Good points Ken (and others) but I think everyone is really missing the
point. We are talking about tools here. What it amounts to is what is
the appropriate tool for the job!
I may be wrong, but in the original discussion I don't recall anyone
asking what kind of photography the person wanted to do or why they had
an interest in photography! How can you make ANY kind of recommendation
without some idea of what the person is interested in?!?
I have recommended OMs to a number of my friends. I have set my kids up
with OMs as well. I have also recommended 'wonderbricks', digital, and
P&S cameras to friends and relatives who have asked for camera advice.
One thing about most modern cameras is that many are more difficult to
use in an all manual mode (manual exposure and focus) than a 'classic"
manual SLR. For someone who desires that kind of control over the
process an older camera may be a better choice.
The other point, is that for hobbyists (which most of us are), there is
more to it than just getting the picture or making a photograph, there
is the joy in the process. For me, photography is more fun using my OMs
than using an autofocus camera. This will not be the case for everyone
though by any means. For me what it boils down to, is that it is more
fun to drive the camera with the 'stickshift' than the car with the
'automatic transmission.' I think this is actually true for many people,
but certainly not for everyone, or even most photographers. The tools
need to fit the personality of the user as well as the job.
What is important when dealing with technology is to select tools that
work for you, and give you what you want out of the experience. For me,
the OMs give me the kind of enjoyment I want out of photography. With
other subjects, or at another time in my life I might feel differently,
and would use a different tool.
Jim Couch
AG Schnozz wrote:
> "It's the Photographer - not the Technology!"
>
> How many times have we used that defense for backing up our
> choice in less than current equipment? Although true that the
> "latest greatest" in automation won't make us better
> photographers, neither will a blind trust in our "skills".
>
> We are so prideful of our well-honed abilities to twist an
> aperture ring, yet we fail to acknowledge our inability to
> select the correct ISO setting 1000f the time.
>
> - I've screwed up the focus on more shots than an autofocus
> camera would have done,
>
> - I've messed up the ISO setting on innumerable rolls of film,
>
> - I've mistakenly left the camera in two slow of an exposure,
> blowing what would have been a properly exposed hand-held
> picture,
>
> - My thumb is able to advance the film only so fast,
>
> - I've missed many pictures while rewinding, changing and
> threading film.
>
> Shall I go on?
>
> The fact is, I can always shoot these latest/greatest
> wonderbricks in manual exposure mode, but I could never shoot an
> OM-1 in anything but manual mode.
>
> We are using the equivelent of a 1973 Volkswagon Beatle. You
> might be able to still drive it to the store, but I wouldn't
> recommend it for a New York City Yellow Cab.
>
> "It's the Photographer - not the Technology" is true. However,
> failure to properly accept technology is as much of a mistake as
> relying on it too much.
>
> AG-Schnozz
< 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 >
|