Every moment with my digital whizbang camera is informed by the experience
of shooting film going back to my manual camera days. As I move the
composition around to get the best values on the histogram, I always think
about how I learned to meter a scene with the OM-1. You never take it for
granted that the camera is pointed at a perfectly-balanced, 18% gray
reflectance mixture.
I still think the best way to learn photography is with an OM-1 (or
similar). Then you can use that camera to best effect, or use an OM-2S or
OM-4 with better understanding of what those cameras have to offer, or use
a digital brute. It's always nice having choices, and just as having
choices doesn't mean you have to wear the same color shirt each day, you
don't have to shoot with the same kind of camera. Co-existence is both
possible and IMO desirable.
Control? I've got more controls with my digiwhizbang that you can shake a
fist at. Though I'm getting better at it, the thing I miss from film
camera photography when shooting digital is the greater control of focus
and depth of field. I'm constantly amazed how deep the circle of confusion
is at f5.6 of f4, which is not always what I want, and I can't place the
sharpest point of focus exactly where I want always (with the C-8080 at
least). There is of course no way to observe DOF with a preview, although
you'd feel like an idiot expecting it when you can observe the DOF
immediately after making the shot.
The C-8080 accomplishes macrophotography in my range of aesthetic
contentment (1:10 down to about 1:3) with tremendous success, but it is a
multistaged operation: Select the proper exposure and focus modes, move
the spots that apply focus and take the meter reading to the desired points
(yes, they can be two different points, thankfully), guesstimate the stop
that provides the right balance of sharpness and blur, and finally shoot
using the remote. This so much easier and truly pleasant with an OM and a
90 macro. Yesterday I even shot a few with 35-80/2.8 and 12mm extension
(I'm planning a trip and going light).
I am always asking myself: Would I have learned what I want to do with the
digibeast if I hadn't been down this road with the OMs? I really can't
answer that, but it seems to me that it's not really a brave new world,
just the same old world with a couple new quirks.
Joel W.
At 08:26 AM 11/12/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>Why do you think that you don't have full control of a modern camera? Have
>you only looked at low end models designed for casual use?
>
>Ian
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>Of John A. Lind
>Sent: 12 November 2004 02:21
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] Re: Olympus Trouble
>
>At 08:15 PM 11/11/04, you wrote:
>
> >Real world results. AF and IS achieve a higher keeper count.
>
>I beg to differ with that. I've seen some seriously disappointing results
>letting an uncontrollable pre-programmed machine automagically decide what
>it will do . . . utterly contrary to where I want critical focus, how much
>density is desired, and where that density level will be placed in the
>photograph.
>
>It's all about control, control, control, control, control and more control
>. . . by the *photographer* . . . to achieve the exact mental vision for
>the finished photograph made in advance of even touching any camera
>gear. You *cannot* do that reliniquishing control of it to pre-programmed
>automagic. It produces someone else's "vision" for the photograph as
>predetermined months, if not years beforehand, and utterly frustrates
>creativity.
>
>-- John Lind
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|