...
Does understanding a camera's place in the evolution of photography inspire you to buy one, or reject it as passing phase in the charge to technological perfection?
And Lloyd's. And don't forget Spaten!!The two constants in life are death and taxes. That applies to businesses as well (except Beretta, which seems to have survived longer than the Roman Republic did).
The first camera I bought with my own wages was an OM1 back in the 70's. I couldn't imagine who bought some of the lenses in those famous OM system adverts. Like many other manufacturers Olympus diluted its heritage with some real AF dogs in later years, and only recaptured its niche with M43 digital.I don't know much about the other marques but I think Olympus did succeed in producing a compact SLR system.
And Lloyd's. And don't forget Spaten!!
The first camera I bought with my own wages was an OM1 back in the 70's. I couldn't imagine who bought some of the lenses in those famous OM system adverts. Like many other manufacturers Olympus diluted its heritage with some real AF dogs in later years, and only recaptured its niche with M43 digital.
They have staying powerBeer, guns, and insurance. Makes sense to me!
My first slr was an OM2, 1978, it was an 18th birthday gift. I always coveted the 80 f:2, but could afford the 100/2.8 - which was a very nice lens.Actually I was having a clear out and found an old newspaper with a big advert for I think an OM1 (maybe it was an OM2). The newspaper was from the 1970's. The camera could be supplied with either the 50mm f1.8 or the 50mm f1.4. It was very expensive! I did consider scanning the advert and posting here but the newspaper is so dusty I am reluctant to put it near my scanner. Might just take an iPhone snap. I still think that about some of the more exotic OM lenses. There are often 3 versions (or at least 2) of a particular focal length and the super fast versions remain very expensive (and they are much heavier). When the T-grain films at ISO 400 came out I really did not think I could justify any of those very fast variants. The only one I have is the middle 50mm at f1.4. I wanted that because it is just rather lovely.
My first slr was an OM2, 1978, it was an 18th birthday gift. I always coveted the 80 f:2, but could afford the 100/2.8 - which was a very nice lens.
I think you mean the 85mm f/2.0.I also coveted the 80 f2 but to this day I have never had one. I got the 100/2.8 early on (second hand). It’s a lovely lens. Tiny.
... Film is film. Qs Mao Zedong once famously said, who cares what color a cat is, if it catches mice it's a good cat. For now, my cat's name is HP5...
Does Canon's adoption of plastic lessen your admiration for the marque?
Does understanding a camera's place in the evolution of photography inspire you to buy one, or reject it as passing phase in the charge to technological perfection?
Well...
Sometimes colour simply requires colour.
From the approximately the same location a couple of years ago:
View attachment 198198
I recall wanting a long telephoto for my 5 x 4 camera. If only I could shoot large format chromes through this 800mm lens all my photographic desires would be fulfilled. Fortunately the phase passed.During a bad attack of GAS I believed that I needed a certain £200 lens to improve my photography. (Over a months take home wages at the time.) Got next weeks edition of Amateur Photography and the regular column of Victor Blackman had a very nice portrait of a child on a beach. Yeah that's the sort of photo I want to take. Looked at the info. 'Quarter frame crop from a Kodak Instamatic negative'. No more GAS. For a while anyway.
Thanks, 85 it is - I seem to have a mental block when it comes to that focal length. I switched from Oly to Nikon in the early 90s. The 85 f:2 I now use is a J9 in Kiev rf mount, it's become one of my favorite lenses. Typical old Sonnar, wonky wide open, sharpening up beautifully after f:4 or so. I've been waiting for a good deal on an 85 Nikkor.I think you mean the 85mm f/2.0.
And I agree, it is arguably my favourite all time lens. I've used and enjoyed it for decades.
Even though the 35mm f/2.0 spends more time on various OM bodies.
That being said, I went out today with the 24mm f/2.8 on my OM-2n and a goal of taking photos in the forest.
The 24mm might seem like an unlikely choice for that subject, but it was an interesting day, and I'm looking forward to developing the negatives.
I may, however, regret using black and white. We will see.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?