What a shock - my Olympus 35 RC is the winner
greg
experiment and the results have really surprised me. I took four cameras
- Canonet GIII QL17, Olympus 35 RC, Olympic Stylus Epic 35 f2.8 and
Nikon F90x w/50mm f1.8D and fitted them with Fujichrome Sensia 100 and
then proceeded to take the exact same photos with each, usually with the
cameras mounted on the tripod. Looking at the slides under a loop on my
viewbox there is surprisingly little difference in the sharpness, if
anything the Nikon may be slightly better on some of the photos but the
Canonet and Olympus are not far behind and the Epic is not far behind
that. In fact, in many of the photos it would be near impossible to tell
from which camera are the sharpest. A few, and I only mean about three
or four of the Epic photos are a bit off exposure but the rest are fine.
Some people claim that the Epic can't successfully use slide film, but
this is not the case with mine because most are very good. What is
surprisingly is that virtually all the Olympus RC photos show by far the
most contrast and are IMO the most visually appealing. The RC produced
the bluest sky, whitest clouds, greenest foilage, etc. I don't know if
other examples of these four cameras would duplicate these same results,
but this is what I see in front of me now. Very surprising that my $40.
Olympus RC beat out my multi buck Nikon.
Just a very interesting observation.
Phil Partridge
Cameraquest.com rates the 35rc (and rd) as great little cameras with very
sharp lenses. Everyone should have at least one of these cheap, high quality
'70s rangefinders. They have all the virtues SLRs lack: quiet, compact, low
vibration, unobtrusive, and very affordable. Progress sometimes becomes
regress. But some folks just need 10 lenses (never know when you'll need
that 300/4, right?), and 1/8000 top shutter, and 8 frames/sec, wow, it
sounds so impressive, give it to me!
Greg, what's wrong with you, man, stuck back in the stone age.. :-)
In the interests of scientific comparison, I hope the ones you have
commented on were all shot the same way (tripod or not) at the approximate
same time of day, with lens hoods, and similar aperture/shutter settings.
BTW, how do each of the cameras' slides fare out at the edge of the shots?
Paul Rubin
> that's great, now you know what to carry with you most of the time.
> Cameraquest.com rates the 35rc (and rd) as great little cameras with very
> sharp lenses. Everyone should have at least one of these cheap, high quality
> '70s rangefinders. They have all the virtues SLRs lack: quiet, compact, low
> vibration, unobtrusive, and very affordable. Progress sometimes becomes
> regress. But some folks just need 10 lenses (never know when you'll need
> that 300/4, right?), and 1/8000 top shutter, and 8 frames/sec, wow, it
> sounds so impressive, give it to me!
There's one thing most compact cameras lack and that's good wideangle
coverage. By far my favorite SLR lens is a 24mm. The one really wide
compact camera I know of is the Ricoh GR21, a 21mm version of the
excellent GR1. I'd love to have one someday but at over $1K, I think
I'd rather spend the money on a new laptop or something.
greg
Phil Partridge wrote:
> In the interests of scientific comparison, I hope the ones you have
> commented on were all shot the same way (tripod or not) at the approximate
> same time of day, with lens hoods, and similar aperture/shutter settings.
> BTW, how do each of the cameras' slides fare out at the edge of the shots?
>
The shots were all done at exactly the same time. Everywhere I went all four
cameras were with me. What I have to do now is find a high end loupe to borrow.
greg
Phil Partridge wrote:
> that's great, now you know what to carry with you most of the time.
> Cameraquest.com rates the 35rc (and rd) as great little cameras with very
> sharp lenses.
If you read what Stephen Gandy has to say about the Olympus RC at
http://cameraquest.com/classics.htm
"the five element Zuiko lens is outstanding at middle and small aperatures.
Camera 35 tested this lens to resolve 80+mm center resolution from f5.6 to f16.
I first learned of the excellent lens when I heard glamour photographer Peter
Gowland singing their praises at a photo seminar".
He also says that the Canonet GIII QL17, Olympus RD and Konica S3 are no
slouches either. On the Canonet he says:
"A friend of mine has six GIII QL17's, claiming his tests outperform the 40/2 on
his Leica CL".
Personally I love those 70's rangefinders. They are very cheap, produce superb
results, easily outperform today's P&S cameras, and are great to carry around
when you want to leave the SLR at home.
Heavysteam
I'm always amazed by the ability of d.a. amateur photographers to come to the
wrong conclusions.
greg
Heavysteam wrote:
>
>
> I'm always amazed by the ability of d.a. amateur photographers to come to the
> wrong conclusions.
Tell you what Heavy, email me your mailing address and I'll send you samples of
the slides for you to look at then you can give us all your professional
opinion.
Heavysteam
of the slides for you to look at then you can give us all your professional
opinion.>>
Send 'em to Herb Keppler-- I think he'll be able to give you the results you
want to hear.
Knife
heavy...@aol.comzapcrap says...
>Send 'em to Herb Keppler-- I think he'll be able to give you the results you
>want to hear.
So, you're willing to criticise, but not willing to compare for yourself...
gutless prick.
greg
Knife wrote:
> So, you're willing to criticise, but not willing to compare for yourself...
> gutless prick.
I wouldn't call Heavy either of those things. Unless you get him on his Leica
fetish most of his posts are usually imformative and rational . He has been a good
contributer with a fair amount of knowlege but is not always diplomatic in
conveying it to the NG. Sort of a Bronx version of Tony Polson. I understand he
teaches at some obscure community college part time and maybe at times he gets too
stuck into the Photo 101 principles that he teaches to bottom end high school
grads. Any ways Heavy, after just semi-defending you, my offer still stands. I'll
send you my slides and you can give us all your professional opinion and your
reasons why. This is kind of like the student assignments that you've posted
previosuly, but in reverse. Hoping to hear from you.
Heavysteam
gutless prick.>>
What is there to compare? You have a groundless, unscientific test, you
can't recognize the difference between variations in exposure, and you seem to
think that cameras perform some kind of "magic" that casts some kind of spell
on film that changes it chemically. Franky, your whole thread is a troll.
It's apparently a big shock to you when someone doesn't take your bait.
Heavysteam
fetish most of his posts are usually imformative and rational . He has been a
good contributer with a fair amount of knowlege but is not always diplomatic in
conveying it to the NG. Sort of a Bronx version of Tony Polson. I understand he
teaches at some obscure community college part time and maybe at times he gets
too
stuck into the Photo 101 principles that he teaches to bottom end high school
grads. Any ways Heavy, after just semi-defending you, my offer still stands.
I'll send you my slides and you can give us all your professional opinion and
posted previosuly, but in reverse. Hoping to hear from you.>>
Hey, you enjoy your Olympus camera. Like I said, send the results to Mr.
Keppler--- he can't tell the difference between images either. I do work
with students, but as employees. They are several steps up from dumb-assed
amateurs like yourself.
Sofjan
Let me see Greg came out with four box of slide to compare Canonet GIII QL17,
Olympus 35 RC, Olympic Stylus Epic 35 f2.8 and
stated his Olympus RC is the winner. Greg later stated ""Just a very
interesting observation."
To Which Several people posted some interest and asked about the methodology
of the test. and Greg added \
<< The shots were all done at exactly the same time. Everywhere I went all
four
cameras were with me. What I have to do now is find a high end loupe to borrow.
>>
So good so far.
Then Heavy stream comes out with slight condensending and snobbish tone by
saying <<
<< I'm always amazed by the ability of d.a. amateur photographers to
<< come to the wrong conclusions.
On which Greg reply by offering Heavy a chance to look at the slide.
and Heavy rejected with a snobbish tone in this reply
<< Send 'em to Herb Keppler-- I think he'll be
<< able to give you the results you want to
<< Hear.
Knife don't seem to be able contained himself anymore and proclaimed
<<So, you're willing to criticise, but not willing
<< to compare for yourself...gutless prick.
On which Greg try to semi defend Heavy with a long post hoping heavy might
still be civil enought in implore Heavy to look at his slide one more time.
at which HEAVY STREAM just exploded with venoumous drivel attacking both knife
and Greg.
on GREG , HEAVY wrote backthis
<< Hey, you enjoy your Olympus camera. Like I said, send the results to Mr.
Keppler--- he can't tell the difference between images either. I do work
with students, but as employees. They are several steps up from dumb-assed
amateurs like yourself. >>
So Greg is a DUMB ASS several step down from student you work with as a part
time employee some where in a obscure community college in NY.
Really. I just see ANNIKA with more money and even badder attitude.
You might just be a grumpy old man version of Annika.
Sofjan
Pat Chaney
>Let me see Greg came out with ...
>Then Heavy stream comes out with ...
>On which Greg reply by ...
>Knife don't seem to be able contained himself anymore and ...
>On which Greg try to semi defend Heavy with a long post ...
>at which HEAVY STREAM just exploded with ...
>on GREG , HEAVY wrote backthis ...
Wow - if you keep this up we won't actually have to read the other posts
at all :)
Pat
--
Photos at:
http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
Heavysteam
just be a grumpy old man version of Annika.
Sofjan >>
Neither you or Greg should try to get work as any form of analyst. He was
100% wrong in his speculations, as are you. Funny, though, Annika sure
qualifies as a dumb-assed amateur, as does Greg. Unlike the student
photographers that I have the privilege to work with from time-to-time, he and
Annika have no interest in learning. That's why I call them dumb-assed
amateurs. They are actually antagonistic to learning (and teachers) as you
can see from Greg's post. I sure wish, though, that I could take it easy
and get a nice job teaching photography. Student photographers (most of
them, at least) are a joy to work with and anyone who can teach has my highest
respect. Newsgroup trolls like Greg and yourself fall on the other end of
my "admiration" scale.
greg
HeavyBS wrote:
> <<So Greg is a DUMB ASS several step down from student you work with as a
> parttime employee some where in a obscure community college in NY. You might
> just be a grumpy old man version of Annika.
> Sofjan >>
>
> Neither you or Greg should try to get work as any form of analyst. He was
> 100% wrong in his speculations, as are you.
HeavyBS, for the third time why don't YOU look at my slides and tell me if I'm
wrong. I don't mind people disagreeing with with my opinions if they have they
evidence in front of them but until you do, what are you basing your opinions on.
> Funny, though, Annika sure
> qualifies as a dumb-assed amateur, as does Greg.
I may be a dumb-assed amateur, but that sure beats the hell out of being a
dumb-assed self proclaimed "professional".
> They are actually antagonistic to learning (and teachers) as you
> can see from Greg's post.
Let's see. You don't look at the slides and then you tell me that I have to be
wrong and by disputing your "professional" opinion, even when you haven't even
seen them.
> I sure wish, though, that I could take it easy
> and get a nice job teaching photography.
You'd be a lousy teacher HeavyBS. Besides, who would ever hire you. Stick to what
you're doing with photography, but don't give up your day job just yet..
> Newsgroup trolls like Greg and yourself fall on the other end of
> my "admiration" scale.
This was not a troll . It was a legitimate observation that I made with four
cameras using them under near identical situations. The admiration scale is
mutual.
Heavysteam
I'm wrong. I don't mind people disagreeing with with my opinions if they have
they evidence in front of them but until you do, what are you basing your
opinions on.>>
I'm basing my opinion on your unrelenting record of being a troll, of your envy
and hatred of people who can afford equipment that you cannot, your hatred of
educators, and your just plain dumb-assed remarks and comments.
greg
HeavyBS wrote:
>
>
> I'm basing my opinion on your unrelenting record of being a troll,
??????
> of your envy
> and hatred of people who can afford equipment that you cannot,
?????????
> your hatred of
> educators,
Got knews for you. I once was an educator. Changed careers though.
> and your just plain dumb-assed remarks and comments.
???????????
Heavysteam
That doesn't surprise me.
greg
Heavysteam wrote:
> <<Got knews for you. I once was an educator. Changed careers though.>>
>
> That doesn't surprise me.
Jeeze, you absolutely insist upon getting the last word don't you.
Tony Polson
greg
Tony Polson wrote:
> I think that could equally be said of you, greg!
>
>
Actually Tony, I normally let Heavysteam's comments go by wiithout making a
fuss. This post was an exception since he's turned down my offer to view the
slides. I don't mind being told I'm wrong, but I would at least expect someone
to have first viewed the slides before making such a conclusion.
Sofjan
>fuss. This post was an exception since he's turned down my offer to view the
>slides. I don't mind being told I'm wrong, but I would at least expect
>someone
>to have first viewed the slides before making such a conclusion.
>
Hi Greg .
I think it is almost pointless now to continue this thread. I know it as well
as you know it as well as anybody.
Heavy is just a sand box bully who grew up to poses enought dough and knowlegde
in his gray matters to piss off everybody without any substantial argument.
I would be interested to see your slide. If you sent it to me. but please do
not lable the camera/lens used . just used A, B, C, D etc. I can promise i can
find anything other than objective opinion. an unscientific one in that
matters.
I don't have a photo microscope but i have a rodenstock loupe. I would be
thrill if you have in the pictures you took a pictures of slightly sidelit
brick wall or stone wall. That will make comparison a bit easier. Bar a
resolution chart.
Once in a while i also do the same unscientific test using my gear too. and
the result is surprising. My Ricoh GR1 with a 28mm f2.8 lens is sharper than my
minolta prime and zooms at the same focal length. I think being without mirror
and a shutter that is light has something to do about it too. My best 28mm is
Contax 28mm f2.8 and My Contax G series 28mm Biogon.
One of my most surprising test was Nikon 50mm f1.8 series E it is cheap and if
you shine a flash light into it a slight angle you can see that the lens dust
shielding is not good at all. bunch f dust particle settle oon the element. but
it deliver a sharp pictures. even with all the crud inside . My minolta 50mm
f1.7 actually has less contrast. or maybe because the Nikon 50mm 1.8 E has more
contrast so it appear sharper ?? or maybe my Minolta f1.7 is bad. My Contax
50mm f1.4 and G series 45mm f2 is better. and you can actually see the
difference in contrast and resolution.
But IMHO camera shake or body tremor with low shutter speed seems to be the
sharp pictures nemesis in my case.
Sofjan Mustopoh
greg
Sofjan wrote:
>
>
> Hi Greg .
>
>
> Heavy is just a sand box bully ..............
My opinion also.
> who grew up ........
No. Not yet!
>
>
> I would be interested to see your slide. If you sent it to me. but please do
> not lable the camera/lens used . just used A, B, C, D etc. I can promise i can
> find anything other than objective opinion. an unscientific one in that
> matters.
Sure. Email your address to me personally and I'll send you off a few for your
comparison.
Greg