And the winner is....
Folks, you've been patient this past year with my various rants regarding
other camera systems. As a photographer who does use his equipment
occasionally in a professional role, it has been an important journey for
me. I trust that my journals on this subject haven't been too
gut-wrenching (no, I didn't swallow a tool--it means "sickening").
I've felt that an auto-focus system is the way for me to go and if possible
do it in medium-format. One of my reasons is that I've felt that in order
to be competitive and produce some of the "hot images" of today I'd need an
F5 or EOS-1n. For the most part, this is true. There are many flash
tricks available with these two systems to make fill-flash and
second-curtain flash an absolute breeze. What is wrong with this "picture"
is that I'm selecting an entire camera system based on a current
"advertising trend" which, as we all know, is fleeting. Next year or the
year after might be a "non-flash, blurry" look. If a customer asks me to
produce a certain type of image I will need to produce it with whatever
technology or technique possible. It may be necessary to borrow a camera
to do something, but for the most part the images get wrankled (twisted,
modified, screwed-up) in Photoshop anyway, so why bother?
I've considered the Nikon F5 and F100, the Canon EOS-1n and EOS-3, and the
Contax 645AF. In using, testing and comparing these models I've been drawn
most closely to the Contax. Incredible camera, and it works with me, not
against me.
One major issue is auto-focus. But I ask the question: WHY? I've
convinced myself that I need auto-focus. Hmm, I don't really do wildlife
photography. I don't do news photography. I only shoot sports photography
in a limited basis, and it's only for the person or family that hired me.
I'm reminded that Videographers rarely use auto-focus--even in sports! And
I have a style of shooting that doesn't really require auto-focus. For the
commercial, stock and wedding work that I do, auto-focus is rarely needed.
What I'm finding is that my speed of manual focusing is dependant upon the
lens mounted on the camera. Certain lenses have a characteristic where the
image "snaps" into focus. The 300/4.5, I discovered, is such a lens.
I don't want to go rambling on about the rejects. Now for the verdict:
The camera system I'm selecting is only manual focus. Yup. The camera
body is one of the most compact ever made. Its metering system is
extremely advanced and is instantly intuitive to me. Its flash control is
most unique and highly accurate. Its track-record is steller and it is
very well built. Best of all, its internal displays are ahead of its time
and a precursor of displays that others will eventually mimick (give it a
couple more years). Most satisfying is that I can buy a new body for half
the cost of a Nikon F5 or Canon EOS-1n. Oh, and it even comes with a lens
mount that takes Zuiko lenses!
Yup, folks, it's an Olympus OM-4Ti. I had the pleasure of checking out
Joel Wilcox's new purchase and I instantly realized that this is my next
camera. It had been years since I looked at one before and back then I was
shooting with a totally different style that the multi-spot capability
really didn't matter much.
I figure that it would cost me around $10,000 USD to convert to another
system to just start with. I can get a NEW OM-4Ti body, a 350/2.8 and a
few other nicities for half that and actually have a more complete setup.
I talked to Karen about it and she asked how much it would cost. I said
around $1100-1300. "Is that all? That's not bad!" Boy, do I love my
wife! It might be an exciting Christmas after all.
What put me over the edge on this one is three things: Macro, OTF Flash,
and the best multi-spot metering system ever made. The OM-4Ti's display
and user-interface is uniquely designed for multi-spot. If 8 program modes
interested me, then I'll just use my IS-3, but when it comes to spot
metering and working with the zone system (or your own version of the zone
system) there is no competition.
I've used the IS-3 and Canon A2 enough now that I realize that program
modes have their place, but the "thinking photographer" is encumbered with
buttons, wheels, dealy-bobs, gizmos and other layers of menus and functions
that stand in the way of the photograph. In the most extreme usage of the
OM-4Ti, you point, spot, point, spot, point, spot, adjust, shoot.
Multi-spot in manual mode is brilliant as, for example, you can spot your
darkest subject you want detailed, the brightest one you want detailed, and
then you adjust until the two diamonds are both within the 2-stop marks (or
whatever latitude you use) of the meter. Concerned about the middle-tone
too? Just add another spot meter reading of that to keep everything in
perspective.
I know half the list is reading this and thinking "what took you so long?"
I think it really was a case of "I wasn't ready for the OM-4Ti yet." My
shooting style (and thinking style) had to change enough to really see
where the OM-4Ti shines. This camera does this extremely well, and there
is no competition. The other camera systems that offer multi-spot have
predetermined how you use it, but the OM gives the raw data in "analog"
format in such a way that you can use it any number of ways.
This will probably be my last NEW film-camera purchase. My OM-2s has
lasted me 14 or 15 years and has proven the ruggedness and reliability of
the camera line. If I get half the life out of a new OM-4Ti, it will
satisfy me as by that time I will most likely be working exclusively in
digital. Am I concerned about Olympus abandoning the line right after I
buy the new camera? (if it happens) Not really. There is sufficient used
equipment available to keep things going for a long time.
If my needs drastically change, I'll look at a Nikon or Contax, but chances
are the business will easily support such a purchase.
Ken Norton
Image66
< 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 >
|