Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose thus grazed:
>
>> I have no particular objection to such posts on the list. They are more
>> photography related than many other subjects. As a matter of freedom of
>> expression and religion, Luddism should be able to have its say. I do
>> believe, however that they should stand on their own, not as replies to
>> other posts.
>>
> As you'd expect, I'm going to choke a little on your terminology.
OH, I know. I told you I was less than perfect. Between the lack of a
better simple term and the impish desire to needle a bit ... I strayed.
Wosre than that, I don't even wish I had been a good boy. :-)
> Per the common definition, a luddite is someone who is opposed to
> technological progress and technological change.
Yeah, I know. The original Luddites were opposed to specific change, the
introduction of large, mechanized looms. Their opposition to this
"progress" was not general but very specific, based on their rational
fears of loss of jobs and income. They did, in fact break into factory
buildings and smash looms and clashed with the army.
You haven't smashed any 5Ds yet, have you?
> I am NOT espousing opposition to either. What I am saying is that not all
> technological change is technological progress. Viewfinders, for example, are
> a posterchild of technological regression.
>
I know, but I didn't have a useful label for that position at hand. And
we do actually differ in our personal experiences and opinions. I tend
simply not to notice many (D)SLR viewfinder deficiencies. Sure, I see
them when I do side by side comparisons, but once I have the camera to
my eye taking pictures, I just don't notice. I was perfectly happy using
the 300D, which is apparently terrible.
And on the other hand, I personally find the twist and tilt LCD on my
A650 to be superior to any non SLR viewfinder I've ever used. So no
poster here.
You want a poor viewfinder, check out some vintage folders. Oh yeah, and
pre penta prism 35mm SLRs. My dad's old Praktiflex is just impossible.
The optics and mirror are clean, but I can hardly see to frame, let
alone focus.
> A lot of my opposition is financially based. I'll admit it. If I could go
> out and buy a "new shiny" every six months like some people, I'm sure I
> would. And I'd look back at the "good old days" of using the Olympus OM
> system and think "oh, how quaint".
>
As usual, you exaggerate a bit for effect. I don't see that kind of
churn on the list. Where a listee does change quickly, it seems to me to
usually be due to poor experience with the first "new, shiny". Yeah,
there are some crazy gear hounds on the FM ofrums, but are they
representative, or just a small club of crazies?
As for me, I'll admit it was only two years from 300D to 5D, but the
300D was a conscious inexpensive toe in the waters of DSLRs, with the
clear intent to move up if it was successful. I still use it
occasionally and it's in the travel kit as back-up to the 5D. And the
F10 to F30 time frame was shortish. I wanted manual controls sooo badly
... and Carol Anne was interested in a camera for herself. I managed a
similar trick with the A710 to A650 move, selling the A710 to my brother.
OK, maybe that's another way in which I'm baaaad. Guess I don't care, ha
ha, hee hee.
The 5D is 2 1/3 years old now (Wow, it doesn't seem that long, I'm still
enamored.). With the time lag for full reviews and lots of samples to be
available, prices to settle down and for me to mull over all the
possibilities endlessly, likely it will have been three years before I
may replace the 300D with 40D, 50D or 5D MkII.
>
>> think, chose your rant to allow me one of my own on subjects dear to my own
>> heart.
>>
> So tell me, the fact I have long hair--is that a good thing or a bad thing?
>
Just a thing.
>
>> As do I sometimes in this and other areas. I always get a twinge when I run
>> across my dad's old K&E Log Log Duplex slide rule. It's a beautiful piece of
>> design and craftsmanship.
>>
>
> The one thing that a slide rule is superior about is the ability to
> illustrate "relationship" of numbers. How do two calculations relate to each
> other. Also, it is possible to reduce human error because you know through
> experience when something is not looking right. With a calculator, one
> mispressed button will give you the wrong answer, but without that visual cue
> of something being amiss, you'll accept the wrong answer as gospel.
Depends in my experience on who the "you" is. One of my kids fit fit
your description when learning math. The second was able to understand
and use my teaching about making reasonable estimates in ones head to
avoid silly errors.
> Some of us are "visual" in our mind's eye. When calculating numbers in my
> head, I actually visualize my own variation of a slide rule.
I don't do that. I either make or simply have available some sort of
expectations of a reasonable answer and question the calculations if the
results aren't in that ballpark. sometimes the detailed calculations are
right anyway, but still, I mostly miss silly errors - but not always.
> Unfortunately, over time, the numbers get worn off. :(
>
Ah yes. I"m not sure how much I've lost capability. I think mostly I've
lost interest. I used to do some outrageously complex financial
analysis. Now I'll skip anything that takes more than a few minutes if
it only potentially costs a couple of bucks.
> Ah, you don't think I'm giving up on the OM-2S that easily, eh?
No, but I don't fish, so this is one way of watching a big one rise to
the bait. ;-)
> Nah, it is still chugging away and still getting used. There are certain
> circumstances where I find it to be THE superior camera. The live spot-meter
> is one such feature as well as the ability to so quickly flip back and forth
> between auto and a preset manual exposure. The OM-2S is an OM-2n with two
> features I find most valuable to me: Mirrorbox metering and the spot-meter.
>
An OM-2n was my primary camera for many years. I still have it and it
still worked last time I checked. But I prefer the OM-4. At hart, I'm
more an Aperture preferred shooter than manual. I'm perfectly happy with
using an OM-1 form a metering standpoint, but given the choice on other
cameras, I'm usually in A mode.
I know I "should" use spot metering all the time to prove what a
serious, macho photographer I am, but I mostly don't except in really
tough lighting. I did use it all the time with the F10. Lacking anything
but full Auto exposure and with ISO in a menu not on a button like the
F30, I learned to move teh spot to get the exposure I wanted, lock it
re-frame and shoot. Amazingly quick and accurate with a little practice.
> However, the control interface remains elegantly simple. I think the OM-2S is
> the better "handheld" camera, whereas the OM-4T is the better "precision
> photography" camera. But the differences really are nuances and not major
> design shifts.
Little nits. Both very competent, I'm sure.
> Next weekend, I've got a huge wedding to photograph and it is going to be
> photographed both digitally and on B&W film. Most likely I'll use both
> OMs--one with the 100/2.8 and the other with the 24/2.8 or 35/2.8.
> Of course, the E-1 will hold down digital duties. I know, I know--you can
> use that 5D and accomplish everything with one camera and one lens. :)
>
Not me, mate. If you follow my all too numerous posts, you may notice
that almost all my references to what the 5D can and can't do are
directly based in personal experience. I understand that others find the
5D a great event camera, but I'll make no such claims beyond my own
experience.
I posted and discussed the results of my venture into shooting a
graduation in a dim hall and the use of long range, manual flash. I know
perfectly well that doesn't translate into wedding work. You know what
you are doing there, and I emphatically don't.
> Someday, when I forever swear off film, I'll join you in that mantra.
>
Find someone chanting it - and join them.
>
>> But I can't nail a bird in flight with any of them, while even many lowly,
>> early models of AF cameras do it with ease.
>>
>
> I agree. I much prefer photographing birds with my E-1's AF. Hmmm. Oh,
> wait. I'm still using manual-focus telephotos. Oops. ;) Point well taken,
> though.
>
LOL
>
>> All a matter of perspective and experience. I've never liked rangefinders
>> much, for various reasons...
>>
>
> Me neither. However, there are occasional circumstances where I long for
> certain capabilities of the rangefinder cameras. Nighttime photography comes
> to mind. Focusing on stars is a pain with an SLR, but with a rangefinder
> it's easy to find a celestial object bright enough to line the two dots up
> with.
>
Simple enough with an old. MF prime, where infinity focus it where it
stops at the end. :-)
>
>> The 5D with the aux IR light of the 540EZ can focus at 40 feet with no other
>> illumination at all.
>>
>
> The quickest AF in available-darkness conditions I've ever encountered is my
> IS-3 with G40. It casts a nifty barcode like pattern and the AF just
> absolutely nails it. Zip-click.
That's much like the 5D with 540EZ. The dim (to our eyes) red pattern is
more grid than bar code. The focus speed is like in bright light.
> That's all there is. A buddy of mine has the latest/greatest Canon gear and
> even he is amazed at how quick the IS-3 is in that specific condition.
He should try an auxiliary IR focus aid. Oddly enough, the stand alone
one Canon sells is lower range and much more expensive than a used
540EZ. Manyany folks had 540EZs, went digital and foud that they don't
do auto/ttl with the DSLRs. So there are lots around cheap. As Chuck has
been known to point out, they work great in manual mode for flash, as
well as IR focusing aids. After all, after you've focused on something
in the dark, you may want to illuminate it for the picture.
> Speaking of AF, I really like AF in weddings during the processional and
> recessional. One gets really spoiled not having to count pews.
>
That's tough to get right. I remember the photog at my first wedding
almost duckwalking backward in front of my bride and I, firing away with
Rollei and potato masher flash. He got the shots, though. I don't have
the wife anymore, but still have the album.
>
>> However, I don't see what most of this has to do with the original
>> question of relative focus accuracy with the two systems. I guess we'll
>> just have to get someone to loan a Leica or two, get together, and run
>> some tests. ;-)
>>
> On this, we agree!!!!!
>
I haven't heard any loan offers - yet. :-)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|