Richard Schaetzl wrote:
>A faster sync speed is IMHO far less important than a good light
>metering system and the OM-4(Ti) has the best system available (but
>there is still room for improvement).
I agree with this, but I don't see any reason we couldn't have both sets of
improvements....
>And for what would an faster sync time be good? Fill in flash? The F280
>can do that, but flash use will always look artificial.
I think well-executed fill-in flash need not look artificial, and even if it
did, it's a creative choice of the photographer - an enormous number of,
IMO, excellent images use obviously artificially created lighting
situations...
>Why do photographer use fill in flash today, to lower contrast, to make
>it easier to print the pictures. I´m not shure, that this is an aproach
>to get better pictures.
certainly to lower contrast - often to reduce contrast in scenes that may be
outside the acceptance range of a photographic emulsion - which can
certainly give better pictures, IMHO
>A look at Bill Brandts work shows the value of
>high contrast and wasn´t it Ansel Adams aim to capure the full range of
>tones from black to white?
I'm not sure I see your point here - using a little fill-flash to put
catch-lights in a subjects eyes, or softening harsh shadows on a face etc.
etc. do not preclude the rendering of an otherwise high contrast image, *if*
that's what you want to do, and it may well not be... plenty of subjects
lend themselves to a low(er) contrast treatment; and I'm not sure Ansel
Adams, marvellous technician as he was, is the only authority on, for
example, capturing an image of someone with narrow depth of field on colour
reversal material in high, harsh sun, wearing a hat shading their eyes. If
the photo has to be taken there and then, a good fill-flash system with a
fast sync-speed, preferably TTL-automatic, may be the best solution... and
while the F280 is, I'm sure, a great unit, I would prefer to have the option
to simply turn the shutter-speed dial beyond 1/60 with any unit I happen to
have
>Not that an faster shutter would be bad, but I think it´s value is
>overrated, even cameras with fast shutters choose a slower sync time to
>better balance available and flash light.
Certainly the photographer, or even the camera, may make this decision, *if*
it's appropriate to the ambient light level - cameras with faster sync speed
have the _option_ of working just as well in situations that I, with my OM2n
or OM4, find not impossible, but more difficult, as I am more limited in the
range of solutions I have at my disposal for such a situation
At the same time, these disadvantages are outweighed by other advantages of
the OM system, but it can be a fine balance at times, and a few little...
errr... tweaks to the system would hold me to it on a more long-term basis.
>[...]
>Check an F4, covered by plastics with painted on writings, the writing
>will disapear with use (I have seen one were this has already happend)
>and thats a +2000US$ camera. The new and expensiv F5, F100 might have
>metal tops, but still have only painted writings like most AF lenses
>sold today.
>An OM-4Ti/OM-3Ti and Zuiko lenses have, in contrast, a beautifull
>finished body with all writings engraved, so one will still be able to
>read it in 50 years.
I don't mean to be facetious, but I'd rather have a body I can use
efficiently for the next 5 years, than one I can look at and smile at for
the next 50, thought the F4 is doubtless not the best example!
Regards
Andy
< 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 >
|