On 7/23/2012 8:29 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> 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 ...
> 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.
Well said.
Sometimes, too, there is a hidden fault, whether hidden by inadequate reviews
and information or by selective vision on
the part of the prospective owner, which simply can't be adequately overcome by
learning every little bit about how to
maximize the good parts.
>> 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. ... 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...
:-) Once one gets into a certain mindset, it is often hard to see larger
possibilities beyond it. My ex-wife has
spent her life complaining about the inadequacy of her financial situation.
Faced with the proverbial
half-full/half-empty glass, she would try to convince you that it is actually
less than half-full. Not excessive enough
to be a terrible flaw, and nothing to do with our being divorced - just a way
of looking at the world. When we were
married - oh so long ago - I ignored what she told herself and others and spent
our money as I thought was wise -
without problems.
Maybe being a poor-mouth gives her pleasure. How she managed it while married
later to a rich man, I'm not sure. :-)
> 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.
D'accord. And, in the course of three marriages and a couple of serious live in
relationships, I've never had any "CFO"
or "SWMBO" deciding what I could or could not buy. My own reasonable level of
common sense has always been my guide.
> 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.
Perhaps that's what I picked up on as an undertone in your posts.
> 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.
Finding the right balance is a constant process of balance and discovery.
>> 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.
Good enough, yes, but I never fooled myself into thinking better. What I really
wanted - want - is the 5D sensor with
live view and moveable screen. The 5D wasn't really clunky, to me, in size or
operation, but didn't have those tow very
important features, nor do its successors.
I suppose another maker may have had what I wanted, but I didn't see any camera
that clearly met my desires and, back on
the last point, changing lens systems on spec wouldn't be cheap.
> The live-view changed everything too--especially with the twist-and-shout
> monitor.
Yes, that, with live view has been like taking off hobbles. I've also learned
and enjoyed much from the video capability.
> However, something odd occured. I have noticed a little bit
> of decline in your imagery.
That's interesting, and useful, information. I have not been aware of that, but
perhaps I'm too close. I wonder if the
very thing I and the marketplace and I wanted required sensor system changes
that are the real reason no Canon since has
matched the 5D in some aspects of IQ?
There is probably another factor at work here, my stubborn insistence on
carrying few lenses and making few lens changes
out in the field, where the vast majority of my shots are taken. Sticking with
the Tammy 28-300s led to nice
improvements in macro and long tele, but sometimes seemed to have less
salubrious effects of more ordinary subjects,
perhaps more than I admitted to myself. But I found no better seeming
alternatives in EF-S mount.
> 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.
Although not putting it as clearly to myself, that may well be the subtle
source of the dissatisfaction driving my need
to move on.
>> 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.
Ah well, I WAS exclusively Oly for 30 years.
>> 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.
Well, they failed at their first attempt. It almost didn't work at all, and was
far from competitive. Whatever the
internal business and/or psychological consequences, it certainly has taken
them a long time to get back into the fray
properly.
> The AF is just now becoming competitive on the higher end...
>
>
>> 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 ...
>
> In retrospect, as we've discussed before, I did make a mistake in not
> switching over to Canon a few years ago.
Oh, who knows? :-)
>> 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.
I really wonder what the longer term future of FF will be. It seems that
smaller sensors are matching most FF qualities.
If, as seems likely, digital MF comes down in price, where's the place for more
than a quite small FF niche?
> 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.
Indeed!
>> 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.
The first implementations weren't clear, as they worked, but not as well as the
more mature in-lens technology. Now, it
seems they have caught up. One of the more intriguing things in the OM-D is the
5 way IS. Try as I might to avoid it, I
still tend to jerk the camera with the quick push of the index finger when
waiting for the perfect moment. I wonder if
the radial IS may lead to more keepers.
>> 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?
Me? Once, so far. We'll see how this reconciliation goes. ;-)
>> 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.
Wellll, if this works, and I change to a stable of M.Zuikos, I suppose I may be
a sucker for the next big thing.
Mixed Impatience and Anxiety Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|