Moose wrote:
>>That makes it nothing more than a snapshot camera, not a serious
>>photographer's camera.
>
>Are you being silly? Or just looking to stir things up like Walt
>and Andrew have been known to do?
I confess to wanting to stir things up a little -- without upsetting
people, of course! Maybe I should have said "serious amateur
photographer", rather than "serious photographer" since I recognise many
"pro" photographers have completely different agendas (though not all,
of course).
And there's nothing wrong, of course, with even a serious amateur having
a snapshot camera; and they can produce some excellent pictures.
> <snip> Silly me, I just try use the tool best suited to the job at
hand,
> sometimes MF, sometimes AF. There are situations where AF is more
likely
> to result in a well focused image than MF and vice versa.
I agree entirely. And it's the crippling lack of ability to switch to MF
that would disturb me. You could argue the OMs have the same problem the
other way around, but that would be like complaining that the Lotus
Elise didn't have an automatic gearbox.
> I have a whole bunch of tools for working on anything from cars to
cameras
> to electronics and choose the tool based on the job. I view my many
> different cameras, lenses and accessories the same way.
Can't fault that, either. But I think I'd be pretty disappointed if I
went out and bought the latest Porsche with auto/manual gearbox only to
find that the manual mode was unusable.
Regards,
Simon
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|