Almost without fail he is negative, confrontational and self
contradictory (not all in each post, of course). Very occasionally
he contributes something useful.
I really don't know why he is here. He seems determined to impose
his view on everyone that digital photography is only a pale
imitation of 'real' photography which is only carried out using
equipment which 'real men' used and which results in 'real'
photography. He seems to be particularly venemous about Olympus.
He does not appear to realise that he belongs with the dinosasurs.
I don't mean that in a derogatory sense to other users however it
is my considered view that DSLR's (no matter what their current
perceived shortcomings) will continue to improve, get cheaper and
will eventually become dominant in much the same way that CD's
ousted vinyl and eventually relegated it to a niche specialist area
despite the protests of the die-hard enthuisiasts. It isn't really
a question of 'whether', it's only a question of 'when' and 'how
much'.
Once we can get clear of the '35mm, 35mm, 35mm' mantra and the
'full frame' trap DSLR technology can really take off and do I
perceive Olympus as being one of the few with sufficient nerve
(and, to be fair, less to lose) to pull it off with 4/3 format
sensors and optimised intelligent lenses. Who really remembers how
35mm came about? Was it a carefully planned and optimised design
with matched lenses and body designs put together by a consortium
of interested parties or was it just expedient to saw readily
available 70mm stock in half?
Does this mean we lose the 'good old days'? Yes, it does. Except
they weren't all really good, were they? I started with a Hanimex
35mm POS (yes, I'll admit it!) and progressed through some worthy
SLR's along the way (no, OMF, pipe down, never had an OM anything).
I never, repeat NEVER had images out of any of them to rival what I
get out of my E-20 today and that is considered 'old' technology.
OMF seems to have a giant sized chip (not silicon lol) on his
shoulder because an industrial giant like Olympus will not share
his nostalgia and remain in the past. I say, applaud them for
trying to meld the best of the past with the best of the future and
show the C & N ostriches that there is another way to develop
digital imaging, whether Oly succeeds or fails.
Maybe he should just take all his OM kit and retire to his darkroom
and stay there, stop bugging us and leave us to get on with the
future - I for one am tired of his incessant whining and as a
fellow countryman suggest that if he doesn't like current
developments (no pun intended) he should just 'leave town'.
Jim
Yes ...that 300mm zuiko f2.8 has the same field of view of a 600mm
film lens ..but so what? ... it does not have the resolution. ...
The image resolution of that lens is at least 50-75% less than
that produced by the 250mm f2.0, 350mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.5 film
lenses used on an "old" OM film body loaded with 100 asa film.
(Can you imagine how bad it's comparative performance would be
against an OM film camera loaded with Fujichrome 50 or Kodachrome
64?). This is not a problem with the lens .. it's a problem with
the sensor that this fantastic lens has to project it's
superb-quality images on!
Om Fan,
Not that I don't believe you, but exactly how do you measure the
300mm F2.8 digital zuiko's resolution comapred to the 250mm f2.0,
350mm f2.8 and 300mm f4.5 film lenses.
I guess I'm not understanding what you are saying, because first you
say the resolution of the lens can't match, then you say it's a
problem
with the sensor the lens is attached to.
What would be interesting, is to get a 4/3 to OM adapter, as in
reverse
of the OM to 4/3's adapter, and try some digital zuiko's on film
cameras
side by side with the other lenses.
I'm anxiously awaiting arrival of the adapter, and samples posted
by all
you guys with OM zuikos laying around (Thanks Higuma for the samples
you already posted). I want to see some 300mm + samples.
PS OM lenses are going nuts on ebay, prices are UP.
Joe
