robert_jaques

<p>I don't own the 5050, but got the next model the 5060 and still use it occasionally. The lens is not as fast but I love the fact that it goes to 28mm (in 35mm terms) and the rotating screen for ground level shots. P & S digital models have all gone down hill since these models were available. Why don't thay make stuff like this anymore.</p>

<p>I own both the 24 F2 and the 24 F2.8. I bought the 24 F2.8 new in 1999 and it is multicoated.<br>

My 24 F2 is an old silver ringed one that I bought 2nd hand many years ago. It is multicoated too.<br>

I bought the F2.8 because my F2 grew some fungus on one of the internal elements that could not be cleaned off.<br>

I have not done any direct comparisons but my impression is the images from my 2.8 version seem to have bit more contrast and bite, I am constantly impressed with this lens.<br>

Although my F2 lens performed well and I never had any complaints with it, I would not spend the extra money required to purchase the F2 version over the F2.8, as the F2.8 performs, as well if not better than F2 version in my view.</p>

<p>I'm a bit surprised that no one has mentioned the Olympus OM4Ti. I've owned a black one of these for about 10 years now and will never part with it. Beautifully constructed, lightweight, and solid. It feels like a precision instrument. In my opinion a better camera than the Olympus OM1 due to the multi spot metering system which can average up to 8 spot readings. This enables very accurate exposure control. The Shadow and highlight buttons are also useful, and exposure sensitivity down to -5EV is great for long exposure low light work.<br>

Being a spectacle wearer I also prefer the viewfinder on the OM4 over the OM1 because it has better eye relief and is much brighter with a 2-13 screen (I suspect it has one of the brightest viewfinders ever on a manual focus SLR).<br>

I also like Nikons a lot and admire the FM2 and FM3.</p>

Michel I'm with you on this one. I find reasonable rational discussion on the merits film or digital both educational and interesting. As someone who uses both, appreaciates the strengths and weaklesses of both and doesn't have any particular bias towards either method (Accept for some particular applications) I see nothing wrong with these types of discussions as long as the participants are civil towards each other and remain open minded. The trouble is you usually get one or two or three participants with an axe to grind who hijack these sort of threads and it becomes a tit for tat mud slinging match, ruining what might of been an interesting thread for everyone else. And like others have already said some people take an almost religious of political stance on the whole thing. Its a shame really.

I very much enjoy shooting 35mm slide film with my Olympus OM4Ti and fixed focal length primes. I prefer the simplicity of this aproach to photography. Digital is fine, I own a 10Mp Nikon DSLR which I use regularly, but I find I do not enjoy shooting with digital cameras much (Though I am often pleased with the printed results from digital cameras in moderate sized prints).

There is a lot of hype about digitals dynamic range advantage, but to be honest I rarely have problems with slide films narrow latitude, I just avoid high contrast scenes or use graduated ND filters.

I often find I take better photos with my film cameras. Because film costs money and I tend to take more care in composing the image and not wasting film on trivial images. Images printed from film images have a different look to them (Including prints made from scans), and I often prefer this look, to prints made from my digital camera.

It is encouraging to hear so many photographers are still shooting 35mm film. I hope this continues well into the future.

Hi Starvy

 

Like you I have never been overly impressed with the printed results I have had from negative film. That is why I have shot slide film almost exclusively for the past 20 years. Are you comparing slides viewed with a loupe on a light box to your prints from negative? If you are I think this is an unfair comparsion, slides will always look better in a comparsion like this. I think the higher contrast, higher color saturation and outstanding sharpness and detail of slide films such as velvia simply give prints made from slide film much more impact. I cannot comment on the latest negative films, they may have improved and be on par with modern slide films by now. Most prints I have seen made done with colour negative film may have better shadow detail, but overall they look flater and lack the sharpness, colour saturation and contrast that is apparent in a well made print from a slide (Cibachrome or printed digitally on real photo paper) IMHO. Of course some subjects may suit negative film better ie portaits and people shots.

My advice would be to keep shooting slides and have the slides sleeved. Have only the images you wish to print, scanned at a pro lab. Buy a box of slide mounts and mount only the keepers. This is what I do. You will save a lot of money this way. When funds permit buy yourself a decent dedicated film scanner. You can then do all the adjustments you need to do to the image yourself ( Only you know how you wish to have the image printed). That way (if you know what you are doing) you will often get better prints than if you left it all to the lab to do the work. I own a Epson 4870 flatbed scanner (Which I use for my large formal 4x5 scans) and a Canon FS4000 dedicated film scanner for 35mm. For 35mm, scans from the epson look like soft mush in comparison to the Canon. I do not use the Epson for scanning 35mm at all. I believe these scanners are only really suitable for scanning 35mm film for Web use and maybe making 6x4 prints.

 

Best of luck

Personally I do not agree with what you have done. I did the same thing to a photo once but I must say I never felt proud of what I had done, even though it did result in a better image. I have no problem with image manipulation to a degree. Cropping, dodging & burning, Levels, Curves Adjustments, Cloning out dust, Saturation etc etc are all fine with me. However image manipulation crosses the line for me when you start adding or removing elements of the scene and passing it off as real.

 

Photography is supposed to be about capturing a moment in time. People expect photographs to be representations of reality (a real moment caught in time). This is why photography cannot be compared to painting even if it is for art.

 

Ask youself this, what image would you feel most proud of, a really great landscape captured with a really great sky in it, or a really great landscape where you've added a really great sky in photoshop.

 

It seems like I am in the minority with this viewpoint. In the photgraphy club I belong to Judges often make comment on how the image would be improved if such and such was cloned out in photoshop. I makes me cringe sometimes and sends the wrong message to beginner photographers that slack technique is ok because every thing can be fixed later in photoshop.

If the lens quality degrades after F8 on 4/3rds lenses why is this a problem? After all F8 on 4/3rds = F16 on full frame.

 

The only problem I can see of having a lens that is not critcally sharp at apertures below F8, is you may not be able to utilise the slow shutter speeds used for artistic movement blur effects (such as water flowing over rocks etc). You can always resort to ND filters or polarisers I suppose.

 

When I use my OM4 with 24mm I rarely use F16. This is because F8 and F11 seem to give enough depth of field with this focal length if the lens is focused properly. I'm aware of diffraction and try to limit my use of the smallest apertures where ever possible.

I have an Olympus C5060. It is an excellent camera with very good image quality. I have taken some night photographs with this camera and got very decent results which somewhat surprised me, as I thought P&S digital cameras were not so good in low light.

 

To answer your question the RAW mode is 12bit. The RAW files are slow to write to card, And the Olympus RAW conversion software seems to smear fine detail. I use the free RAW shooter software which retains the fine details better. These are my only complaints of this model.

 

Many of the C5060 (Including mine) had mode dial issues (May have been resolved in 7070 model, not sure). So beware of this if buying second hand.

I do not own an Olympus E510 but I find it pretty hard to believe that this camera cannot produce a sharp photo in an A4 size print comparable to your OMs.

 

I shoot with an OM4Ti and mostly fixed focal length primes (24mm f2.8, 50mm F3.5, 90mm F2 etc) scanned with a Canon 4000dpi dedicated film scanner and printed with and Epson R1800 printer. Generally I'm pretty happy with the results I get from my OMs and scanned slide film.

 

Last year I brought a Nikon D40x with the standard the cheap 18-55 kit lens. The printed results I get from this camera lens combination are easily comparable (if not better in terms of sharpness) than the results I have had from scanned film images. And this is using a cheap kit lens. I can't imagine what kind of results I will get when I start using some decent Nikon Glass.

 

I would imagine that the image quality of the Nikon D40x and Olympus E510 should be comparable at low ISOs. The Olympus E system lens you use, is reputed to be top notch.

 

(BTW I am not a novice also shoot 4x5 Large format so I have a pretty good idea on what constitutes a sharp image)

 

Some guesses to what may be causing your softness. You may have a dud lense (I understand some of the 12-60mms had focusing problems), your focusing is off, the in camera noise reduction settings and/or sharpness settings are contributing to a soft image or maybe your RAW conversion software is not up to scratch. Lastly 100% screen shots can be deceiving. What looks slightly soft at this size can often look very sharp in print, and all digital files weather they are scans or digital require some post production sharpening before printing. The sharpness in the digital crop you posted is about what I would expect straight out of the camera from such a low contrast area.

I would guess you have one with the mode dial problem. I bought one of these new in 2005. Within 2 months I had to send it back because of a lens motor problem and then another month later I had to send it for repair to have a new mode dial. Fortunately this was all covered under the manufacturers warranty and I have not had problems since with the camera. I would not reccommend buying one of these cameras second hand unless the seller can verify that the mode dial has been replaced. The issue of the mode dial may have been resolved with the later C 7060 as I have not heard of any problems with this model.

Apart from the issues stated this is a great little camera IMHO. Takes awesome macro photos and is worth owning just for the rotating screen and 28mm wide angle lens. May be worth fixing if you are happy with the camera because it has some unique features that cannot be found on most modern point and shoot digitals (ie RAW mode , 28mm lens, rotating screen, hot shot, magnesuim alloy body etc). Plus it has excellent image quality.

My advice would be to send it to Olympus and ask for a repair quotation. If you decide not to have it repaired you will proberly only have to pay a nominal charge for them to investigate the problem.

24 F2.8 High resolution and high contrast. A very! very! sharp lens. Better in my opinion than my older 24mm F2 that I used to use until it developed fungus and could not be cleaned but olympus. I bought a brand new 24mm F2.8 to replace it a few years back and have never regreted buying this one over the 24mm F2. The most usable wide angle for Landscape.

 

90mm F2 possibly my sharpest zuiko (thought my 100mm F2.8 is quite good) awesome bokeh due to 9 blade aperture. I love using this lens for close ups at wider apertures, and landscape shots.

 

80mm F4 My favourite lens for macro insect shots. Insanely sharp at wider apertures. Does not like to be stopped down too much though (I try not to use mine below F11). I like to use it with the 65-165 auto tube and diffused flash to freeze subject movement.

 

85-250mm F5 I like using this lens on a tripod for landscape work from the side of the road. Possibly one of the most underated Zuikos. You never seem to hear a lot about this lens. I have found my one to be sharp throughout the zoom range and very stable when attached to a tripod via its tripod collar. I cannot see any difference in sharpness between this lens and a prime tele zuikos such as 200m F4. Excellent build quality. This was an expensive lens in its day. And still stands up well against modern competition.

I'm approaching 40 and I've been shooting Olympus OM for the last 20 years. I bought a new OM10 with 35-70mm 3.5-4.5 as my first camera. That camera started a love affair with the system. I was never tempted to switch brands when autofocus came along. After the OM10 I quickly progressed to an OM2S and OM1 and now shoot with an OM4Ti. I have a fairly conprehensive collection of OM lenses including a 90mm F2 and 80mm F4 bellows lens (OMs great system for Macro).

Recently I bought a Nikon 40x digital SLR and am getting excellent results from this camera, but its just not the same as my OM4Ti to use.

I can't see myself selling my OM gear. After having not used my OM gear for about 5 months I went for a walk with my OM4Ti it loaded with Kodak E100GX slide file the other day and a couple of primes. It was the most fun photography I have done in a long time.

My brother raves about his 28-48mm. He also has the 28 F2 but prefers to carry the 28-48mm mostly for the versatility of the zoom. Very small compact lens. Has some distortion at the wide end. I have tried the 35-105 F3.5-4.5 but found it a strange lens to focus. Focus was difficult to determine properly, it didn't snap in and out like a prime. Maybe the bright 2/13 screen does not suit this lens. Shame Olympus never produced that 28-85mm they prototyped. I remember seeing a picture of it in an old modern photography mag many years ago.

I am interested in your opinions on the old OM Zuiko zooms (not the new digital ones).

 

I keep coming across negative opinions on the Zuiko zooms such as "stick with the

primes stay away from the zooms". I cannot understand comments like this as I have

never found any of the zooms to be poor performers.

 

I own an Olympus 35-70mm F4 and a 85-250mm F5. These are old designs from the

70s but I have found them to be excellent. The 85-250 is equally sharp as any of my

prime Zuikos in my opinion. I have compared the 85-250 to the 200 F4 when set to

their widest apertures and stopped down a bit. I have always been pleased with the

performance of my 200 F4, but the zoom seems to be a tad sharper with more

contrast. At the 85mm end it is suberb.

 

My 35-70 is no slouch either. I have not done direct comparison with primes but slides I

have shot with this lens have always been crisp with high contrast. I had a 12x18'' print

made from this lens when set to the 35mm end and it is tack sharp. The one flaw I can

find with this lens is noticable barrel distortion at the 35mm end (Proberly no worse that

some modern digital zooms manufactured today). I used to own a 35-70mm F3.5-4.5

which I now regret selling, as this was an excellent lens too, proberly better that the 35-

70 F4 being a more modern design. I have also used a 75-150mm and seen slides and

prints from my brothers 28-48mm and 65-200mm F4. They seem to be fine lenses as

well.

 

What do you think of the OM Zuiko zooms? Are they underated?

I own the 100 f2.8 and purchased a mint condition 90mm f2 about 5 months ago. This is a superb lens. Sharpness wide open is very good but improves noticably at f2.8 and f4. Bokeh is superior to the 100 f2.8 proberly due to the 9 blade aperture. Its a beautiful len to use. The only complaint I have with this lens is its heavy weight which becomes quite noticable when your lugging it around the landscape with a heavy tripod, and the aperture ring is quite clunky and not smooth to turn like some of my other Zuikos. For this reason I might keep my 100 f2.8. I read some tests years ago in an old Modern Photograph Magazine, I think the 100 F2 had better performance wide open than the 90 F2.