> M. Royer [mailto:royer007@xxxxxxxxx] wrote:
> You make a lot of very valid points about the Canon
> system, however I must disagree with you about the 50
> Billion program modes and buttons that one must use.
I don't think we necessarily disagree Mark. My point
regarding the modes is that they are available, but, as
you point out, in P&S mode, they don't need to be used
but *can* be if you see fit. If it means anything, even
on the EOS list they call the green-rectangle on the mode
button "idiot mode", and the programmed modes (you know,
the ones with the person running, the flower, the mountain
symbols) only a touch less contemptuously. It's the marketing
lingo "creative modes" (aperture priority, shutter priority,
manual) where the work is done and P&S no longer occurs
(we get to know where the meterings systems are biassed
wrongly, or where they fail all together - Sunny 16 still
gets a look-see). Where AF *does* fail IMO is that it
becomes too easy. Manual focussing means the composition is "in
your face" for longer before you press the magic button,
giving you time to notice and correct any failings. It
slows you down in other words.
> In my experience with AF systems they reduce the SLR
> to nothing more than a big point and shoot that
> doesn't do the job of a good point and shoot as well.
For me, there is more to P&S then just the AF - complete
lack of knowledge of what aperture/shutter it's using, and
no control over the same also very much come into it. *For
me* (I know, I keep saying that - I think we make the same
point with that phrase), AF is a failing of mine. I've never
been able to manage it "manually" well. That's why I changed
from the matt screen to the split prism on my OM1 - my eyes
aren't good at focussing skill, and earlier in life attempts
frustrated me away from the hobby - I've improved, but AF in
most circumstances takes that lacking away and improves my
photography and enthusiasm in many circumstances. I concede
it's a failing of mine, but AF compensates for that. I cannot
track Touch Footy from the trylines or sidelines, where they
all want the TRY TRY TRY photos without AF. Softball, perhaps,
but not Touch. Maybe later though?
> I mean why buy a Canon SLR when an Infinity Stylus
> Epic or other good P&S does the same thing at maybe a
> lower cost (some of those little jobbies are quite
> expensive :) it will definitely be smaller and lighter
> and in many cases more durable due to that. Yes AF can
> be desireable for fast action, but for most anything
> else it isn't that important. Just my .02.
I make the point about my own failings with focussing above,
but I concede that many are buying SLR's when a perfectly
good p&s comes to mind (I don't think the zooms are a complete
necessity much of the time, and I often suggest to people
who are spending money on p&s's to look at the Olympus Stylus
Epis/MJU). I spend a reasonable amount of time photographing
for me what is fast action (be it sport, or just two Airedale
Terriers that behave like 65lb Jack Russell's on acid). AF is
important *for me* (there it is again). However, I *do* have the
OM1, and a 35mm at f8 covers a multitude of focussing errors
when using those wonderful focussing scales (someone should have
mentioned by now the number of comsumer electrobrick lenses that
*don't* have this :-)).
> Also I must add in that any SLR built after 1990
> doesn't feel as solid as an older one in my hands. OM,
> N*kon, P*ntax, C*non etc. All their older metal MF
> SLR's feel ultra solid compared to the plastimagic
> things with LCD displays and such put out today.
Absolutely! The OM is so much smaller than my beefed-up
50E (50E is a "midrange" camera BTW) but weighs similar.
Now while I find the size less stable, the weight compensates.
I can't imagine what a EOS 300 or 3000N (entry-levels) with
the plasti-magic 50 1.8 lens (optically wonderful,
constructively scary). The 50E just feels easier to compose
in your hands, when switching formats and slinging it around
(up to your eye). A personal "anchovy" thing.
> If you want a solid camera today your stuck with either
> Zeiss Contax or some ultra expensive Leica M or R
> system, or the Olympus OM. Nikon F5 is as ugly as sin
> and Canon 1V is about as plastimagic as everything
> else in thier line.
This, to me, is the biggest shame. I can easily pay much
less than $100 for a older all-metal SLR, but have to
pay megabucks for similar in modern equipment, from which,
as you point out, results (most important) are the same in
most circumstances (depending on personal preferences and
type of photography, etc.). The thing I liked about the 50E
aesthetically (as less important as this may be practically)
was the thing that others complain about - it's "chrome"
and (relatively) "retro" look and I think the black 30E that
replaces it is "soulless" for me (though I have to concede a
liking for the F5 - it has that Landy Defender look IMO.
Don't tell the EOS folk! <grin>). Either I can save up for
something that it's gonna be worth a pinch of s**t in improving
my photography (and I have seen people buy the latest 1V and
then ask 18 months later how compensation works!), or, in
this day and age I can buy an OM.
So I did, and I regret it not for one minute! Don't forget
the advantages of a second body too (shame mine aren't the
same systems, but just for on-call film and lens choice it's
"noice"). I can try different focal-lengths without having to
break the bank (though I wish there were as many lenses
available to me as Canon FD, Nikon, and other assorted mounts
are), and not feel so bad if I decide that, for example, I
don't like macro. I also know the gear will go to a new home
without great loss to me financially.
Sorry, for flogging a dead horse. I know I do go on. The *last*
impression I'd want to give is that "Canon is better than Olympus".
Rather, that circumstances and requirements and feeling of
individuals and the way they work/create determine what might
be best for them. I work with technology (IT Support) and the
electrobricks are familiar, non-confusing territory, and *fun*
to learn everything (most of the time - sometimes translation
in the manuals leaves a lot to be desired :-) ) and use appropriately.
Some people swear by eye-control focus (ECF) while others, including
myself, find it a bugger to use.
My final word is, if I was recommending a first SLR body to a
friend, I would be pointing someone *away* from the new bodies
and towards something second hand. My first suggestion would be
the Olympus OM system (with cautious practical warnings of it's
flagging support and their (un)importance).
Cheers
Marc
Sydney, Oz
< 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 >
|