Sean Chan wrote:
> correct me if I'm wrong but manual
> cameras require more talent to obtain "perfect" pictures??
Say HUH? Doesn't this really depend on the subject/application? There are
times that automation makes it harder to get the perfect picture.
Back zillions of years ago my Dad was a photographer in the Army--stationed
in NYC (perfect gig?) The press camera of the day was the Speed Graphic,
but it was rapidly being replaced by Lieca and other smaller cameras. The
argument back then was that roll-film cameras weren't "real" cameras. A
number of years later (once 35mm became firmly entrenched), the argument was
"you have to be nuts to want a meter in a camera." Not too many years
later, simple auto-exposure (aperature priority) became available and the
argument started all over again. The Canon A-1 came on the scene and the
new argument was "program modes? We don't need no stinkin program modes."
Recently, AF became available and the "purists" think that autofocus is bad.
Meanwhile these "purists" think nothing of averaging 3-4 spot meter readings
in their OM-4Ti cameras. Now we have digital imaging and the arguments
start all over again.
Ok, you want another parallel? I was digging through some old computer
magazines and found a huge writeup on Compaq's new screaming fast 16mHz 386.
The natering nabobs of negatism (editors) couldn't imagin why ANYBODY would
ever need such a speedy computer and lamented that just maybe, Compaq's
machine was TOO fast.
Not all old tools are obsolete. For what they are designed to do, the OM
bodies are the best.
Hmm. Anybody know the Address/Telephone number of Graflex? I would like to
buy a NEW Speed Graphic.
Ken N.
< 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 >
|