I don't know about you all, but when I was looking to buy a camera, I did it
backwards.
Now, you all have to understand, I'm anal, I have 2 philosophies in life:
#1 Cost/Benefit ratio (Bang for the buck)
#2 Regret prevention
I generally do research for about 2-6 months on any item costing me over
$200. That way, I know what I am buying, I know that I won't regret it, and
I have enough time to check out prices to know that it's a good value..
That being said, my friend and I were both looking for cameras. He was
looking at what to buy, I was looking at what NOT to buy.
So naturally, he started looking at C*non's and N*kon's. I started reading,
and with some help from my professional photographer friends, I decided I'll
buy anything but a C*non or N*kon. Minolta was great, but all AF's. I
didn't want an AF. I wanted to learn first on an Manual before. From
electronics based camera failure on my trip to the desert, I decided that I
wanted a purely mechanical camera, so I have no dependencies on batteries,
and I want it built like a tank. So I started looking at Pentax, which was
highly recommended by one of the local community college photography
teachers... Then I read about the OM. Now I know all about the Leica nuts,
like my friend's dad has in his will, that he is to be buried with his
Leicas and Hassy's. He is not leaving it for his kids.. The I found that
there was one other camera, in which everybody who owned one, said nothing
but good things about it. I mean, some even had a little bit of tears in
their eyes when they told me how it was their first camera, and how dumb
they were to have sold it blah blah blah.. It was an Om-1. My friend had
an OM-10, and we went hiking, and he brought it along. It was LIGHT, and
SMALL. It was SMALL. Let me repeat, compared to the N*kon F5 I just looked
at in the store, it was SMALL. So I went on Evilbay, and checked out the
prices. $150 was what I saw for camera and 50mm/f1.8 combo! So I thought,
well, that's GOT to qualify for my #1, Bang for the buck. But what about
the quality of glass and images it produces? Well, I saw some posts, and I
saw some pics. I can't tell them side by side from the Leica's.. (I have
seen AMAZING Leica pics, and some crappy ones too, but the nice Leica pics
are what I use for a standard of comparison). So I was sold. I bought an
Om-1n, it came with a 50mm lens. The pics I took from the first roll,
looked like sh*t. I was very disappointed.. So I took it into the repair
shop. They changed mirror sponges (had no clue at the time what that was)
he cleaned everything, changed my battery type, and said my meter was way
off, so corrected that. I had no time to try out a roll, as I went to
taiwan right afterwards. I bought a 90mm Tokina macro, after being unable
to find/afford a 90mm/F2 Zuiko.. I wanted a wide angle lens, and went to
Samy's and overpaid for a 28mm (I wanted a 24mm, but they didn't have any,
so I had to settle, which I don't like to do) the 28mm is not bad, but I
wanted one for the trip, so I guess the return on value is not bad.
Anyway, some of the pictures I took in taiwan are just breathtaking, and I
was a bit shocked how well they turned out as far as clarity and color. The
composition kind of sucked (oh well, I'll learn) but the quality of the shot
was good.
So why am I rambling on? Well, I have noticed that when you have to focus,
take a little time to stare through the viewfinder, and think about your
shot, you come out with a lot fewer bad shots, and a lot more good shots.
It's a little bit less true I think for AF's, as you don't think as much
about your DOF, since (allegedly) what you are shooting is in focus all the
time. Now I know people who say "Pictures are free!" when they buy a
digital, and thus, they feel that it gives them a license to take a million
shots, and play the odds that one of them will be good. This is not a good
way IMHO to do photography, as they learn nothing.
My friend bought a Canon Elan7E. He bought a BIG BIG BIG 25-105mm Zoom lens
with image stablization blah blah blah.. He said that will be all that he
needs. we took pics together, and compared. No comparison, mine kicked the
sh*t out of his. Also, my entire system (Camera, flash, 3 lenses, filters,
bag) was cheaper than his one lens, or his camera. We both knew nothing
about photography, but because I have to learn about things like shutter
speed, F-stops, DOF, etc.. I'm a MUCH better photographer now than he is.
He told me "I just turn the dial to #2, and that's all I have to do." He
can't tell and F-stop from a stop sign. The dumbing down of
photographers...
I like to shoot guns. When people want to teach their kids how to shoot, we
recommend single shot bolt actions, so they can learn the fundamentals.
Some people go for the auto's. They learn nothing, they will never become
good marksmen. I wonder about those who know nothing about photography, and
start on an "auto everything" digital camera. What will they learn? DOF?
Doubt it, if it looks bad, just retake it, pictures are free with digital!
Thinking before you take a picture? Why? When you can buy an IBM 1Gig
microdrive, so you can take 400+ pics before running out of room. Taking
(on purpose) out of focus shots, so you get nice bokeh effects? Can't, it's
all auto-focus. I think, like subpar cheap consumer cameras, there will be
a wave of subpar photographers who come on the scene in the next 10 years,
thanks to the digital camera revolution. It has happened with the computer
industry, and now there's a shrinkage in the computer industry because of
it. People said, Windows is so easy even your mother can use it! Now my
mother does use it, and now my brother, mother, sister are all "computer
experts". Right... Whatever. You will see someone armed with a digital
wonderbrick, and they will claim to be this great photographer, because they
don't know any better. Nothing good in life comes easy, cheap, or quickly.
Those who believe it, is not living in reality.
Flip through a Leica catalog, or a Hassy catalog. Take a look at the
pictures in there, then look me in the eye and tell me your digital camera
will kick the sh*t out of that. Go ahead, I dare ya. I double dare ya.
Also, my friend told me "My (digital) camera should not go obsolete for
another 2 years! Isn't that great??" Err.. I don't think my OM will go
obsolete for at least another 20 years. Isn't that great?? Also, my camera
was 1/10th the price...
My camera repair guy, he said, he gets OM's in all the time, generally to
have them cleaned. Maybe door seal or foam replaced, or battery changed.
That's about it, almost never a repair. The electronic digital
wonderbricks, he has to fix them all the time. He hopes the digital cameras
sell better and better, because he makes a living fixing them.
Finally, there are the digital p&s. I think at a wedding, using these at
the banquet tables are perfect. I am not saying they don't have a place,
but when it counts, I'll stick to film. I was reading about Hearts on Fire
diamonds.. two nights ago. Amazing, mathematically perfect as far as the
cut. What surprises people is that it's not cut by machines, but by hand.
People have this notion that machines will take over everything. But what
I've noticed is that everything I love because it's high quality, is built
by hand. I flipped through my International Watch magazine, and stared at
the BlancPain Ultrathin, I want.. (but can't afford). That is handcrafted.
Again, digital has it's place, but when you want the best, manual is still
going to be superior.
Remember this::
When digital is perfect, what do you have?? Analog. That is what digital
tries to copy analog, in music, photography, etc. Computers now are hitting
their limits, and they are now moving to analog style computers (like our
brains) to get faster computation, and more storage capacity. This also
surprises a lot of people. Machines and digiality do not replace humans,
they simply augment our ability to express ourselves. Most people seem to
distort this fact.
Albert.
< 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 >
|