6 megapixels is enough for most people. That's a pretty sad statement
actually. For the most part, the lens is the weak link; as films like
velvia from one of the technical discussions I've had, technically
produces 29 megapixels. But when you think about how most shots are
done without a tripod, etc.. then high resolution seems pointless except
for the few. Also, you think that most are saved as jpg's (lossy) and
what's the point of higher resolution then? I don't see it.
I had a friend, we were both camera hunting when we starting to get into
photography. He bought an C*non wunderbrick Elan 7E, with a lens the
size of my head. He (to date) has taken less then 1/100th of what I
have taken. I think he's totalled 7 rolls thus far... where as my trip
to Thailand yielded 40 rolls. Also, his AF makes it "so easy it's like
a point and shoot" and unfortunately for him, his pics look like they
were taken with a point and shoot. I know he's got a capable camera,
but the camera makes it so that he doesn't have to think, and trust me,
he doesn't think about his pics.
Had I purchased something like him, instead of my Om1 (BTW, my entire
system is cheaper than his body, or his lens) I think I would be a worse
photographer then I am today. I look at what I use to shoot like, and
it looks like crap to me... now that I've seen a lot of good photos and
shoot more often myself. The MF forces me to ask myself, what's my main
subject? What do I want sharp and what do I want blurry in this pic?
What's my DOF? DOF preview? Am I shooting handheld so I would like a
higher shutter speed to offset the shakes?
I also don't own any zooms, and my friend only has 1 lens, a zoom. I
have found that prime glass makes me think about the composition, so I
can pick what glass I want. I will probably buy a zoom as it is very
convient on a vacation; but I am glad that I started out with primes.
I also wish I started out shooting only B&W, the lack of my own darkroom
kind of made me not go that route, but I have found that the last 6
rolls I've shot are B&W, it makes me think about composition more then
depending on color filling my negatives.
The OM system might be dead, but so what? It has made me a better
photographer, and until my photography skills exceed my equipment or my
eyesight fails me, I will keep using it.
I have gotten my gf to start shooting with my camera, even though she
wants a digital one.
One of the things I am afraid of is that because she will buy a digital
one, and can take "unlimited" numbers of shots, she will totally
disregard learning how to shoot, and what she will end up with is
thousands of shots of crappy pictures. This is the part of me that is
most afraid of digital; the push for "umlimited" haphazard shooting.
Digital is the biggest blessing to come to photography in years; but
it's also the biggest curse.
As for resolution; Kodak's 14megapixel is tempting; but until the XD
cards do move to 8gig's and there's not shutter speed lag anymore, we'll
see. 2007 is the year of the digital cameras, but 2005 is when you have
to make your stance and pick a line if you are going the digital route.
But I can tell you, nothing like a mechanical shutter to make you really
happy. I love my OM.
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 >
|