simon evans.
-
Posts
371 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by simon evans.
-
-
I would suggest the OM system is an obvious choice for your purpose.
Are there any secondhand dealers that will let you 'try before you buy', perhaps leaving some of your Contax items as insurance? Alternatively you could pick up an OM-2n with a couple of lenses cheaply enough (though not the 21/2 or 28/2, both superb lenses) and you could always sell them again on the famous auction site. The faster lenses, while probably smaller and lighter than other marques, don't fit that criterion as well as the slower ones. The 24/2.8 and 100/2.8 are excellent and often underrated performers IMHO.
I stopped worrying about Zuiko lens performance relative to other brands a few years ago when I figured the only way to really improve my photos (apart from being a better photographer) would be to move to medium format. I have had some 12x8" and 18x12" Cibachrome prints made from slides taken using the lowly 50/1.8 and 35/2.8 which are good enough for me. Photos taken with the 35-105mm and 35-70mm f3.5~4.5 zooms have been reproduced full-bleed on A4 magazine covers and look great.
-
Ken gives slide shows and lectures and is well received. A colleague has seen his show and thought the photos were impressive. Some discussion <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DLkM">here</a>.
-
Graham, they are sometimes available for quite a bit less than that. I saw a lovely 100/2.8 go for 70 UKP on the 'bay recently (genuine too, I know the owner).
<br><br>
Igor, please persevere. One suggestion made to me a while ago was to go out for a walk / photo exploration session with just one lens. Not your usual or favourite lens, but something that will make you work harder. I suggest you do that with your 135mm.
<br><br>
BTW I really like the landscape photos on <a href="http://www.touchingthelight.co.uk/">Ken Scott's website</a>, he apparently uses only 24, 50 and 200mm. It ain't what you got...
-
Chrome fronted lenses, sometimes called 'silvernose', are SC. They are particularly early models. If memory serves me correctly, multicoating was phased in across the Zuiko range in the early 80s. The zooms were the first to benefit, I don't think any zooms were made without except the 75-150mm f4.
The subject was discussed at length on the OM Mailing List a number of years ago, and summarised in the links on Lee Hawkins' page (link given above). A couple of contributors expressed a preference for single coated optics for black & white photography.
The main benefit is, of course, resistance to flare when a light source reaches the front element. My 24/2.8 SC is a great performer in other light, and I am sure I can detect a slight warming of the viewfinder image compared to MC lenses I use. Hold the lens with a light source shining on it (e.g. household bulb). Multicoated lenses usually have more reflection colours, particulatly green, while SC lenses usually only show yellow and purple.
-
Glad to see you're sticking with a great camera, particularly as it's one you said you were happy with. Camera envy is something we all succumb to, but remember you don't have to own a Porsche to enjoy driving. Lovely cars, but there are plenty of other fine vehicles out there too. There's a lot to be said for being happy with what you have in life - and if it's an OM4Ti then even more so.
Also remember RF and SLR shooting are like chalk and cheese.
-
$80 sounds pretty cheap for the fast Zuiko. I've not used mine wide open, but focussing is easier than the f2.8 in low light. Have you considered a 28mm f2? It's more expensive but a better performer.
-
IMHO 24, 50 and 100mm is a perfect spread. Not only do they all have 49mm filter thread, but they are all excellent performers. I'd hate to miss a lens with 35mm AoV, but 24mm is pretty flexible.
The old 55mm is no match for the 50/1.4's performance (that's if you have the MC version), and it's rather big and heavy. You could get the rubber hood for the 85 & 100, it works well on a 50mm.
The 85/2 is lovely, but I've owned the 100/2.8 as well and, apart from local gigs where the extra stop is welcome, the 100mm is IMHO as good a lens for outdoor work and has a little more pulling power. I sometimes wish I hadn't sold it.
-
You could use Ilford XP2 and get it proofed at most C-41 colour d&p shops or try <a href=http://www.photonet.org.uk/index.php?id=95,56,0,0,1,0">this list of labs</a> at The Photographers Gallery.
-
The Zuiko 85/2 and 100/2.8 are excellent performers. Maybe not as stellar as the 90/2 and 100/2 but able to give a good account of themselves. Even the inexpensive 135/2.8 is better than the f/3.5. I personally feel the 100/2.8 is an underrated optic, and I'm not sure I did the right thing selling mine for an 85/2. And don't forget the perennial Tamron 90mm macro, an excellent performer.
-
An annual run of SFX200 in 35mm is likely to be produced during July. 120 format is not planned at the moment, but not impossible. The more people ask for it the more likely it is they will produce it so get over to <a href="http://www.ilfordphoto.com">www.ilfordphoto.com</a> and make yourself heard.
-
If you're happy with it why worry? My 16 year old car has terrible 0-60 times, most hotshot drivers would rather die than be seen driving it. But it does what I ask of it. In photography as much as anything t's not what you got, it's what you do with it.
-
Let's face it, the Royals' war effort (WW II) was a publicity act as much as anything. They have some dodgy connections - see <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1442438,00.html">this article</a>. The Queen's hubby, Prince Philip, has made a fair few <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1848553.stm">racist gaffes</a> in his time. The Queen Mother, gawd rest her pampered little socks, was labelled an appeaser and Nazi sympathiser until the Germans had the cheek to bomb London. Prince Charles, widely considered here to be unfit to take on the job, sees himself as a 'dissident' waging campaigns against the prevailing political mood yet his valet (that's a person, not a handbag) is paid to put just the right amount of toothpaste on his toothbrush each night. They cost us ﾣ37 million per year, excluding security costs, but what are they <i>for</i>?
<br><br>
Acorns? I blame the tree ;-)
-
While Saotome's comment may be cheap and somewhat OT, I don't think being a Royalist is a precondition of posting messages. I'm not in favour of the Royal Family or the British class system, I think most of the population has bowed and curtseyed to that pandered crowd for too long. And regarding the younger generation, there's a popular phrase that goes: "Well I blame the parents". ;-)
If I was one of the richest people in one of the richest countries (and until recently not even paying any taxes) I would have a Leica outfit too. Damn, I could afford a different Leica for every day of the week! It's likely Her Majesty was given hers when she visited Germany sometime, I'm sure she won't have paid list price for it.
-
The one Bas has posted is not the same as the photo spread across the whole of 2 pages in the Observer's Review section - all 24 x 17" of it - although they are very similar. The other is a horizontal framing in the same light. There is also a nice portrait of Jane (who really doesn't look 80) on the cover of the section, with 2 OM-1s dangling by her side. I'd put money on each having an 85/2 attached and a roll of Tri-X inside.
-
A friend of mine had to send his C-5060 for repair after he was using it when it started to drizzle. He still takes it with him on the hills, but makes sure it doesn't get even the tiniest bit wet.
Try a good pouch such as those by Lowe-Pro, and if it gets really wet keep that inside another bag, preferably with a polythene liner or something like that. Or you could get something like an OM-1n and 35-105mm for inclement weather... sorry, I'm just being mischievous ;-) While I normally prefer primes I really liked having just the one lens today while out walking with my kids. It was the first warm, sunny day of 2006 in Shropshire, UK and we had a great time.
-
I have one in Zen finish, it seems well made and the results are more than acceptable. I'd suggest E250 is the most you should pay for one in superb condition with hard case, they may available for less. ﾣ130-ﾣ160 (E180-220) is the UK price range on the big auction site. Make sure it has the tripod collar. You may find it's still a little short for serious bird snaps, but it is still excellent value.
-
There's a good article at <a href="http://www.covingtoninnovations">http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/astro/films.html</a>
<p>
Lots more at
</p>
Hope you have fun. Are you located somewhere far enough away from urban street lighting?
-
Choice of film depends on taste, but brand-wise it's essentially between Kodak and Fuji now. I like Portra NC for it's great skintones and latitude, though the Elite 200 or 400 (the 400 is marketed as ULTRA COLOR in the USA) would be my next choice - the 400 is a bit more saturated than NC but still looks natural. I don't like Kodak Gold. There's not much wrong with Fuji's Superia range but I prefer the Kodak. Having said that, where you get your d&p done probably has a greater bearing on print quality than film choice.
-
I remember a group test many moons ago - UK mag Amateur Photographer, I think. The Zuiko and Nikkor scored highest, and the Tamron did quite well (best of the independents IIRC). I'm sure I have read other favourable opinions since then too.
-
According to UK mag Amateur Photographer, <i>"The company has demanded that the newspaper publishes a correction"</i>.
<p>
-
Anne, slow down a bit. First, have you confirmed you *need* a wideangle lens? I have found it is much more satisfactory (for those of us without much cash to splash) to establish what you need before you start to think about shopping. Do you really want to take lots of wideangle pics? So far only Sigma and Olympus have Olympus-fit lenses for sale (I think).
A fisheye is not the same as a wideangle. For an example of a fisheye lens do a google image search for the word: fisheye.
Four-Thirds is an open standard initiated by Olympus and Kodak with a few to having a common lens mount (http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index_01.htm). Panasonic have joined the fray with a new SLR and there may be more in the future, while Sigma have announced 5 new 4/3 mount lenses (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0602/06022611sigma43rds.asp). Other manufacturers, including Canon, Nikon, Pentax and Konica-Minolta use what is commonly termed APS-sized sensors (bigger than four-thirds but smaller than 35mm film) in their digital SLRs.
But don't worry too much about all the sales guff, you're better off working out how to use your camera well to get the results you want. Too many people get too entwined in technology and hardware, which distracts from the main point - taking photos. I'd suggest you try to make your buying decisions to suit your photographic goals and not the other way around.
-
From the article:
<p><i>Within the past few weeks two giants of the industry, Konica Minolta and Fuji Photo Film, have announced their withdrawal from the traditional film and camera business</i></p>
<p>I stand partially corrected, though it confirms what I knew, that the article is incorrect. In which case the ignorants might as well have written "Small green man found living on the moon" for all it's worth. Who checks The Times for industry-specific news, anyway? The article goes on to discuss panic buying of film *cameras*. The demise of the OM system is probably my fault, as I only ever bought one brand new camera, my OM2n, in 1983. The only new lens I bought is the 50/1.8 that accompanied it. </p>
<p>I still think you'd be better off securing the future of Velvia (the ISO 100 version though, as Velvia 50 will disappear soon) by taking photos. </p>
-
Zzzz, that Times article doesn't mention Fuji pulling out of the film business at all. They have just announced new films. Why develop a slow tungsten-balanced film if you are about to pull out of the market? Hogwash.
I believe Fuji are consolidating and making efficiency savings because they intend to dominate the remaining market, just as Ilford have stated they will do for black & white. One thing I'm sure of is that I wouldn't believe Kodak's CEO on anything, especially relating to the long term availability of film. Stop panicking and take some photos with your cameras. The best way to ensure there is a wide range of choice and at good prices is to keep buying and using.
-
The 28 - 50 - 100 combo would cover most things and is wonderfully small & light. They all use the 49mm front thread, so no filter duplication. Do you really need a second body? I'd suggest a lightweight, compact monopod instead of your tripod.
Silver Nose Zuikos -- better/same/worse?
in Olympus
Posted
Some people have said they prefer the look of SC Zuikos for black & white photos. The early Zuiko 50/1.4 has *relatively* poor performance at the edges when using wider apertures. The later versions (which were redesigned) were noticeably better. However, that's not to say it's a bad lens.
I am sure my 24/2.8 SC has a warmer appearance through the VF than my other lenses. Not sure why that is. One person whose opinion I trust said this, among other things, in their favour:
"I shoot enough B&W these days that the SC lenses seem to be a fine match and actually help with shadow detail.
For wedding and portrait photography, I've developed a preference of the flatter look that my lenses give and Provia-NC.
As far as sharpness is concerned, I'm not griping. The silvernosed lenses ARE more prone to flare, but it is all relative. The worst silvernosed prime is still as good if not better than the best multicoated zoom."
BTW I think he meant Portra NC.