This is an interesting conversation to me, as I now am a regular user of two
digicams and also, of course, my modest OM collection.
I think you hit all the points accurately. We just got back from a quick
trip to Orlando to find a place to live. The only camera I took was the
Pentax digicam. One thing that I have to say, positively, about this
camera, is that I ALWAYS had it with me. It has a little belt loop case and
isn't much bigger than a cellphone. I was constantly pulling it out for a
shot.
Are they perfect? Nope. Are they pretty darn good? Absolutely. I expect
that up to 8x10, they'll be more than good -- with 4 megapixels, I have some
room to play. Are they the quality of the E-20 or 4000dpi scanned negs?
Not even close. It does point out how good, though, the E-20 is. It's
closer to the OM than a P&S digicam.
It's interesting, as I fell in love with the little Pentax and will probably
put more pictures through it than any other camera. But, I will still use
the E-20 and the OM a lot, as for things I consider 'important', nothing
else will do. The Pentax is, and always will be, a Point and Shoot, albiet
a digital one.
I do have more to learn. For example, always use red-eye reduction if you
don't want the world to know your children truly are Satan.
I think, though, that we have a long way before the digital body will
replace our OMs. Makes me happier with my investment.
Tom
> It is quite possible that some pictures from his P&S digital, when printed
> at no more than 5"x7" or possibly even 8"x10" , will be just about
> indistinguishable from the same picture taken by your OM. That will only
> happen if you constrain the conditions to suit the digicam, however:
>
> 1. Low contrast scene - digital cameras often blow out the highlights and
> have too much noise in the shadows, i.e. much poorer exposure latitude
than
> color negative film.
>
> 2. No need to isolate the subject using shallow depth of field - hard to
do
> since even f2.0 on digital cameras gives more like a 35mm camera's f4.0
>
> 3. Super-wide angle of view not needed - almost no digicams are available
> with a coverage wider than 28mm equivalent. You can add wide angle
adapters
> to them to get wider, but more glass=more flare/distortion/loss of
contrast
> etc. not to mention how cumbersome they get.
>
> 4. Extreme low light capability not necessary - digicams do poorly here
> because the CCD is 'slower' than fast film, and when exposures are longer
> than about 1 second, 'dark noise' becomes prominent particularly in the
> shadows - unless you can supercool your digicam. Then your battery may not
> be up to the task....
>
> 5. Critical focus not necessary - when using shallow depth of field, it is
> very hard to know if your digicam is best focused on the critical
component
> of your picture - the LCD display doesn't have enough resolution to tell
you
> this, even in 'magnify' modes.
>
> So he may not be 'wrong' if he chooses the field of battle properly, but
it
> sounds like he may not be that 'smart'.
>
> Having said that, I use my Olympus C-3030 for almost all of my 'Point and
> Shoot' photography, and only pull out the OM gear when I have a specific
> purpose in mind, like 'pleasure photography', or quality portraits etc.
They
> each have a role in my universe.
>
> Chip Stratton
< 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 >
|