PDA

View Full Version : New camera pics - Oly 35SP and Canonet 28


chenick
06-14-2004, 04:39
Well, I got two new cameras recently a nice Olympus 35 SP and a cheap Canonet 28 (mistakenly bought it thinking it was a slower version of the QL III 1.7, but it has no manual control. But it was really cheap :) )

First 3 are the Olympus with Kodak Gold 200.. Last 3 are the Canonet with a free store film which expired in april 2001!
1.
http://www.grahams.net/nick/rf/olycustom.jpg
2.
http://www.grahams.net/nick/rf/olyskate.jpg
3.
http://www.grahams.net/nick/rf/olytomato.jpg
4.
http://www.grahams.net/nick/rf/canaston.jpg
5.
http://www.grahams.net/nick/rf/canladies.jpg
6.
http://www.grahams.net/nick/rf/canliffey.jpg

-Nick

Rich Silfver
06-14-2004, 20:30
Nice, great photos and I think it really showcases just how good the lens on the SP really is.

Good stuff!

chenick
06-15-2004, 02:02
Yeah, I'm really happy with the lens on the SP. I do have a suspicion that the SP is underexposing somewhat - some of the street pics were a bit dark. However, the sky was a really bright uniform grey, which also makes my digicam underexpose, so I'm not sure if it was just the light or the fact that I'm using a 1.5V battery right now. Haven't got my hands on any zinc air cells yet.

-Nick

Brian Sweeney
06-15-2004, 03:13
Have you tried using the Spot meter on the SP? You should notice a big jump (2 F-Stop) when pointed at the main subject if the sky is dominating the averaging meter. If you think it is the battery calibration, you might try setting the ASA dial a little lower, like ASA320 for ASA400 film.

chenick
06-15-2004, 08:01
To be fair to the SP, the underexposed photos were not spot-metered and the film speed was not reduced to counteract the higher battery voltage and my digicams also underexpose in this kind of shot.
The exposure in the other SP photos seen above looks fine to me.

Magic Bus
06-15-2004, 09:30
Originally posted by rsilfverberg
I think it really showcases just how good the lens on the SP really is.



In what way - they just look like any other lens to me ......

back alley
06-15-2004, 10:14
i would think the topic suggests being pleased with the performance of the lens, sharpness, contrast and all in a relatively small package.

joe

Magic Bus
06-15-2004, 11:02
Remarkable how someone can judge a lens by viewing results on a web site - I wish I could do that.

Doug
06-15-2004, 11:54
Magic, while it's certainly true the low-resolution of the pic displayed online doesn't allow assessment of ultimate sharpness, it's surprising how much of the character of the lens does come through. Flare, contrast, bokeh, etc etc. :-)

Magic Bus
06-15-2004, 12:07
So there's no flare - do you deduce that the lens is flare resisitant?

So there's a flare - do you determine the lens is subject to flare?

Its contrasty - lens, stock, processing or photoshop?

Bokeh - got me on that one.

I'll post a pic in this section, the thread will be marked Last Orders - tell me something about the lens and I'll tell you if you're right......

Doug
06-15-2004, 12:36
Sounds like this is turning more confrontational than I wish.

Magic Bus
06-15-2004, 12:54
I'm curious Doug not confrontational. You must admit you read some very dubious comments on these forums. If I post a pic taken with a chuckaway camera but say its the new Leica 50mm T1.4 , everyone will say "ooo nice image - much better contrast than the old one yada yada, perfect bokeh and definately sharper on the verticals blah blah"

I detest BS. All the forums are the same though.... this one seems to be worse

back alley
06-15-2004, 16:03
"Remarkable how someone can judge a lens by viewing results on a web site - I wish I could do that."

we do what we can...

magic, i too am curious as to your motivation, which seems more angry that curious.
we all know this is the web and scanned photos are not the best to judge, but should we say nothing, would that be better?
this forum is unique in that all the people and posts are friendly and supportive of each other.
as moderator here, i would like to keep it that way.

joe

Rich Silfver
06-15-2004, 21:46
Originally posted by Brian Sweeney
Have you tried using the Spot meter on the SP? You should notice a big jump (2 F-Stop) when pointed at the main subject if the sky is dominating the averaging meter.

I think I use the spot meter on the SP maybe 95% of the times - it has proven to be really reliable.

Magic Bus
06-15-2004, 22:22
Originally posted by rsilfverberg
Nice, great photos and I think it really showcases just how good the lens on the SP really is.

Good stuff!


So tell me I'm wrong - quantify that statement, how do those images POSSIBLY 'showcase' just how good the lens on the SP is?

I'm genuinely curious. Enlighten me

And yes if people can't be honest is probably is better to say nothing otherwise whats the point?

Rich Silfver
06-15-2004, 22:32
Ok, my statement was of a comparative nature.

As we're talking about scanned images presented on the net and viewed on monitors with a thousand different settings between them - certain challenges are apparent.

The 'bonus' here was that Nick posted photos he took with a Canonet as well - so here we have photos by two cameras - taken by the same photographer and scanned by him. The other 'bonus' is that all images are viewed by me on a screen that I know is well calibrated.

The Canonet's have good glass in them but when looking at Nick's photos I could see a distinct difference both in sharpness and contrast between the two sets of images. The differences favoured the Oly 35SP.

Hope that explains my reasoning.

back alley
06-15-2004, 22:36
"showcase" - a setting, occasion, or medium for exhibiting something or someone especially in an attractive or favorable aspect - according to mirriam-webster dictionary

the photos exhibit the lens/camera in an attractive manner.
now, if you want the resolving power of the lens, maybe contact oly and ask them.

tony, i looked at your website and it's quite obvious you're a talented photographer but i don't understand the need for coming on so strong and in a confrontational manner. your website 'showcases' that talent, your manners are another thing entirely.

i'm with jorge on this, while it's not my site i feel protective of it and the people who come here.
we keep things nice here. if you have a genuine curiosity that's great, just maybe reel it in a bit, ok?

joe

Magic Bus
06-15-2004, 23:09
Fine - my last word on this subject.

I do not accept that you can tell relative differences between those lenses by comparing different shots in different lighting conditions. Its like taking a picture of a peach on one camera and comparing it to a picture of a cut glass decanter taken on the other and then making comparisons/conclusions about the lenses.

So I wanted to know what I was missing. You take a simple question to be confrontaional, So be it.

Cheerio

Moderator please remove my details from the forum register. Thank you.

nwcanonman
06-18-2004, 20:40
Magic - If he's saying what he honestly thought about the photos, why is he wrong then?
I think they look terrific!