OM, I've become a Zuikoholic!

Wow, another stunner! It's amazing how little distortion there seems to be with such a wide lens, or was that taken care of in post processing? Either way, it's impressive. Great color too.

AFenvy said:
Thank you pggunn! The Zuiko wides and ultra-wides are fantastic. The 16mm is a stunner, and my go-to lens for maximum dramatic effect. I want to try the Zuiko 21mm, and I would love to get my hands on an 18mm ($$$$).

Here is another shot with the Zuiko 16mm f3.5 Fisheye on Fujichrome Velvia 100:

5840910436_1e3c0dc903_b.jpg
Click to expand...
 
pggunn said:
Hi Field,

Thanks for clarifying. I think there is something to that especially the way Portra renders skin. It does seem to smooth things over. I'm probably not as perceptive or discriminating as most. It might help if I got some new glasses! :cool:

And maybe it's good that I don't shoot color very often anyway!

Happy shooting.
Click to expand...

Yes! Exactly... That is what I mean by a base layer of makeup. It makes people's faces less believable. It is partly because how strongly it shifts everything to white that is near it (yellow, red, any color, that are near white may become white)
 
I got my pictures back with my new MIJ 50mm lens...

Funny story... The f.zuiko does better things wide open. Stopped down any the MIJ pulls ahead by strides.

Here is an MIJ shot.

6142414161_304d338e3a_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have been using Fujipro 160S. I think NS is suppose to scan better? Anyway this stuff is always seeking to go to white, I will cover that in a moment.

FORGET ABOUT USING FUJI PRO WITH DIRECT FLASH. Put a diffuser on it or leave it at home. You will get weird glows with direct proper exposure. It does not underexpose well at all, which for me is a total failure since I always underexpose one stop in dark situations to maintain the feel of ambient light. Fuji Pro 400 on the other hand does better in the dark if you meter well and use direct flash (I recommend a fairly lower power one, I used it in my P&S and got mostly good results). White noise is much less noticeable on a-little-overexposed shots.

You will over-expose every picture you take if you are facing the sun within 45 degrees; you just need filters. The film just does not catch glare... it just becomes awful noise, even with some compensation. This film just seeks out white. Shoot with a polarizer filter and/or UV if you are anywhere near into the sun. Do not use either for side lit stuff by sun, its fine otherwise.

Wow... why am I using it? Heh... I guess I am willing to pay the price for real skin and colors.
 
pggunn said:
Wow, another stunner! It's amazing how little distortion there seems to be with such a wide lens, or was that taken care of in post processing? Either way, it's impressive. Great color too.
Click to expand...


The fisheye distorts just as much as you would expect it to, but it can be minimized by holding it carefully in regard to horizons and straight lines. No digital trickery or post-processing was used to correct the earlier photos I posted.

The distortion can also be very exaggerated as here: (Fuji Superia Xtra 400, Zuiko 16mm f3.5 Fisheye, OM-2)

5799277390_4df3371734_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Folks always talk about the Leica look. Zuiko lenses, too. They just melt away a certain way, OM and Pen lenses alike.
 
Understanding the love

Understanding the love

Well, my stint with OM was brief, but I understand the love the OM-1 is getting, and the quality of the lenses. It just turns out the OM-1 is a smidgen too small for my hands - dang, Maitani was not fooling around when he made clunky SLRs smaller :)

The overall height of the OM-1 with prism and all is almost identical to Leica M, but the "trunk" of the body is shorter. So I end up "pinching" the body with the fingers of my right hand, whereas the M "sits" in the palm of my hand. Really a minor thing, and could get used to it, I guess, but I am going with my gut feeling here.

Also have to point out the fact that the ratio of great pictures (to my eyes) in this thread is higher than usual on RFF - go figure :)

All the best, Ljós
 
Ljós said:
Well, my stint with OM was brief, but I understand the love the OM-1 is getting, and the quality of the lenses. It just turns out the OM-1 is a smidgen too small for my hands - dang, Maitani was not fooling around when he made clunky SLRs smaller :)

The overall height of the OM-1 with prism and all is almost identical to Leica M, but the "trunk" of the body is shorter. So I end up "pinching" the body with the fingers of my right hand, whereas the M "sits" in the palm of my hand. Really a minor thing, and could get used to it, I guess, but I am going with my gut feeling here.

Also have to point out the fact that the ratio of great pictures (to my eyes) in this thread is higher than usual on RFF - go figure :)

All the best, Ljós
Click to expand...

my shooting camera wears a case. makes it bigger but easier to grip.
 
Ljós said:
Maitani was not fooling around when he made clunky SLRs smaller :)

The overall height of the OM-1 with prism and all is almost identical to Leica M, but the "trunk" of the body is shorter.

All the best, Ljós
Click to expand...

I recall that the body of OM bodies (M-1, OM-1 (md, n), OM-2 (md, n) ) is the same as the Leitz Leica M3, the OM-2S and up is a few mm higher.
At least my ex M6 was a some what bigger than my OM-1.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom