Moose,
Those are great photos but the fact is you shot them with a camera that
makes nice 4x6 prints and that's it (although I think older digitals like
your actually do better work than many newer ones because the older low
megapixel models had less noise). I'm a professional artist, I have to have
more than that. I didn't even consider buying a digital camera till Nikon
came out with the D70 (I have a lot of Nikon 35mm stuff so I got the D70 so
I could use my lenses). 6mp is the bare minimum for me, and even that isn't
too useful to me since I no longer do any magazine work. When I lived in
Indiana I was a photographer for two local magazines and the D70 was fine
for the size images they needed. For my fine art, I use a Kodak 14n when I
shoot digital, although I'm using my OM equipment and my Mamiya 645 a lot
more now. I use my D70 for snapshots of my cats and my son. I know point n
shoots are convenient but I don't mind carrying the messenger bag with the
OM stuff. It's not heavy and I carry a messenger bag anyway to carry stuff I
take to and from my commercial graphics clients. I'm a perfectionist. I was
even when I was a kid...I remember when I was 12yrs old being dissapointed
that my pictures shot with the OM-G that was my first SLR didn't have the
detail I saw in the Ansel Adams stuff I saw in a book someone gave me back
then. I understand now that 35mm will never have that quality but it has its
place that larger formats can't work in. Maybe I need to adjust my thinking
like that for digital, but since the OM stuff I carry doesn't inconvenience
me I probably won't buy a digital PS for a while.
--
Chris Crawford
Photography & Graphic Design
Santa Fe, New Mexico
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com
http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
On 5/12/07 5:07 PM, "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chris Crawford wrote:
>> I actually agree with MJ on point n shoots. I think they're worthless and
>> would never waste my money on one. I used to work in a camera shop here in
>> Santa Fe and was amazed how truly crappy all small sensor PS cameras are.
>>
> Yeah, there is no way you can get a good image from them. That's why I'm
> going to dump these flower pix taken with an ancient, all auto, 1.9 mp
> digi P&S.
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/10-1053.htm
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/14-1075_.htm
>
> Useless for indoor informal portraits, too.
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/S110Portraits/
>
> And the newer, higher mp ones are just crap too.
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/
>
> And in dim light, like a museum where flash is not allowed,
> fegeddiboutit! http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Cloisters/
>
> Or capturing the moment with detail and tonal subtlety.
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4017.htm
>> Its too bad too because in 35mm there were some nice point-n-shoots like the
>> Olympus Stylus (I had one but later gave it to my mother; she still likes it
>> even though she has a digital camera now).
>>
>> To me, quality is part of making the photo good. There are times when really
>> awful quality contributes to the image (eg. Holga type cameras)
> Couldn't agree more, I've never been attracted by those sorts of photos
> in general. There are a very few that really appeal to me, but for the
> vast majority, I can't tell, and don't much care, whether they are
> pretentious efforts to mimic what the few greats have done or simple
> technical incompetence. Of course, I like my occasional "flub", but this
> is with a DSLR. http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Home/Ghost.htm
>> but the digital point-n-shoots aren't don't lend a unique character to the
>> image, they're just plain bad quality.
>>
> I've already made my pictorial argument to the contrary. I don't claim
> my above examples are those of a good photographer, but I do think they
> generally demonstrate a singular lack of technical crappiness.
>> I agree with you that not having a camera means not having a photo. That's
>> why I keep an OM-4T with a couple lenses in my Domke messenger bag that is
>> ALWAYS on my shoulder no matter where I go.
>>
> Different strokes. I don't carry an SLR wherever I go. Too big and
> inconvenient for some of my life. I do carry a P&S pretty much
> everywhere. http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/BayArea/SumaTil/
>
> It's usually in a quick access belt pouch, so I can whip it out and
> shoot, as in the first pic above, taken while waiting for an elevator to
> leave a medical office building where I'd just taken my mom for a doc
> appt. I guarantee I'd outdraw you by a big margin in a shootout. :-)
> And the truth is, the F30 is a more capable dim light camera than my
> OM-4 bodies have ever been. Not their fault, but they shoot film, which
> isn't as good at high isos, and can't change iso at will.
>
> Then, there's that time when I have used up all the "film" I brought for
> the (D)SLR, think the shooting day is over and discover some amazing
> murals and carvings from the WPA days in a restored building not open to
> the public for decades. I guess these crappy shots will have to do until
> I can get back with a real camera.
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/Frescos/index.htm Not!
>
> And do the F10 images stick out as poorer than those taken with a 5D in
> the same gallery?
> http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Monterey%20-%20June%202006/Carmel%20Valley/in
> dex.html
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|