Dawid,
A bit of counterpoint to your story:
My real first camera was a Pentax spotmatic I used in college, but I don't
usually count it, as there was a much to not like as there was to like about
it. When I returned home, I began to get "real" cameras (ah to be young
again!). My first was an F with standard prism and a 35 F2. I later added an
Ftn, and several other lenses. I later got married (not my wisest choice),
and a friend was selling some stuff. I got my then-wife an OM1 with 50/3.5
and 100/2.8. I examined her chromes and realized hers had, to use these
standard technical terms, more "clarity" and "vibrance" than I was getting
with my Nikkors. I then began amassing over at least twenty years, the OM
system. I kept both the Nikons and the OM's, but haven[t used the Nikons in
25 years and the OM's six or eight. I believe that when fully retired, I
will use both more.
When I made the move to digital, after getting my feet wet with the Sony R1,
a surprisingly good camera that would have been even better if there had
been an R2, I jumped in with both feet and got a D3 and a D700 and some
lenses. It's a decision that I'm not sorry I made, except when carrying the
D3 for a day or so on neck or shoulder.
I've never used a Contax, but would.
Bill Pearce
-----Original Message-----
From: Dawid Loubser
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 2:04 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] What have I done?? (F)
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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
