Wiese schrieb:
>
> 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....
No problem for me either, the original poster suggested to remove
multi-spot metering but installing an faster shutter in an future OM.
> >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...
My examples weren´t very good, because I wanted to adress contemporary
news photography, there one will regulary see pictures flashed to death.
The reason why they do this is clear, newspaper can not handle contrasty
pictures.
I wrote this, because someone attributed fill-in-flash as "profesional",
but sometimes profesionals take ugly pictures by purpose.
Same with a lot of wedding photography, pictures taken to "register" the
event, but not to capture the atmosphere, so aunt Jane in the second row
is recognizeable.
I know there a lot of photographer who use flash light to create special
effects. Martin Parr obviously to emphasize the uglines, "vulgarity" (his
word) of his objects. Helmut Newton used an (Olympus?) ringflash to have
an unusual "look", but Newton once also commented, that he likes to take
his pictures at midday, because everybody teaches not to photograph at
this time, so he, Newton gets a "look" nobody else has.
> >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.
Sure, I just wanted to explain, that contrast is nothing to fight, but
the thing which creates a picture. Bill Brand has emphasized contrast to
make the picture more dramatic, to draw the attention to a certain
object in the image. A lot of E.Westons pictures wouldn´t work without
shadows forming the picture, not only his desert dunes, but also
portraits and nudes.
Ansel Adams tried to capture a given contrast range, not altering it
(wouldn´t work with his motives, so far a bad example).
> ... 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...
Remembering Sergio Leone? Henry Fonda and Clint Eastwood look "cool" in
his movie because there is a shadow cast on there face (but I bet they
have put in a little bit fill-in light, just enough, that the shadow
doesn´t disapear).
> >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
You don´t need to convince me, I think we agree that there is no
"fundamentalistic" reason why a camera should not have 1/250s sync and
easy adjustable fill-in flash.
I just question their importance for good photography. It´s nice to have
it, like it´s nice to know that I can mount a 1000mm lens on my OM, but I
seldom need it.
Last week there was documentary in "arte" about the photo agency
"Magnum", what surprised me was that so many of there photographer (the
young ones too) have also used an M Leica, an camera which can less, has
less gimicks than an already frugal OM-4Ti.
What should a camera body be able to do? Hold the film and your lenses,
a integrated lightmeter would be handy too, especialy when it is as good
as the one build in the OM-3,4(Ti).
There is series of books called "Magnum Photos", they are sorted to
different topics, the one dealing with night photos contains only few
pictures made with a flash. Beside of that there are Millions of excelent
pictures made without flash, but I remember not too many good flash
pictures. What I try to express is, that flash photography is a special
technique dificult to master like supertele photography, so it makes as
much sense to complain why there is no better suport for fill-in flash,
as why there is no 2000mm Zuiko.
BTW do you have an F280? Can it not fullfill your needs?
> >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,
Can´t you use an OM efficiently now? I think most photographers could use
OM cameras to efficiently take pictures. Of course there might be one or
the other task another camera would be me more appropiate to use for (but
thats true for every type of camera), so maybe if you are in such a
situation you might consider buying another camera. There is no reason
(and no posibility) why every camera should be good for every task.
> than one I can look at and smile at for
> the next 50, thought the F4 is doubtless not the best example!
I´m not sure I will taking pictures with my OMs in 50 years and I
definitly don´t want to take pictures with an 50 year old screw mount
Leica, but first, the ergonomics of cameras has drastical improved in
the last 50 years, second, I guess it will be difficult and expensive to
buy film in 50 years.
I see hardly an ergonomic improvement between an 70-80ies OM camera and
an actual top class AF wonderbrick, they are three times as heavy, very
battery dependend (you need lots of bulky spare batteries), but do not
take pictures of better quality (they have the size of MF bodies, which
render much better images). The user interface of there lightmeter is
worse than the one in an OM-3,4(Ti).
Apart from the fact, that OMs are cappable cameras, I like the fact that
they are build to last, I have no understanding for kilo buck cameras
which are made to the specs of an disposable camera.
On a less rational level, I like that an OM-1 represents an technology,
to complicated and expensiv to make today, I see it as an "Rolex" for
the price of a "Swatch".
Maybe, one time, if the OM system survives long enough, there will be an
revival of mechanical cameras and new live to the OM system with new
bodies and lenses.
I hope the situation now is comparable to the situation for the watch
industry after the introducing of electronic quartz watches and the
following price and quality decrease. Watch industry recovered because
people irrationaly (?) buy expensive, not that precise, mechanical
watches instead of a plastic 2$ quartz watch.
And isn´t Leica the Rolex of the camera industry?
Regards
Richard
< 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 >
|