Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 22, 2010, 12:52 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
I've been shooting digital for years now. I wonder how I'd do shooting a roll of 24 w/o being able to see the results instantaneously and how good the images would be. Maybe I'll do that (if I can still find film to buy).
Not easy to find film anymore. Walgreens sells it and the one roll I used from there was quite good. But I think they only have 400 which is too fast for any close up work. I used to shoot a fair amount of film when i only had the C2500 since i could get better pics that way. Nowadays I still like to shoot once in a while just to keep the skill.

Pics turned out good, only 4 bad ones, 2 i knew about, and a couple of nice ones. Couple more practice rolls and I'll be ready to shoot slides but that's another story not at all related to this thread....

Anyway, try film sometime, it's fun, I kinda like the not knowing bit, a little mystery in life is always a good thing.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 22, 2010, 6:41 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

This is an interesting thread. I shot film for some 3 decades (starting with a used Leica IIIf), and I don't miss film at all. The reason for me is that I always wanted to improve my photography and the lag time between my decisions and seeing their results, always made me crazy. I had to write down lots of notes about what I did in each shot and wait at least a day to get the pix back to see what happened (or develop the pix myself which also caused at least a one-day delay, and you don't want to know what the Omega enlarger, the gazillion pieces of darkroom equipment and chemicals. plus the plumbing to maintain temperature control cost, even in those days).

For me, digital photography is a dream come true for 3 reasons:
1. The feedback between my decisions about shooting, and their results, is immediate. Helps me learn.
2. If you were shooting film in available light with low light conditions, the grain (aka noise) of high speed films was a killer. You have no idea if you didn't do this. You can't believe how much better the DR of modern DSLRs is even at high-ISO, than high-ISO film.
3. The inflation-adjusted cost of really good camera gear now, is way lower than it was in the film days. And even though PShop is expensive, it's way less costly than a film darkroom. Trust me on this.

So I'm not looking back, at all. Although I've never owned a digital camera that is the same mechanical jewel that the Leica IIIf was, I'm happy to move on.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2010, 2:02 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
This is an interesting thread. I shot film for some 3 decades (starting with a used Leica IIIf), and I don't miss film at all. The reason for me is that I always wanted to improve my photography and the lag time between my decisions and seeing their results, always made me crazy. I had to write down lots of notes about what I did in each shot and wait at least a day to get the pix back to see what happened (or develop the pix myself which also caused at least a one-day delay, and you don't want to know what the Omega enlarger, the gazillion pieces of darkroom equipment and chemicals. plus the plumbing to maintain temperature control cost, even in those days).

For me, digital photography is a dream come true for 3 reasons:
1. The feedback between my decisions about shooting, and their results, is immediate. Helps me learn.
2. If you were shooting film in available light with low light conditions, the grain (aka noise) of high speed films was a killer. You have no idea if you didn't do this. You can't believe how much better the DR of modern DSLRs is even at high-ISO, than high-ISO film.
3. The inflation-adjusted cost of really good camera gear now, is way lower than it was in the film days. And even though PShop is expensive, it's way less costly than a film darkroom. Trust me on this.

So I'm not looking back, at all. Although I've never owned a digital camera that is the same mechanical jewel that the Leica IIIf was, I'm happy to move on.

Ted
I've always wanted to have a darkroom but the days when i could even remotely justify it are long gone. Maybe if i was made of money....

As for film versus digital, for the most part I agree with you. There is no doubt that I have become a way more technically proficient photographer in a shorter time because i have a DSLR to shoot with. This is especially true of macro work where it is a real pain with a film camera. Frankly I'm not sure I would even try it beyond 1:1 so whole worlds would be lost to me were it not for DSLRs. That said i worry that the digital revolution has made things too easy. If getting the picture 'right' takes little effort it likely takes little thought as well. That's one of the reasons I have been using old glass and still shoot film now and again. I want to make sure I am seeing what is in the viewfinder, not just looking thru it.

It seems like there was an art to using the old high ISO films, getting the composition right so that the grain enhanced rather than distracted from the results. I never really mastered that art so that part of the old days I don't miss at all. Not that the e-500 is really any better at 800.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 25, 2010, 9:55 AM   #24
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
This is an interesting thread. I shot film for some 3 decades (starting with a used Leica IIIf), and I don't miss film at all. The reason for me is that I always wanted to improve my photography and the lag time between my decisions and seeing their results, always made me crazy. I had to write down lots of notes about what I did in each shot and wait at least a day to get the pix back to see what happened (or develop the pix myself which also caused at least a one-day delay, and you don't want to know what the Omega enlarger, the gazillion pieces of darkroom equipment and chemicals. plus the plumbing to maintain temperature control cost, even in those days).

For me, digital photography is a dream come true for 3 reasons:
1. The feedback between my decisions about shooting, and their results, is immediate. Helps me learn.
2. If you were shooting film in available light with low light conditions, the grain (aka noise) of high speed films was a killer. You have no idea if you didn't do this. You can't believe how much better the DR of modern DSLRs is even at high-ISO, than high-ISO film.
3. The inflation-adjusted cost of really good camera gear now, is way lower than it was in the film days. And even though PShop is expensive, it's way less costly than a film darkroom. Trust me on this.

So I'm not looking back, at all. Although I've never owned a digital camera that is the same mechanical jewel that the Leica IIIf was, I'm happy to move on.

Ted
I feel the same way. I shot film, b&w mostly, for about 30 years as well, and developed all my own b&w images. Started as a teenager with a very manual 6x6 fold-out camera, and took macros using close-up conversion lenses, settings tables and a rules to (hopefully) get things in focus. Later used Olympus OMs (still have 4 OM bodies with lots of paraphernalia like power winders, flash units that worked TTL/OTF with the OM2 bodies, and yes, glass). I don't miss my little old darkroom with the chemical fumes at all; but I am glad I learned photography that way.
If you want to shoot 'like film', just switch off the review function of your camera and only look at the result after you have transferred your images to the computer. Or if you have one of the cameras with an articulated screen, just turn it around to close and use the viewfinder exclusively, also to see your settings.
The only thing I do miss when focusing manually is the OM-style viewfinder. I always used pure matte viewscreens, which is a slightly more difficult way to focus as there is no focusing assistance (no split screen or similar), but you get used to really looking at what the screen shows. I'd love to have a matte screen in my E-620; the main problem with those viewfinders is not the size, but the ultraclear screen that shows you a view more like that through a monocular telescope - it does not 'snap' into focus on the screen surface. Add varifocal glasses and you end up playing with the diopter settings to ensure that you get the focus right and do not end up focusing just a bit in front or behind the subject.
I still prefer manual focusing to autofocus in most situations, and have set the MF on my cameras (E-500 and E-620) to use the AEL button to provide me with a quick AF which then is held in memory - effectively giving me a rapid 'quasi-manual' focus as the AF system is more accurate and faster than my old eyes in most situations. The great disadvantage of AF is that it frequently focuses on the wrong thing as soon as you move the principal subject out of the center of the image and forget to half-press and hold the focus while you compose.
While it is true that the modern digital Zuikos are so good, even the kit zooms, that it is usually not really worth it to replace them with manual OM lenses in the same range, there are still some reasons to do so:
- many OM primes are faster than the non-professional digital Zuiko zooms
- for manual focusing, if you really want to do that, an OM Zuiko is far easier than a digital Zuiko - it's purely mechanical, smooth and accurate.
- some are sharper; not important for any hand-held shooting of moving subjects, but for landscape photography on a tripod it may count.
- wider apertures give better bokeh with shallower depth of field.

I have tried a few of my OM Zuikos: 1.4/50, 2.8/100 and the 75-150 mm zoom. The latter on a tripod on the E-500, one on one against the kit 40-150 digital zoom. The OM lens was visibly sharper once stopped down a bit, especially in the corners; wide open the DZ won out. For primes in the standard to tele range this should be even more true: stop down two stops and they are likely to beat your DZ glass at the same aperture.
I figured the result was good enough to get an additional adapter and carry my 1.4/50 and the 2.8/100 in my bag, both with a 4/3 adapter permanently fitted. If money allows I may look into a chipped adapter some day - having focus confirmation would make all the difference for someone with old eyes. See the link below for some comparisons:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/schwep/...7594490694709/

And just one image (100% zoomed crop of the upper left corner of the shot) of the DZ 40-150 mm against the old OMZ 75-150, both at f/8 on a tripod. The DZ is the left image, the OMZ the right. I'd say that such a difference can make it worthwhile to do some manual focusing for landscape work...

OMSchwep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2010, 7:32 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMSchwep View Post
I don't miss my little old darkroom with the chemical fumes at all; but I am glad I learned photography that way.
Me too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMSchwep View Post
The only thing I do miss when focusing manually is the OM-style viewfinder.
Katz Eye Optics makes replaceable screens for the E-500 that are better for manual focus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMSchwep View Post
The OM lens was visibly sharper once stopped down a bit, especially in the corners
I see that in the images. That really surprises me; my limited experience with OM legacy glass is consistent with what Wrotniak says about it:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/any-lens.html

I once bought a 100mm f/2 OM lens (which is very highly regarded) because I was looking for a lens easier to carry around while hiking, than the ZD 35-100 f/2. But the 100mm's images never came close to the ZD 35-100's. However, that may not be a fair comparison - the ZD 35-100 is one of the two best ZD lenses Oly makes.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 1:25 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Washington State
Posts: 930
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkurkowski View Post
Me too.



Katz Eye Optics makes replaceable screens for the E-500 that are better for manual focus.



I see that in the images. That really surprises me; my limited experience with OM legacy glass is consistent with what Wrotniak says about it:

http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/any-lens.html

I once bought a 100mm f/2 OM lens (which is very highly regarded) because I was looking for a lens easier to carry around while hiking, than the ZD 35-100 f/2. But the 100mm's images never came close to the ZD 35-100's. However, that may not be a fair comparison - the ZD 35-100 is one of the two best ZD lenses Oly makes.

Ted
Another place to try for focusing screens is here:
http://www.focusingscreen.com/index....7d2fcb9f9e77d2

I haven't tried one yet but some of the ones here are cheap enough I just might. I'm not into shelling out $160 bucks if I'm going to change bodies in the near future.

As for comparing lenses I'd say the 35-100 should be much better considering the cost. The 40-150 can be had as cheap or cheaper than the old OM 100/2 so I'm not as surprised it would suffer in comparison though I wouldn't have thought as badly as it did. The old MF lenses are really just a way to get quality glass on a DSLR w/o breaking the bank and so to some extent comparisons are silly. I once found a long comparison of the old Tamron 300/2.8 and the Oly 300/2.8 which seemed ridiculous to me. The Tamron is nice glass but one would buy it only because the cost was so much less, not because they figured it would be as good (well at least they shouldn't). Comparing it to the 50-200 + EC-14 combo would be much better as the costs would be closer. I have seen a comparison of that combo to the Oly 300/5.6 and a Vivitar 300/5.6. The old ones had better bokeh but the new was sharper, about what you'd expect. As for me, unless the Sigma blows me away I'll keep hunting down old glass to try, it's cheap and fun.

John
jelow1966 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 9:43 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jelow1966 View Post
Another place to try for focusing screens is here:
http://www.focusingscreen.com/index....7d2fcb9f9e77d2

I haven't tried one yet but some of the ones here are cheap enough I just might. I'm not into shelling out $160 bucks if I'm going to change bodies in the near future.

John
I took a look and you're right - they're less expensive that the Katz Eye screens. What I found interesting though, is that they don't warn you (like Katz Eye does) that on the E-3 their screens will change the exposure metering (which in the E-3 is somehow coupled to the screen).

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 10:09 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Considering how popular the use of MF lenses has become, it would be nice if the camera manufacturers would add such a system to their cameras (even if on selected models). That would eliminate the need to mess around with the camera and the extra spending. Of course this won't happen because after all, camera manufacturers want us to spend money on their new, over-priced digital lenses rather than on vintage lenses they don't make a penny on.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 10:20 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default MrI'd be happy if they just made the screens intercha

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tullio View Post
Considering how popular the use of MF lenses has become, it would be nice if the camera manufacturers would add such a system to their cameras (even if on selected models). That would eliminate the need to mess around with the camera and the extra spending. Of course this won't happen because after all, camera manufacturers want us to spend money on their new, over-priced digital lenses rather than on vintage lenses they don't make a penny on.
I'd be happy if they just made the screen easily changeable, like on the film cameras. If you look at the directions for the aftermarket screens for DSLRs, changing one is no picnic. (Although that's at least in part due to the fact that the screen is so much smaller in a 4/3 or APS-C camera than in a full-frame one.)

Ted

Last edited by tkurkowski; Feb 27, 2010 at 10:28 AM.
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2010, 10:49 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

Ever since I got into the m4/3, I've been buying and using MF lenses more and more. They are a lot of fun (but not for all occasions). One thing I noticed was that in the beginning, I was having a hard time achieving accurate focus, more so with my EP1 than with the G1 due to the lack of an EVF. However, there are some obvious indications of when focus has been reached once you understand the camera and lens behavior. I noticed that the G1 performs very differently than the EP1 when it comes to MF. So, the trick is to know your equipment and the best way to accomplish that is by practicing.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:30 AM.