Ken Norton wrote:
> Is the OM system dead? Hardly, but to most professional photographers it
> isn't an option anymore. Professional photography is so competitive today
> that failure to stay current with technology does put you behind in ability
> to adapt new styles as they develop. Sporting photography, for example,
> has gotten so radical that it is nearly impossible to do a fraction of the
> stuff today without AF, fill-flash (high sync speeds!!!)
What about FP flash, e.g. the T280? I admit you get more shape
distortion with the slow shutter synch of 1/60, but really I want
fill flash up to 1/1000, which is higher than the shutter
synch speed on either Nikon's or Canon's most expensive models.
I notice most of these "extreme" pics use vertical format, perhaps
in an attempt to minimize the shutter distortion of the vertical
travel (read: unreliable and fragile) shutters in the
wonderbricks. What is really called for is an additional
high-speed in-lens leaf shutter, which would open and close while
the focal plane shutter was open. When I see one of those from
Nikon or Canon I'll call those companies innovative. Innovation
is not providing useless features; it is identifying a problem
and solving it. Most of the wonderbrick features are answers
in search of questions. In this I include matrix metering and
program modes.
I'll admit that fast autofocus is needed to take action shots with
shallow depth of field. If you want that. In normal (for me) use
on a tripod, autofocus is a hindrance because it needs more hands
than I have. For candid people shots, a wonderbrick is too
intrusive. For wildlife: I don't know, but would be worried about
the noise of the motorized film advance. AFAIK autofocus is not
yet up to following a fast bird through an f8 mirror lens anyway.
> and gonzo motordrives.
I seem to remember reading about how one of those shots underneath
a ski jumper was taken. A camera with drive was placed in the correct
position, activated by the skier breaking an IR beam. The thing
fired on continuous as the skier came over. They smashed 3
wonderbricks before they got the shot.
In a year or two (or maybe now), the best solution to this would
be a digital camera. The "motor drive" would work at frame synch
speed, and the photographer would choose the best shot from
the buffer.
Anyway, since we've now seen this shot, no one ever needs to
take it again. This style was invented by Leni Riefenstahl for the
1936 Olympics, using special high-speed cine cameras, and is
hardly new.
> Much of my style of photography is pretty old (mid-80's look) and as hard
> as I've tried to adapt the new styles, I come up short because of the
> cameras. This is not a copout, but the facts. If I am to succeed as a
> professional photographer I must produce what the market wants--and that
> ain't the mid-80's look.
Dead right. Conversely, as an amateur, my output is so low that I
would be foolish to follow fashion, because by the time I had a
largish number of trannies the fashion would have passed. Anyway,
I don't like many of the trends, Velvia luridness being a perfect
example.
The amateur market is still much bigger than the professional
market; Nikon sells many more N50's than F5's, and more junky E
lenses than pro glass. It is also a fact that many amateurs, like
me, are not buying new equipment at all. Any manufacturer who
catered to them would have to sell something not currently
on the market. In other words, I think there is a niche for
something like the OM system, at a reasonable price.
In a 35mm camera for landscape work I need: depth of field
preview, no built-in motor (it scares the wildlife), very sharp
lenses, light weight, availability of mechanical body, extreme
robustness, either manual or aperture priority, and preferably a
spot meter. There is *no* such affordable camera: only the Om3Ti
and Leica. The Nikon FM2N has all but the spot meter.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|