> No, no! I wasn't referring to Canon scorn, I was referring to scorn for
> those who keep changing cameras regularly, even
> rapidly.
Ah, yes. That is correct. I've been a bit critical of those who change
cameras as often as underwear. However, I've learned to accept the
fact that for some people buying/selling cameras is a hobby. For
others, it's a learning tool. A few people get the current stuff for
status (being the first kid on the block with the new _____ camera).
And of course, there are those who actually buy the new stuff for the
fact that they really do like the new camera and only later discover
that it isn't quite right for them.
> the best out of them - and only fair to the
> equipment to give it a full, fair trial.
I'm of two minds on this: On the one side, it is a shame that nuances
of a camera are never explored and the capabilities maximized. On the
other side, it is a shame that the camera has nuances that must be
explored in order for the capabilities to be maximized.
> it's my own opinion that you may have
> occasionally erred on the conservative side during the time I've been privy
> to your equipment choices and photographic skills.
Much of this has been out of necessity. It's only been recently that
we've finally wiped out all of the medical debts that have hung over
us since 2000 as well as the almost two years of under/unemployment.
It's been a long hard slog.
I have, absolutely, erred on the conservative side. In the battle
between food and film, food wins every time. But along the way, there
is the unfortunate aspect of this where everything needs to earn its
keep. Everything has to have a purpose. I can't get something just
because I want it. Well, that's not entirely true... But you do get
the idea. However, at the root of all this is the fact that we're in
different stages of our lives.
Yet, looking back to the early and mid '90s, I see where I definitely
had a bias. I almost always bought used gear and frowned on those that
spent wildly on the expensive stuff. I only learned much later just
how good, valuable and important spending a bit extra for something
that was a bit better really did make a difference. Penny wise, pound
foolish.
> But only 15 months from acquisition to ordering of a likely replacement for
> the 60D does seem a bit speedy to me.
Actually, this didn't surprise me in the least. When you got the 60D
you were very much indicating an end to this Canon love affair. The IQ
of the 60D was finally "good enough" for your purposes. It met or
exceeded the IQ of the 5D without all the clunkiness of the 5D. The
live-view changed everything too--especially with the twist-and-shout
monitor. However, something odd occured. I have noticed a little bit
of decline in your imagery. For some reason, the 60D doesn't see in
Moose colors. It doesn't seem to stand up to the Moosifications that
you are so famous for. The camera, no matter how great it is, is not a
"Moose Camera". I have no clue what it is that is different, just that
it is different. While this camera has opened up new image options,
something has slid.
> I'll let you in on one. It seems my Oly attachment may be stronger than I
> thought. :-)
Tell me about it. I can't help but be drawn to this thing like bugs to a zapper.
> That is jut not a good place to spend time. Your poor judgement, in risking
> your mental health that way, is not my fault or problem. ;-)
I've avoided most forums like the plague for a while now. This is
about the only place that I spout off anymore.
> Soooo, when I tried an E-1 with tele zoom, and it couldn't focus on a
> dimmish corner of the store with lots of contrast,
> and the 300D snapped right into focus with a similar lens, that was the
> final nail.
Agreed. AF with the E-1 was enough to drive everybody nuts. I will
express my opinion on this here: Olympus, by abandoning AF through the
'90s, set themselves back in such a way that it took ten years to
recover. The AF is just now becoming competitive on the higher end.
The AF in the IS-3 wasn't bad, but other than that, their AF was
substandard at best. Worthless is more like it. Olympus kissed off
over ten years of AF development where the competition was continually
improving and learning AF. Once Olympus got the itch to do AF again,
their introduced products were at least five years behind.
> Did I think you were crazy for buying
> and loving an E-1? Nope. Did I think you were
> crazy for buying the Panny/E-300? Yup. But I didn't say a thing. Would I
> have said "Buy a Canon!"? Nope; I'd have said
> "You shouldda bought an E-620!"
The price was good. And it itched a scratch that needed itching. In a
way I wanted to see if the Leica influence would get along with me.
The answer is yes. It also encouraged me to start shooting my OMs a
little differently too. It's all been good. The L1 is a great camera,
but also equally as irritating. It's a camera with outstanding habits
and horrible habits. I bought the camera not just for the fact that it
was a decent (but flawed) camera, but for the learning experience. If
it wasn't for the L1, I probably would have ended up wasting my money
on the new Fuji faux-rangefinder cameras. Experience is a powerful
demotivator.
In retrospect, as we've discussed before, I did make a mistake in not
switching over to Canon a few years ago.
> I would be interested to know what you are looking for, and why.
Is a digital full-frame OM-4Ti too much to ask? I know, I know, that
train done left the station and rolled off the bridge into the river.
But, seriously, I think I've been narrowing in on a particular style
and substance of photography which actually allows me to jump off of
the upgrade treadmill. Not NEEDING to make money with my photography
has been liberating.
> Wouldn't it be fun if it's because the OM-D caught them flat-footed? We've
> all assumed the OM-D has another Panny
> sensor, but there is a rumor camp that thinks it's Sony.
Yeah, I think there is a bit of bad blood between Oly and Panny right
now. Panny withholding the good stuff and sticking Oly with the 12Mp
sensors for so long didn't help. Besides, I really don't think that
Panny sensors are all that good.
> It's also possible that Panny made a mistake going with in-lens IS, as I
> assume Canon will do.
Agreed. I fell in love with IBIS with the Minolta A1. It is definitely
the more logical solution.
> Making decisions based on old emotions isn't necessarily the best way. I
> simply went elsewhere without bad feelings.
> They are a business, not a girlfriend. :-)
True. Yet how many times do you need to get dumped by that business
before you realize that they are acting just like a girlfriend?
> You tease, you.
I could be convinced... Just remember, that there has been a lot of
R&D work that didn't make it into the OM-D or the E-5 yet.
AG
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|