I am still using film.
Every so often I play with the idea of going digital.
The two things that prevent me are price and size. I am surprised that
I see rarely comments on these two aspects. Not that I have not spent
a lot of money on photo equipment. But I simply do not want to
carry a body that costs more than US 1000. Let's say you travel
to Moscow, Tanzania, or even down-town East Palo Alto. Do you really
want to carry this ? At the current prices one can get a
used/excellent 28/3.5, 50/3.5, 80/2, OM-1 combination for around
500-600 US.
The other day I played with an E-300 in our local store. It feels
very much like plastic and it is HUGE. I do not understand why anybody
would compare this camera to an Olympus PEN, or even to an OM-1
in terms of size or built quality.
I understand that professionals might need the digital throughput
and can afford the investment (and re-investment, via depreciation, etc).
I am a week-end warrior however, and always amused by the sheer
physical size of the equipment that amateurs carry around (with pride).
Plus, as a personal challenge, I am trying to do less and better photos.
I cann't see that happening would I use a digital camera.
My wife shoots digital. For her upcoming birthday she got a Lumix FZ5.
No that is a small camera !
I am also still wondering how a lens can possibly resolve more than
5 MPixels on a frame smaller than full format. Am I misreading
MTF charts ?
Just wondering ...
Roland.
--- Jeff Keller <jeff-keller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> ISO 6 on a monopod is hardly a way to put the technology in the background
> ...
>
> The E-300 is quite easy to use. It might take you 15 minutes of pushing and
> poking to figure out the regularly used controls. You would almost never use
> cascaded menus. The E-1 is even a little nicer in some ways.
>
> Bill's comments about the free cost and immediate feedback of taking an
> image is a real benefit. Learning can be very quick. Catching pictures of
> anything that moves using ISO 6 would make the technology very obvious.
> Turning a wheel to adjust ISO speed, frees you to think about the image.
>
> I use the E-System much more than my OM's because I take more pictures for
> work than for play. I still prefer the OMs for play because I nearly always
> use a tripod and move slow. I can still get higher resolution with film.
> When the E-System resolution passes film, I doubt the OM's would get used
> very often.
>
> The E-System cameras are a pleasure to use. Olympus created a good design.
> There is no reason the complexity would interfere with the enjoyment of
> taking pictures.
>
> YMMV,
> -jeff
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andrew McPhee
> >
> > At 03:19 PM 25/07/2005 -0700, Winsor wrote:
> > >I came across this today in a guest article today...
> > >www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/enough-already.shtml
> >
> >
> >
> > Today I spotted an E-300 kit for AU$999. Yes, I was tempted.
> > Sorry Earl, I have been weakening!
> >
> > But then I read on the list of the problems people are having
> > with their E-1's. Customizing the camera via the menu
> > system. Flashing lights going berserk. Everything going dead.
> >
> > Then I read the Luminous Landscape article and I came to my senses.
> >
> > To quote - When I am out in the field photographing, I enter
> > what for me is a 'sacred space.' By this, I mean that I do
> > not want to be disturbed in the field by the technology of
> > the camera.
> >
>
> snip
>
> > That 'sacred space' is where I want to stay. Earl - I'm back
> > for good!
> >
> > Andrew McPhee
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|