Although the OM-4 and so the updated -4Ti are very nice cameras, they aren't recommended for long term use due to lack of spare parts. Of course, you can always buy a spare body to take parts from.
Of course lack of spare parts applies to all these cameras long out of production and not just the OM4.
In the USA, I've experienced excellent repair service from Camera Repair Japan and Camtech.
For critical focusing - as well as a right angle finder, the Olympus Varimagni finder is an excellent accessory that even fits most of my other camera brands.
Which of the nikons have a high level of reparability? the f2 is quite large, the f3 has too much electornics(?) (but sexy looks for sure). So then your talking about fm2 and such?
Which macro lenses are avaible for the lx and how are their perforamce? Lenses are getting important for me, I need good lenses (and preferrabley cheap but one can't get it all).
Giganova: How come you only looked at those? How about the older SL series as mentioned before? Considerering the leica r because they have leica lenses so thats why im curious.
E: What does a new pentax lx cost? also the titanium version is just ridiculously priced. So that dosen't matte for me. If I really want titanium then I'd just go for an om4ti or a nikon f3
They also sold a very well respected 105mm 2.5 macro that was built by Kiron. This lens is a true macro at 1:1 reproduction.
I use a Pentax LX and MX, and have owned a Nikon F3.
The high eyepoint viewfinder in the F3HP is the best 35mm viewfinder I have ever used. Two drawbacks: the meter readout is a squinty little LCD affair that I didn't like.
If you think the LCD is squinty in the F3HP it's because the whole viewfinder is squinty as it has a tiny 0.75X magnification compared to 0.97X in the MX and the even larger magnification in a couple of LX viewfinders.
Nikon F, and F2 have 0.8X viewfinder magnification and everybody says it's a great viewfinder (i do, as well).
I had a Nikon F3 (non-HP) and found the viewfinder good. I tried the HP model and it seemed, yes, smaller, but still fine, though.
"Everybody" who says it's a "great finder" obviously prefer more eye-relief over magnification.
It "seemed" smaller because it optically is.
I never implied otherwise. Of course it is smaller. My point is that when I compared the F3 versus the F3HP, it seemed "smaller but just fine, though." In other words, that the magnification (0.75X) was still good enough for focusing, framing, composing, etc.
You speak about a tradeoff of eye relief vs magnification, but there is another parameter - brightness. And, if the focusing screen stays the same, bigger viewfinder will imply less brightness. Of course, a brighter focusing screen may alleviate this problem, BUT there is ANOTHER problem: engineers can increase focusing screen brightness but in detriment of focusing precision. Of course this assumes the focusing screen technology is the same. 1960s focusing screen technology can't be compared with 1980s technology and so on.
If you think the LCD is squinty in the F3HP it's because the whole viewfinder is squinty as it has a tiny 0.75X magnification compared to 0.97X in the MX and the even larger magnification in a couple of LX viewfinders. Of course the smaller magnification viewfinders have more eye relief and generally preferred by those who wear glasses.
Sure, I do wear glasses and like the eye relief. But I also shoot with contact lenses on, and then it's a moot point.
The tiny LCD is a separate issue. Nikon could have used a bigger or more contrasty display, or could have put a bigger backlight on it. (The Pentax Program Plus is quite good for this.) Or Nikon could have gone for a full-height LED scale or match-needle. Lots of options would have been better.
Of course it's subjective, but with or without glasses, the F3HP is the most pleasurable viewfinder I've ever used. Perhaps it's the particular ground glass, or something else, but subjects SNAP into focus and the view is very film-like. Not dissimilar to the view in a good MF waist level finder. As I say, the LX is almost as good. My biggest quibble is eyepoint, secondly a bit less snap-in-focus effect. I have tried the LX's high eyepoint sport finder, and abandoned it, because while composition was easy, focus was not. The F3HP really is my goldilocks finder, combining the two.
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?