Olympus OM-4 vs Pentax LX

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:59:45 -0500, Norm Fleming wrote:

There is no shortage of opinionated people on Usenet and the Web who
have used just one system, or another, and probably only one or two
consumer-grade lenses at that. If you prefer to accept their biased
opinions, that is your choice.

Hang on a minute there, just let me see if I can get my simple mind around
this, and I've got it right - the opinions of others are biased, but yours
are not ? And this must be so, because you tell us so ? AhHa - now I
understand, pathetic idiot that I am. The scales have finally fallen from
my eyes! So there's really no point to this discussion group at all then?
Might as well shove off in that case - toodle pip!

Google the name "Tony Polson" on rec.photo.equipment.35mm.

Fun stuff.

--
The good old days start now.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 12:59:45 -0500, Norm Fleming wrote:

There is no shortage of opinionated people on Usenet and the Web who
have used just one system, or another, and probably only one or two
consumer-grade lenses at that. If you prefer to accept their biased
opinions, that is your choice.

Hang on a minute there, just let me see if I can get my simple mind around
this, and I've got it right - the opinions of others are biased, but yours
are not ? And this must be so, because you tell us so ? AhHa - now I
understand, pathetic idiot that I am. The scales have finally fallen from
my eyes! So there's really no point to this discussion group at all then?
Might as well shove off in that case - toodle pip!

Google the name "Tony Polson" on rec.photo.equipment.35mm.

Fun stuff.

--
The good old days start now.

The reality is that any major brand of camera body will make technically
good photos if equipped with a good lens... Over the years I have shot with
many cameras and have slides going back 50 years... Just recently I was
rooting through the boxes and had slides from my F5, and slides from an X700
Minolta, and from an Olympus OM2n, on the light box... Each camera brand had
been equipped with that makers 'pro' lenses... A buddy was over who is a
confirmed Nikon shooter... I gave him the loop and challenged him to tell
which one of the three rows of slides on the light box was done with the
F5... After a good ten minutes of peering and muttering, and trying to get
me to give him a hint, he gave up.... He couldn't tell...

The OM and the X700 are now retired because of my increasing inability to do
fine focusing in low light situations with a manual focus lens, not because
they were inferior to the Nikon/Nikkor in image quality... I miss my OM
though...

I second the comment that the Pentax MX is capable of fine photographs...

denny

"Duncan J Murray"
Yes, Pentax MX is really really good camera - I think it could be the
ultimate travel camera - small, well-built, doesn't need batteries, great
lenses, inconspicuous. What more could you want?

Duncan.

The reality is that any major brand of camera body will make technically
good photos if equipped with a good lens... Over the years I have shot with
many cameras and have slides going back 50 years... Just recently I was
rooting through the boxes and had slides from my F5, and slides from an X700
Minolta, and from an Olympus OM2n, on the light box... Each camera brand had
been equipped with that makers 'pro' lenses... A buddy was over who is a
confirmed Nikon shooter... I gave him the loop and challenged him to tell
which one of the three rows of slides on the light box was done with the
F5... After a good ten minutes of peering and muttering, and trying to get
me to give him a hint, he gave up.... He couldn't tell...

The OM and the X700 are now retired because of my increasing inability to do
fine focusing in low light situations with a manual focus lens, not because
they were inferior to the Nikon/Nikkor in image quality... I miss my OM
though...

I second the comment that the Pentax MX is capable of fine photographs...

denny

"Duncan J Murray"
Yes, Pentax MX is really really good camera - I think it could be the
ultimate travel camera - small, well-built, doesn't need batteries, great
lenses, inconspicuous. What more could you want?

Duncan.

"Dennis O'Connor" wrote in message
...
The reality is that any major brand of camera body will make technically
good photos if equipped with a good lens... Over the years I have shot
with many cameras and have slides going back 50 years... Just recently I
was rooting through the boxes and had slides from my F5, and slides from
an X700 Minolta, and from an Olympus OM2n, on the light box... Each camera
brand had been equipped with that makers 'pro' lenses... A buddy was over
who is a confirmed Nikon shooter... I gave him the loop and challenged him
to tell which one of the three rows of slides on the light box was done
with the F5... After a good ten minutes of peering and muttering, and
trying to get me to give him a hint, he gave up.... He couldn't tell...

Of course one wouldn't be able to tell from any given series of photo's
which of several cameras were used. That isn't the reason why photographers
choose one brand over another. The reasons are convenience, overall lens
quality, ability to take pictures under unusual circumstances, and
familiarity with a certain manufacturer's way of placing the controls, or
way of doing things. I own an F5, and I am sure that there are many
photographers whose artistic eyes are much better than mine, and who can
take much better photographs with equipment that costs a fraction of what I
paid for my system. But for me, the fact that I already owned a Nikkor lens
set, and also wanted a camera that had some of the devices that were
incorporated in the F5 was reason enough for me to purchase that particular
machine. For example, if you needed to take not one slide, but about 30
of them of the same subject in only 3 or 4 seconds, you would need a camera
like the F5 to do it, no matter how good a photographer you were.

"Bandicoot" wrote:

As it happens, before I tracked down a K-Mount version I used an OM one,
which is now in the 'will sell it when I get around to it' category, so if
you wanted to give one a try...


Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, my experience with OM mount
lenses on the E-1 has been extremely disappointing.

In particular, I had been hoping that my favourite macro lens, the
Tamron 90mm f/2.5, would serve well. I duly obtained the OM mount for
the E-1 from Olympus, and an OM Adaptall mount for the lens, and was
hugely disappointed with the results.

Other, borrowed OM lenses were also very disappointing. Other people
have had very similar experiences with OM lenses on their E series
cameras, so it wasn't my setup that was at fault. I gave up on the OM
adaptor and passed it to a friend who is determined to find at least
one OM lens that produces good results with his E-300.

In contrast, the results from the Zuiko Digital 50mm macro lens are
simply superb. The lens is extremely sharp with good bokeh, and I
have used it extensively for portraiture.

"Bandicoot" wrote:

As it happens, before I tracked down a K-Mount version I used an OM one,
which is now in the 'will sell it when I get around to it' category, so if
you wanted to give one a try...


Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, my experience with OM mount
lenses on the E-1 has been extremely disappointing.

In particular, I had been hoping that my favourite macro lens, the
Tamron 90mm f/2.5, would serve well. I duly obtained the OM mount for
the E-1 from Olympus, and an OM Adaptall mount for the lens, and was
hugely disappointed with the results.

Other, borrowed OM lenses were also very disappointing. Other people
have had very similar experiences with OM lenses on their E series
cameras, so it wasn't my setup that was at fault. I gave up on the OM
adaptor and passed it to a friend who is determined to find at least
one OM lens that produces good results with his E-300.

In contrast, the results from the Zuiko Digital 50mm macro lens are
simply superb. The lens is extremely sharp with good bokeh, and I
have used it extensively for portraiture.

Tony Polson wrote:

In contrast, the results from the Zuiko Digital 50mm macro lens are
simply superb. The lens is extremely sharp with good bokeh, and I
have used it extensively for portraiture.

We look forward to seeing your gallery Tony.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Tony Polson wrote:

In contrast, the results from the Zuiko Digital 50mm macro lens are
simply superb. The lens is extremely sharp with good bokeh, and I
have used it extensively for portraiture.

We look forward to seeing your gallery Tony.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Tony Polson" wrote in message
...
"Bandicoot" wrote:

As it happens, before I tracked down a K-Mount version I used an OM
one, which is now in the 'will sell it when I get around to it'
category, so if you wanted to give one a try...


Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately, my experience with OM
mount lenses on the E-1 has been extremely disappointing.

In particular, I had been hoping that my favourite macro lens, the
Tamron 90mm f/2.5, would serve well. I duly obtained the OM
mount for the E-1 from Olympus, and an OM Adaptall mount for the
lens, and was hugely disappointed with the results.

Other, borrowed OM lenses were also very disappointing. Other
people have had very similar experiences with OM lenses on their E
series cameras, so it wasn't my setup that was at fault. I gave up on
the OM adaptor and passed it to a friend who is determined to find
at least one OM lens that produces good results with his E-300.

In contrast, the results from the Zuiko Digital 50mm macro lens are
simply superb. The lens is extremely sharp with good bokeh, and I
have used it extensively for portraiture.

Inriguing, I wonder why? Since plenty of manufacturers have brought out APS
sized sensor bodies that take their existing (film) lenses, it can't be the
sensor size or the fact it is digital per se that is the issue, although
digital does have issues with lenses not designed for its narrow acceptance
angles. So there must be something specific to the E-1 or to some aspect of
the two thirds system - but what they could be beats me. Interesting.



Peter