My 2 cents worth as a 2-year E-1 user and still mostly happy:
< #1. There is no "magic bullet" in cameras. There is little to no
< argument that Canon makes outstanding cameras and is 90% of
< whatever it is that you'd ever desire. But an honest evaluation
< of the remaining 10% is what you have to consider. Can you live
< with the faults and foibles in that 10%? Obviously 1/2 of the
< camera purchasers out there do.
I resist switching to the latest-and-greatest unless I can?t get pictures
with what I have. This includes the Canon and Nikon camps. I'd feel too
much like a sheep. Currently, I have to make excuses for having "only" 5MP
and not owning a D2x or 5d.
< #2. The E-1 has serious faults. The AF is problematic at times,
< but there is no law that states that you must use AF! I just
< shot over 1300 photos this week in manual mode. It was not only
< enjoyable (yes, I said enjoyable), but my keeper ratio due to
< improved timing shot through the roof. I'm actually tempted to
< keep the camera in manual focus.
Yep, the AF drives me crazy at times. But like Ken, I shot a drama play
two weeks ago and came away with 800 images, all shot in manual focus and
manual exposure at ISO 400 or 800 with the 50-200mm lens at 1/40 sec,
auto-WB. Why MF/ME? 1. The E-1 doesn?t have enough focus points to ensure
that what I wanted was sharp, and the focusing motor is noisy in a quiet
theatre. MF was easy, and proved to get a very, very high percentage of
keepers. 2. The contrast of a dark background and varying set colors made
AE pretty un-reliable. I had to manually shift my exposure up to 1 stop to
account for actors stepping into the spot and ambient light, but it didn?t
take long to get the feel for the varying light across the stage.
< #3. What is your "bread and butter" photograph like? The vast
< majority of my photographs are printed no larger than 8x10 with
< 90% of them being either 5x7 or 8x10. Published photos are
< typically 1/4 to 1/8 page size with an occasional full-bleed.
< Projected photos are usually downsized to 1024x768 and displayed
< up to 20 foot screen size. For ALL of the above uses, ISO 800
< in the E-1 is perfectly adequate. If the MAJORITY of your shots
< or income is tied to huge enlargements and you are into
< seriously high-ISOs, then the E-1 isn't the sharpest knife in
< the drawer.
I shoot many, many things at ISO800 and don?t use noise reduction at all
unless it?s going to go to 11x14 or larger. Nobody seems to mind, it?s all
about getting the shot. ISO 1600 and 3200 are more problematic, and I wish
those were better options on the E-1. Cleanup at the high ISO?s with SOTA
programs can still produce horrible, plastic results without care.
Too many people dwell on shots examined for the detail. 9-of-10 clients or
fine-art print buyers don?t care about exquisite detail or the subtleties
of the shadows. They just want a nice print to hang on their wall. Work
with the tool that matches your audience. For those anal retentive
customers, I will be substandard.
<
< #5. Size is no excuse for poor photographs. This "megaprint"
< mode we're in right now is ludicrous. Over the years, I've sold
< far more art prints in 5x7 and 8x10 sizes than 11x14s or larger.
< If the composition is strong and the subject is interesting and
< well-presented, a small print is usually just fine. If we're
< really honest with ourselves, we can count on less than one hand
< the number of pictures we've taken that truely deserve the
< prominant position behind the livingroom sofa.
<
Yep, I have one?.yes one photo that?s bigger than 16x20 hanging on
someone?s wall. It?s about 40? wide and stitched from three Leica M scans.
I could easily have done it with my E-1?.stitched that is. But the vast
majority of my prints (99.5%) are 5x7 or 8x10. For my own personal use, I
like 11x14 and 16x20. The E-1 produces acceptable results for me and my
paying customers.
Also, I am constantly impressed by how little post-processing I have to do
on my E-1 images. I just got a CD of Digital-Rebel photos from a friend,
and I was surprised at how much work they needed before they were
acceptable. That could, of course, be due to the photographer, but I still
prefer my images to the DR. I don?t have any 5D or D2x comparisons, but
I?m sure I?d get creamed on those.
< #9. The 14-54 lens has proven to be an outstanding workhorse
< lens for me. It's a real keeper, but it took me almost an
< entire year to figure out HOW to use it to give me the bokeh and
< 3D-ness that I expect.
I wish it was constant f/2.8, like the 11-22mm. But it?s a great lens,
especially for the price. I?d certainly like a 17mm f/1.4 for available
light work, but that?s likely a ways off. I could settle for a 17mm f/2.0,
esp if it had OIS, like the new Leica 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 that?s coming for the
4/3 mount. My work with the 90/2 Zuiko or 135/2.8 Zuiko are superb.
All in all, I still love my E-1. I won?t switch now, unless Olympus does a
legs-up rollover like KM. The ergonomics and handling are too good for me.
What do I want in a body? In order:
1. Better AF performance with more focus points
2. More pixels with better high ISO performance
3. Faster frame rate and much larger buffer (30-40. 12 is too little for
sports)
4. Bigger LCD w/ auto-display 3-color histogram
5. All-the-time, in-finder ISO notation
6. Light-up focus point confirmation (like N/C red-outlined focus points)
7. Pop-up flash
8. Multi-flash TTL
9. Multi-spot metering
What I don?t care about if I were prioritizing
1. In-finder electronic view
2. Size (up to a point)
Skip
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|