Recently, while doing some magazine photo work, the question, "Oh, you
don't use a digital camera?" was posed to me. I responded that I do own and
use a digital (Oly) camera, but that I prefer using my OMs for ease of use,
versatility, and quality pics.
More and more, I'm asked about digital photography. Implications are
sometimes made that perhaps I'm a Luddite, who must be brought, kicking and
screaming, into the digital age.
I've been following, with some bemusement, the "[OT] hifi was" thread.
In it, one participant writes, "Since stereo's or hi-fi's are now 99%
digital, it really makes no difference what name is on the front." The
second clause of the quote presupposes that the digital architecture of the
equipment negates any difference in brand. Never mind, that digital audio
gear vary greatly in terms of sound (digital has certain detractive
distortions all its own), features, design, and cost. Would this same person
make an analogous statement about digital cameras being equivalent, for after
all, they use the same 1s and 0s? I think not.
Digital audio and photo gear will continually improve, as we all know.
And the day may come when conventional film will be as attainable as milk in
glass bottles. But until then, I'll continue apace with my OMs and LPs. I
own digital photo and audio gear for the excellent, though limited,
satisfaction they offer. But regardless, my eyes and ears are not digital
receptors; nor do I believe they ever will be.
Regards,
James Lawson
Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum.
< 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 >
|