>>Define "Pro".
How about "Expert"? Many experts are pros, but few pros are experts. The
OM line is aimed at the "expert" and not necessarily the "pro". I know we
have many true photographic experts among us and a few pros.
Few pros are as wide ranging in photographic skills as what we have
represented here on this list. Sports photographers are like lemmings.
They all use exactly the same equipment, stand in the same places, and
shoot the same things. Most sports freelancers are also way over their
heads in debt and barely eake out a living doing it. The only way to get
published is to get your shots infront of the editors before the other
photographers and hope that your shot of the winning goal is timed
1-millisecond better than anybody elses. Since timing and equipment are
vital issues with sports photographers, it is important to have the fastest
equipment possible and Olympus doesn't have anything that competes with
Nikon/Canon. The few retrogrouch photographers that shoot with OM
equipment (or equivelent) find their niche by being away from the others
and shooting what they are not shooting. Once in a while you luck out and
the action happens over by you.
News Photography has always been glorified "Point-and-Shoot" photography.
In ages past you would find equipment glued to standard settings. The
Nikons and Canons are just really high-tech P&S cameras that have
additional unlimited capabilites. Again, OM need not apply.
Photojournalism is an area that is as much artistic as it is newsworthy.
The tools must be capable of not only matching the vision of the
photographer, but also allowing the photographer to access the inner world
of the subjects. Lieca has always been successful in this realm because of
the "low-impact" persona that it has. The camera must not draw attention
unto itself. OMs had been successful in this realm for a while, but the
"industry" settled on Liecas and Canons/Nikons because of overall
flexibility and acceptance.
Stock photography is a changing market and getting very unprofitable all of
a sudden. With the demise of Multimedia and magazines reducing "feature
stories" by 50 0n the past five years the market has become not only
saturated but stale. To top all this, stock photo agencies have been
increasing thier percentage and photographers are getting shafted in a big
way. Many big stock photographers have broken off from the agencies in the
last two years and are going it alone. The internet has helped this
greatly. On the equipment side, stock photographers can generally shoot
whatever they want--and do. You see a lot of Minolta equipment used by
stock photographers that also shoot Mamiya. Nikon/Canon have a huge
following, primarily because of equipment options, but this is an area that
OM still is used, although quietly--nobody wants to stand out among the peers.
The reality is that equipment wears out and/or becomes obsolete. Is the OM
system obolete? In many areas, yes. At one time, the OM-2N with
motordrive and 350/2.8 was THE wildlife rig to have. Why? Quietest,
fastest, and terrific optics. Now, it is comparibly noisy, slow and the
optics, although good, are no longer uniquely terrific. Add to this, the
lack of auto film loading, slow sync speed... Pros replace equipment when
it is no longer the "best" for them and when they have gotten reasonable
service life out of the equipment.
I am, myself, looking seriously at what to do pretty soon. As soon as I am
financially able I will be building a new system. What do I select? Do I
get a new OM-4Ti with as much top grade lenses as possible or spend the
same amount on a Nikon system with top grade lenses and get all the
new/advanced features the 4Ti doesn't have? Tough question. I learned
long ago that once you make the decision to switch or stay the course to
not look back. If I do switch systems, as have thousands of other
semi-pros and pros, I cannot look back but will dedicate myself to learning
and using the equipment to the best of my abilities.
Pros like John Shaw switch systems periodically. He has switched from
Nikon-F-F3 based systems to the Nikon F4 with all new lenses, to now the
Nikon F5 with another bunch of new lenses. The advantage of OM based
photographers is also our curse: We haven't switched to newer systems
because they haven't been built. If they had, we would have. Otherwise,
our only option is to switch brands.
I've been looking at a new Nikon 80-200/2.8 (silent wave) lens and it is
big, heavy and rump-ugly. But it is also sharp, fast and very contrasty.
Is there a non-AF Zuiko that can compete with this lens? Not really.
Would I be swayed by this lens only? No, but a wide-angle zoom from
Tokina, a IF macro lens and really long, bright wildlife lens would.
BTW, I consider myself a pro, and so does the IRS.
Ken Norton
< 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 >
|