What's new
DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a spin-off of dpreview. We are a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. From smartphone to Medium Format.

DPRF is a community for everybody, every brand and every sensor format. Digital and film.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Why MicroFourThird (Olympus, Panasonic etc.) at all?

“[A slight correction to your Web page: The Leica M1 was NOT a rangefinder camera--it was the only Leica M without a rangefinder, as it was meant for use with the Visoflex reflex housing.]â€

Ivan Berger (Iberger),

A slight addition to your correction: The Leica M1 was also meant for use on a microscope.
 
Just to add a little to this thread. For the last few years, I have let photography lie, having used Olympus OM for a number of years, largely because my father started collecting it in the early '70s. I have acquired some from him, and bought others myself, and now have an OM1n, OM2n, OM2 spot, OM40 and, by far my favourite, an OM4ti. Anyway, due to other considerations I let it lapse for a while, until earlier this year I bought a digital camera (Sony DSC717), thinking this ws the easy was to go, especially as I love using Photoshop and Illustrator. However, the result of this has been to go firmly back to the OMs, and also to acquire a Hasselblad 500c/m, and even a vintage Zeiss-Ikon Nettar from 1938 which still works perfectly. From this I have started processing my own films, which at the moment I scan into Photoshop, but am also in the process of setting up a darkroom with a Durst enlarger that has been passed on to me. So, going digital has actually turned me into a Luddite. I sincerely hope that film's demise takes a long time.
 
[The problem is that you didn't give digital a fair shot; you bought a point and shoot and are comparing your results to those of top interchangeable lens film cameras. That's a bit like someone who has used nothing but Canon 1Ds or oly E-1 getting a zoom lens film point and shoot and saying, boy, this film stuff really sucks. If all you want to do is entertain yourself, then go back to film. But realize that it's a bit like someone five years ago saying 'I'm going to go back to glass plates - I sure hope I can get those chemicals for a reasonable stretch of time.' Film is a dying capture medium - it will be around for a good while, but it will more and more be seen as an artifact of an earlier photographic age.
 
Fair point. I wasn't actually meaning to decry digital (I have used a Canon digital SLR and enjoyed a lot, and will almost certainly get something similar in the next 2 or three years). Rather, that it has re-kindled my enjoyment of photography, to a far greater degree than before, and I'm enjoying getting to grips with, for want of a better phrase, the mechanics of it. Perhaps I could take back the Luddite bit?
 
I do know what you mean about re-kindling the enjoyment; I shoot professionally, but I find myself doing much more personal shooting now that I'm shooting digital, because I don't have to buy film or pay for processing. I'd suggest that you can get into the "mechanics of it" just as thoroughly in digital as you can with film - all that's missing are the toxic chemicals, the stained clothes, and the other pia associated with wet work. I've been using the E-1 for about a year now - and I should note that Olympus gives me equipment - and have to say that I am getting just as good results as I got with my Leica Ms and Nikon F100s. Yes, I still love film, and I certainly love the rangefinders for a whole host of reasons - but I don't think you can tell the difference between the final results. Take a look at www.a-day-in-our-life.com There's both film and digital work there. \
 
What wonderful pictures. Needless to say I can't tell the difference. I will try to get a chance to have a go on something like the E-1
 
Yea, digital is cool - I have about $2000 into a Canon DSLR, 17-40 and 80-200 L enses, and now I get almost as good of quality as I get from my OM2 and a small stable of basic Zuiko lenses, all of which cost me about $600 :) I recently made a 16 X 20 print from the digital and from across the room it actually looks OK - as good as a 24 X 36 from the OM! Well, at least the DSLR came with rechargeable batteries - that should save me some money in the long term :-D

I cannot speak about the Olympus digital cameras as I have never had one, but about their film cameras, from the OM line to the IS line to their point and shoots, I have almost never been dissapointed - and I have had them for going on 30 years now. Though the image quality of my OM-2 and 50mm f1.2 Zuiko is not quite what the Leica M7 and 50mm Summilux give, it is every bit as fun to shoot, and every bit as capable of making beautiful pictures that tell the story I want to tell.

Cheers!
- marc
smile.gif
 
Hi, Marc! Yes, the OM and Zuiko lenses will indeed do the job - and if the job involves hand-held, available light photography using iso 400 film or higher, I don't think you're going to see a difference between the results you get with the Oly setup and the results you get with the Ms - I used an OM4 for a number of years - and still have it and a pile of lenses - and it produces great images. I do question your digital/film comparison - again assuming hand-held, real-world shooting. I have had files from the E-20 blown up to 30x40 and printed on silver paper, and from a proper viewing distance they look every bit as good as tri-x blown up that way. And in using the E-1 now for a year for professional work, I don't see any difference between the images I'm getting, and the images I was getting with my Leica Ms. The only two draw backs I see now with the E-1 system are the 5mg sensor, which limits my ability to crop when I need to - and the lack of fast primes for work in low light; I am now using fill flash much more than I would ideally like to. But I'm convinced that the next iteration of the E-1 will, like the Nikons and Canons, have a much 'larger' sensor, and I am also convinced that the fast primes are just over the horizon.

Best

B. D.
 
Hey B.D.!

I've never seen a 30 X 40 print from a digital up close, that must be really something.

I think the choice of subject matter makes a big difference. I have plenty of digital images from the Digital Rebel that look excellent at high magnification. Those are all images of people, mostly my family, taken in good light with the Canon L glass. But at 6MP I cannot get a decent scenic / landscape / environmental enlargement. The micro-contrast is just not there and the distant trees and grasses looks like mush. Same lens on a film camera loaded with slide film yields splendid results. And the 20+ year old OM-2 with a 15+ year old 28mm f2 cannot be beat! I have heard that for landscape subjects in digital media at least 10MP is needed - I have no direct experience but I believe it!

I know you shoot mostly people, and I have seen lots of your work - I can see that for your subjects the digital soltuions currently available are excellent. For me, I have still to wait... and keep shooting film in my OM's, M7 and miscellaneous goof-ball vintage clunkers :)

Have you tried the fast OM primes on the E1? I have seen images from them and they look nice. A Zuiko 21mm f2 might be just the ticket for lower light... or maybe the 50 1.2 if you can sacrifice the angle of view.

Cheers!
- marc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top