camera and lens.
>
>> Seriously - these lenses are 50 years old, but they are in
>> better operating condition - with no dust or dirt inside - than  
>> almost
>> any of my Zuikos, all of which seem to gather some dust or flecks
>> inside eventually (not that it matters to the image, but still...).
>
> It's so hard to know what the history of these rather old lenses has  
> been. Comparisons of physical details like that may
> not mean much, depending on how they have been used and stored. My  
> comparison of 200mm lenses above isn't definitive for
> that reason. I know the history of the Nikkor. dad was very careful  
> with his gear and didn't use the 200 that much. Then
> it sat in its beautiful leather case for over 20 years in a warm,  
> dry place.
>
> The Zuiko looks beautiful, and I bought it from a former list  
> member, Bob Gries, who said it worked well for him. Still,
> how is one to really know?
>
>>
>> The knurled metal focus rings are just so... right. I've had to fix  
>> up
>> loose rubber focusing rings on *three* of my Zuikos. I can't focus a
>> single one of my Zuikos.
>> - I expected gunshot-like noise and vibration, but it's maybe 10%
>> worse than my OM-3Ti.
>
> LOL! You don't feel or hear as much because the sheer weight damps  
> it. :-)
>
>> ...
>> - Amazingly bright as the 3Ti focus screen is, I find the F more
>> accurate for focusing (I have three F screens to play with, trying  
>> out
>> the different ones...). Werid, eh? It's much dimmer, but shows the
>> real depth of field. Using DOF preview, you can actually *see* a
>> difference between f/2.0 and f/2.8.
>
> Not a fair test! Compare to an OM-1(n) or 2(n). Oly knocked down the  
> viewfinder magnification from .92x to .86x on the
> later single digit bodies and the 3Ti came with a '2' series  
> focusing screen, which trades off precision for brightness.
> Us a 1 or 2 with series '1' screen for comparison.
>
>> The 3Ti screen is equally bright and crestal clear down to f/4, but  
>> perhaps induces focusing errors more easily? I don't know, further  
>> testing required...
>
> Yup, '2' series screen.
>
>> ...
>>
>> What don't I like?
>>
>> - The ergonomics (setting aperture and shutter speed) is no match for
>> an OM camera. Like, not even close.
>> - The darn lenses focus and [un]mount the wrong way round! Argh!
>
> Nikon came first. ;-)   Do you think Maitani went opposite as a  
> statement of some kind? Or was he used to screw thread
> lenses?
>
>> - I am sure when I print my first rolls, the that Zuikos will be  
>> "better" than the 1950s-technology Nikkors
>
> See above. :-)
>
> N. Resistant Moose
>
> -- 
> What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz