I'm going to try to answer a few post in one go here.
> >Sorry, I made a mistake here. I didn't mean to say that a Nikon F5 is a
> >P & S camera. I'd term it more as a "capture the spur of the moment" type
> >camera. Whereas a camera like the OM-4Ti is more of a "create the moment
> >and capture it" type camera.
>
> So, tell me--what can an OM-4Ti do that a Nikon F5 can't? OTF flash? Nikon
> has a nice alternative that actually works.
>
> Ken N.
I didn't mean to imply that the 4Ti can do certain things that the F5
can't. Nor do I see how what I wrote implied such a conclusion.
The Nikon F5 can do everything the OM-4Ti can and does it well. But
those additional features are not needed for a "create the moment and
capture it" type mode. Which is why I lug at least two cameras - EOS
RT and OM-4Ti. The RT can almost do what the OM-4Ti can do but it
doesn't encourage me to - because it has all the automatic stuff. Sure
it displays the shutter/aperture settings the computer has taken but it
doesn't sink in. OTOH, the OM-4Ti at least forces you to look at a
situation and at least set an aperture F-stop. It's more of a self-discipline
issue than a technical capability.
But with automation and human nature...it's easier to take the shorter
path. I started of with manual cameras 20 years ago...then all these
program/autofocus cameras came out and I started to use/depend on them
instead. I've actually lost all my skills in manual photography (thus my
post on using the T32 with OM-4Ti). This is why I bought my OM-4Ti. 'cos
I don't just want to take a picture - I want to really *TAKE* a picture.
So even when the F5 can do more than what the 4Ti, it doesn't encourage
the photographer to think of the photo he/she's taking.
[and Bob Sull asked]
> So if the guy down the street can't take/make a good photo with his OM-1
> if his life depended on it, he could make Pullitzers just by buying an F5?
>
> I hope you don't believe this.....
>
> Bob
All the gadgetery doesn't create better pictures but increases the chance
of taking better pictures - so much that photographers depend more and more
on it. So if I encounter a "spur of the moment", I'd pull out the F5 (if
I had one), put it continuous mode, maybe even enable AEB so that out of
the 36 shots I make in 5 seconds, I am able to obtain 1 good result - of
course that's a hypthetical situation.
> > correct me if I'm wrong but manual
> > cameras require more talent to obtain "perfect" pictures??
>
> Every camera needs skill to produce remarkable photos.
>
> It´s unlikely, to find the decisive moment by accident (automatisation).
I don't know if I agree with that. I personally would encounter two
situations to take a picture :-
1) A spur of the moment event that's worth while capturing (ok this may
not be classified as a "decisive moment")
2) A moment that I create that I plan to capture
> To be a musican, you have to master your instrument.
Yes I agree...but with photography it is not practical for me to be a
master for every shot. In the two moments I stated above, (2) is
probably going to be the moment where I exercise my photographic skills
(ok, when I develop them) more actively. Whilst moment (1) is when I
pull out my EOS RT or P&S camera and quickly get a snap.
> Richard
> > 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.
Oh dear...I've worded this incorrectly. Now I know what everyone is
debating about. I should clarify with examples using the two moments I
listed for Richard above.
Based on my experience and reason for photography,
Sean
--
Sean H.Y. Chan (sean@xxxxxxxxxx)
IT Consultant
DSM Group Pty. Ltd. +61 414 467-077 (M)
PO Box 1493, West Perth, 6872, WESTERN AUSTRALIA
< 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 >
|