In the article he says "...roof of a parking garage overlooking
downtown Toronto. This is a favourite testing site of mine...". OK so
how much of his real photography is taking pictures like this?
I upgraded from the LS-2000 (2700 dpi) to the LS-4000 (4000dpi) and I
don't believe that the resolution gain was worth that much for most of
my photography. (the z-axis gain is a different matter though.) When
you factor in motion blur, depth of field limits to 3-d objects shot in
low light, handheld shots, panned shots, ... somewhere between 2700 and
4000 dpi is more than adequate for most of my photography. How many
times have you really taken the time to aperture pre-fire your OM with
on a dampended tripod? The real question is whether you were able to
get the shot you wanted? Could you see it with the camera and did that
moment happen or not?
As I posted earlier, there is nothing like taking a few shots and not
having to find a lab to develop your film. It is getting harder to find
E-6 processing. I can drive 40 miles north or 35 miles into Boston, or
trust my film to the mail, with digital I can just walk to my computer.
I will be traveling next month and all the worry about traveling with
film these days...
I went to a grade school presentation today, "Literary Moments", and
the OM was the most responsive. Maybe if I could afford the latest
digital SLR my experience would have been different - resolution or
not, what mattered in the end was whether I could get the shot I
wanted. When things happen fast, you can't afford 3-5 seconds for the
camera to be ready for the next shot. I admit, for digital I was using
a P&S Minolta F-100. Many of the shots were not quite in focus, the
flash was not useable, the low light noise was terrible, and the
batteries were nearly shot after 20 pictures. Mostly because I had to
keep the dammed button half depressed. I noticed when using my OM-4t at
how precisely I could preset the focus and get a clear shot in
available light with an F2.0 aperture. I was just realizing how much I
depended on the feel of the OM lens focus mechanism/veiwfinder, depth
of field preview, and control I had, and how absent that feel was with
a simple P&S digital.
I think digital photography has other things to offer. I plan on doing
some snorkeling and there is no way I could get my OM-4t underwater,
focus it and get the shot. But a C-5050 in the olympus PT-015
underwater housing, underwater autofocus, LCD screen, it all works
together (or at least I hope it does). All photo needs are different.
Digital photography has its own unique photo styles and teachings. I
took some shots with the F-100 at the gathering after the Literary
Moments event and was able to take unobtrusive candid, white-balanced
shots not possible with my OM.
Everyone seems to be comparing resolution this and that. To me what
matters was whether the technology aids or impedes. Some amazing
photography was done in the past with film and resolution not even
close to today. I love digital photography, I love film photography and
I sure hope I don't loose either option, especially the loss of good
film development. And on a good note, I found another lab closer by
that does E-6, C-41 and even B&W. Doesn't have the quality of equipment
that I got used to with Eastern Photo, but the B&W prints were right on
(but not cheap either).
Now where is that digital camera with 9 stops of exposure range...
Wayne
|