simon evans.

<i>For the price an 40mm Zuiko fetches, I would expect an exceptional lens.</i>

 

<p>The price commanded on the secondhand market does not reflect its 'quality' or its original selling price, more its relative scarcity. I would suggest that for many people a 35 or 50mm is fine. Sometimes you can have too much choice :-)</p>

 

<p>I find the step between these two fine for my purposes; the 50mm does head and shoulders, detail or close-up shots and general scenes well. The 35mm gives a classic wideangle view without things flying off the edges and distant detail receding. It's perfect for landscapes and street scenes, indoor groups etc. I can't imagine replacing these two, which have generated over 90% of my images, with a single lens, not even a 40mm. They are equally indispensible.</p>

 

<p>One final thought: if you print to 10x8" or a similarly cropped proportion then the apparent AoV (having used a 35mm lens) would appear more like the 40mm when you've cropped the extra 2" off the negative.</p>

The series of adverts for the Trip that I remember included UK actor George Cole, and the catchphrase he used was <i>"Who do you think you are - David Bailey?"</i>.

The 'Made in Japan' version of the 50/1.8 is good, but I would suggest you try the multicoated version of the 50/1.4. I prefer the look of this lens, particularly for people pictures. It's hardly any bigger, takes the same 49mm filter thread and is still very reasonably priced.

 

The 35/2 and 35/2.8 are both good but unspectacular performers. I have been very pleased with the results from my beaten-up single-coated 2.8.

The XA2 and XA3 (as XA2 with DX coding) are fine if zone focussing and program mode are adequate. But you'll miss out on the ability to focus closer than about 3 or 4 feet, the spotmeter (invaluable IMHO) and the sharper f2.8 lens, which doesn't appear to show any light fall-off. I liked the XA3 I used, but found it frustrating after the Epic's extra features.

If you want a simple 'old fashioned' manual camera, then the OM-1 is a perfect example. If you think you'll need multi-spot metering then I'd suggest you consider an OM-4Ti. Bear in mind that the few OM-3s that are around are likely to have been worked hard and/or are overpriced compared to other OM models. The OM-3 doesn't have either a self-timer or mirror lock while the OM-1 does. I value both of these functions, others don't.

Any XA or XA2 will be of pensionable age by now, and nothing lasts for ever, especially the XA series' wind-on mech. Bear in mind an overhaul for the XA costs about $80.

 

The Stylus Epic has a faster, sharper lens than its predecessor, and is my choice. The spotmeter is worthwhile compensation for the XA's aperture and ISO control. Missed focus is rare, although it can happen. Its close-focus ability, built-in flash, DX coding etc make up for lack of exposure control and silent shutter (unless silence is paramount).

Because Acutol is an acutance developer it might emphasise the film's grain structure more than some developers. Aculux 2 might be worth trying if you find your scans too grainy, although FP4 in Acutol is considered a fine combination for darkroom printing. Check out Mike Scarpitti's page on Paterson products at http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/scarpitti-paterson.html

Dino, tape would only reduce the output, it's never going to make a pinhead into a softbox.

<p> I've used the Epic with E100VS, which is similarly contrasty and saturated. Exposure can be a bit hit & miss, but works well when the spotmeter has a suitable subject . See <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1757796">http://www.photo.net/photo/1757796</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1757751">http://www.photo.net/photo/1757751</a>.</p>

I certainly wouldn't recommend Jessops' B&W service.

 

The C-41 films (Ilford XP2, Fuji Neopan CN, Kodak BW) are great if you don't have the time/space/facilities to DIY, although again you're at the mercy of the lab. The answer to which is to find one you like... which you won't find at Jessops!

<i> I should use the term "postings" as most all are people's opinions.</i>

 

<p>Agreed, and I suggested too that opinions are no substitute for hard facts. Diminutive jpegs cannot usually be used as evidence, so there is little to be gained from them. For instance I am reluctant to describe Zuiko lenses in general as 'king of bokeh'. I don't think that's true, though it might apply to a few specific lenses. Others are welcome to disagree.</p>

 

<p>I am sorry you took offence at my posting, but it seems to me that you either want the 35 SP because it does what you want, or you want an SLR. They are not interchangeable. To compare the 40mm with an SLR's 50mm is like comparing a pickup truck with a family saloon. They get the job done in different ways.</p>

I would have thought that the differences in camera body type between RF vs SLR make such comparisons pointless. Do you want an SLR or a rangefinder? Also, one person's idea of "great sharpness, lovely bokeh" is another one's "poor corner definition, ugly out of focus highlights" . Why not buy one and try it?

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/olysp.htm

<i> "Practical Photography" did a line up of current "mid-range" DSLRs</i>

<p>

Bas, you should know by now that one has to take <em>anything</em> PP say with a bucketload of salt. Still, I was pleasantly suprised by what Sean Reid had to say about the E-1 in the Luminous-Landscape review linked above.</p>

 

<p>I was also interested in what Doris Chan wrote about E-1 usage among pro snappers in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BSkG">this thread</a>. </p>

<p>David, I don't think answering your detailed points will help you choose a camera. You need to try them out, and also get some full size results (at appropriate ISO ratings) from someone. It's the output that counts in the end.

The 85/2 should be fine. I'd go as far as saying it's the ideal portrait lens. Jane Bown, a well known UK newspaper photographer, has spent most of her career using an OM-1 and 85/2 to make her distinctive b&w portraits. See <a href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/page/0,11821,1009693,00.html">this gallery</a> (requires Flash player).

 

<p>I found the 50mm (MiJ 1.8, if you must know) to be OK for fairly tight portraits, like <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/591479">this one</a>. The problem I have with close-in portraits is that if you're too close you can find your sitter is intimidated. This wasn't the case with Jason (above), but other 'victims' haven't always responded so well to me being so close.</p>

"image disintegration between my 33 KB in Photoshop and whatever comes up here"

 

John, IIRC doesn't photo.net open and re-save images when they are uploaded? I'm sure some of mine aren't the same size (in KB) on the site when compared with those on disk. You could try saving them with less compression at home, then they shouldn't suffer as much once re-compressed online.

 

Jeff, the distortion is more likely to be related to the mirror/prism/viewfinder construction.

John, did you leave the drop-down at Plain Text? Change to HTML when using italics.

 

Image quality at maximum aperture naturally has an effect on what you see. How significant that is I wouldn't like to say, but sure - if a lens is contrasty and sharp at f1.8 then it must be easier to focus than one that isn't.

 

The focussing screen will play a part, and I know an experienced pro and writer who finds the R-series finders to have no equal in brightness and clarity. He uses Nikon and had an OM outfit in the 80s. I'd guess therefore that the screen (and perhaps the pentaprism/VF lens) are probably the most important elements. An Olympus 2-series screen will provide a brighter image, but this comes at the expense of what some users term focus 'snap' - there is a more gradual change between out of focus and in focus. Some people prefer a plain matte screen (like the 1-4), others like the prims/split-image screen, it's personal preference.

 

As Lex mentioned, barrel/pincushion distortion seen in the viewfinder is not indicative of a poor lens. All my OMs appear to have noticeable barrel distortion when framing anything with straight edges, especially when copying flat artwork or other photographs.

I'm not sure where in the world you are, but in the UK you can buy Moersch EFG, which is the same formulation as Perceptol. It is available through www.retrophotographic.com

I would hesitate to make conclusive statements based on some small jpegs like those posted here. Equally, there isn't much point in making sweeping statements without direct comparison.

 

Based on my own results, I prefer the performance of the MC 50/1.4 over the MiJ 1.8, but there's not much wrong with the cheaper lens. Most of the time the f1.8 performs fine, but there can be benefits to choosing the faster lens. I prefer it for low light and indoor work, if for no other reason than ease of focussing (this may or may not be aided by improved performance at wide apertures).

 

I compared my MiJ f1.8 with an old SC 1.8 on a fairly contrasty but simple subject, and could find no detectable difference. Multicoating has some real benefits, but I feel they are sometimes exaggerated, (though that doesn't mean I'd actively choose to own only SC Zuikos). TBH all these lenses are more than good enough for anyone, the weakness is invariably elsewhere in the image-making chain.

I would second Dan's recommendation of XP2. Not only will it be easy to get processed in most countries (it can be put through a standard C-41 colour negative machine), but it will give good enlargements. You should try to reduce the number of different films anyway.

 

The extra speed over Pan F and Delta 100 will help keep shutter speeds fast enough when using your zoom or any filters. I would suggest you take an orange filter, as this can darken skies effectively. For countryside I like a yellow-green, it brightens foliage just a little. Do both your lenses take the same filter size? If not then get filter(s) for the larger lens and use a step-up ring on the smaller one. This saves taking two of each filter.

 

Unless you want slides for a specific reason I'd suggest a print film for colour. I prefer Kodak Portra NC, but some people like Fuji NPH400. The professional films like Portra and NPH400 will give more 'natural' looking results than Gold, which I think is yucky. For both XP2 and the colour neg I would rate them at 250 instead of 400. It doesn't hurt, and will ensure you have plenty of shadow detail too; none of these films look good when underexposed.

 

Don't bother refrigerating exposed films unless the temperatures are *really* high where you're going. One last thing: take more film than you think you will need. It's much better to bring some home than try to buy it there - you won't know how it has been stored and may get ripped off. Airport x-rays should pose no problems for your films.

Graham, the OM2000 was IMHO tantamount to a slur on the OM line. It was made by Cosina, and most OM accessories didn't fit. The two zooms they offered were pretty dull too. Best avoided, an OM1n would be a far better buy - especially in the long term.

<i>I shot some side by side comparisons with the current single coat 50 and it blew the MC out of the water on sharpness.</i>

<p>Sample variations occur in all lines. Most people I have corresponded with confirm that the MC formulations perform better, and this is backed up by the test data I have seen. However, that's not to say the SC version is a dog, and if you're happy with it that's not a problem.</p>

You need to compare Fortepan 400's sensitivity with SFX200, not Fortepan 100. A PDF for SFX200 with spectral sensitivity graph is available at www.ilford.com

Well my OMs are alive and kicking, thankyou. There are loads of cameras still in use that are from 'dead' systems - Anything with an M42 thread, Leica screw RFs, TLRs, Graflex and MPPs to name but a few. Who cares? When the lens won't focus or the shutter won't work <i>that's</i> when it's dead. Until then keep using them.

The single coated 50mm f1.4 is not a stellar performer. The lens was redesigned when multicoating was introduced, and then again when the serial numbers passed around 1,100,000. The last design is claimed to be the best, but there's not much between it and its immediate predecessor.

 

Comparing OM and Leica has been done a million times. I think the OM range was probably inspired more by Leica's M-series cameras, but even so it has its own character (and fan club). Don't worry about it, just make pictures with whatever you're happy with.

Peter, if you think you might print your own negs in future then use XP2 of Fuji 400CN instead of the Kodak. Both can be processed in C-41 colour machines. The Kodak film is just not designed for darkroom printing.

 

Try Peak Imaging, but look for a local Kodak Express too (try this <a href="http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=11/3143/3149&pq-locale=en_GB">store locator</a>). If they offer prints on b&w paper as my local shop does (they charge ?1 extra), then try that. The prints were noticeably better than from Jessops. All but one of the images in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=348236">this folder</a> were scanned from minilab prints off C-41 mono films.

Neopan is near enough a twin for XP2 and is made by Ilford. Both these two c-41 compatible films print well in the darkroom and scan easily, so are the best of both worlds.

 

Kodak 400BW has a dense orange mask that is fine for printing on colour paper, but a nightmare in the darkroom. Unless you're shooting it commercially alongside the colour Portra films and running it through the same machinery (onto colour paper) I cannot see any good reason to choose it over the others.