On 10 Sep 98, at 3:02, John Austin wrote:
> Agreed 100%. The OM-4 will, as far as I know, meter lower than most, if not
> all other 35mm SLR. This doesn't mean that other cameras can't take low
> light pictures. It just means that you might have to work harder at it. And
> the F5 can do things very easily that OM-4 users have to work very hard to
> accomplish. All camera brands and models have advantages and disadvantages.
> My point is that technobricks are not the pieces of junk that they are
> sometimes made out to be. We, as Olympus users, consider a technobrick owner
> silly when they put down Oly gear just because it doesn't have the latest
> bells and whistles. We become just as silly when we knock technobricks for
> having those bells and whistles.
I'm known for poking fun at anything which does not conform to my
somewhat eclectic views of the way things should be (Olympus,
VW), but I'm also known for recognising when some deviant
products offer truly useful and original features. Not surprisingly, I've
yet to find a computer platform/OS which conforms...
I guess I'm surprised that such a simple thing as low light OTF
exposure is not considered an essential "bell or whistle" on these
technobricks, probably because I learned on an OM-2 and took this
ability for granted (and used it quite often).
> Yes, as you said, the real problem is the owners. They won't or can't learn
> the knowledge required to operate their cameras. This would apply no matter
> what camera they own, OM-4 or F5. Many point-and-shoot owners don't even
> understand the half dozen or so features on their cameras. Most of us on the
> list are computer literate, some more so than others. But we all took the
> time and effort to learn something about computers. If we were all to
> purchase N*k*n F5 or F90x cameras
> (whether we want to is another issue), we would probably spend the time to
> thoroughly learn their operation. This is not always the case with their non
> pro owners.
Yes, I agree.
> I also like the simplicity of the OM system. Obviously this is one of the
> reasons why we all use it. But what's great about Olympus doesn't take away
> from the good features of some other brand. I'm just sometimes perturbed by
> the bashing that goes on. Just because this is the Olympus list doesn't mean
> we can't appreciate other products for their good points. And yes, they do
> have good points. Please understand Shawn, that I am not addressing any of
> this to you personally.
No sweat... but "bashing"??? This is just gentle ribbing! Just get
me started on Windoze 95, or Hondas, or... *then* you'll hear
bashing!! ;-))
> I agree with you about not wanting to learn another computer system.
> Photography is also an escape for me. I think that's why I've resisted going
> to a digital darkroom. There's something very primal about going into a dark
> room and sticking my hands in smelly chemicals and making a print, as
> opposed to doing it in daylight with a few clicks of a mouse. I actually
> derive a pleasure from it that I can't match using a computer. But this in
> no way invalidates the digital darkroom for others. Everything has it's
> place and time.
I feel very much the same on this one. Earlier this week in a
director's meeting at the school, a question about the longterm
usefulness of our chemical darkroom (an excellent facility with 10
Beseler & Saunders enlargers, better than any I've seen) was
raised in passing. I made a few comments and the topic quickly
disappeared, but it made me wonder if this is how decisions about
the future of the OM system are made at Olympus...
Shawn & Janis Wright
swright@xxxxxxxxx
http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/~swright
(Olympus List Archives)
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|