Yes, you need another body (buddy)...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ross Orr" <voxbongo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 10:47 AM
Subject: [OM] Digital and the Olympus E System
> Some of you have been batting around the whole "digital versus film"
> question here, so forgive me for throwing out a few thoughts on the
> topic. . .
>
> I don't have any ideological reason for preferring film to digital.
> Quite the opposite. I got so backloggged with unprinted negatives
> that it was a major reason I drifted away from using my OM gear in
> the 90s. And I think photoshop is fun! Also many people had told me
> stories of digital re-awakening the pleasure of photography for them.
>
> So a year ago, I stuck a toe in the water with a Canon S200 Elph.
> It's a cute camera--actually smaller than my XA, which impressed me!
> The quality is fine for snapshots/web/email. But I became quite
> frustrated with the "feel" of shooting with it, particularly the
> SHUTTER LAG. This led me to dust off my old OM gear, and fall in love
> with it all over again. . . which is how I ended up here.
>
> I'm sure many of the rest of you also hoped that Olympus would revive
> the OM lensmount when introducing their first digital SLR. However
> when I started hearing about the 4/3 format, I was willing to give
> Oly the benefit of the doubt--after all, starting with a blank sheet
> of paper had achieved great things for them in the past.
>
> But whatever the theoretical justifications,
> http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index_01.htm
> I feel like the E-1 and the E system have not really lived up to the
> hype. Image-wise it doesn't sound like the real-world quality is
> there yet,
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/
> And so far the E lens system hasn't delivered the advantages the PR
> claimed: Where are the ultra wide angles? Where are the f/1.4-class
> lenses?
>
> Worst, contrary to the PR claims, the E-1 throws overboard the most
> beloved feature of the OM series, its *compactness*. The E-1 is
> BIG--though peeking inside the mirror box at the size of the vital
> organs, I find it mystifying why. The grip is too large for my hand
> (I have smaller hands), and the whole body seems unnecessarily deep.
> And I just don't understand why the viewfinder magnification is so
> much smaller than life size.
>
> Meanwhile, the OM-2N feels like a familiar friend. So in the near
> term I'm staying with the tool that feels right to me. I'm thinking
> perhaps Kodak's PictureCD processing will give me enough digital
> convenience to handle the inevitable "emailing copies to friends."
>
> Any experience here with how well C-41 process B &W comes out with that?
>
> Of course if I want to shoot both color and B & W, maybe I'd better
> better pick up another body. . . (uh oh). . .
>
> best,
>
> --Ross
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 42.2855 North
> 83.7497 West
>
> < 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 >
>
< 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 >
|