Wayne Culberson wrote:
>A further thought not related to the reply:
>
>........... It almost seems, at least to me, that
>now if you want to post something positive about the OM system, you almost
>have to expect to put yourself in the defensive position, a rather strange
>thing to happen given the title of the list.
>
Well, I certainly hope I don't come across that way. I still have, value
and use OMs.
>And criticizing anything digital is guaranteed to get you in trouble.
>
Again, that was certainly not my intent in my last post on the thread.
What bothers me, and I tend to respond to, is incompletely informed
characterization of a class/group/brand/whatever of tool based on
comparison of an example not properly suited to the job at hand to an
example better suited to the job from another class of tool.
An extreme example might be a 35mm shooter of wildlife who is curious
about MF, tries out a fixed lens TLR, and concludes that MF is not good
for his purposes. Or perhaps anyone looking for traditional photographic
values who uses a Holga as a way to try out MF. A camera like the 5050,
while an excellent tool for many photographic purposes, is not, within
the range of available DCs, comparable to an OM with Portra within the
range of 35mm cameras available for the purpose of wedding photography.
I also tend to react to criticism of a tool based on an incomplete
understanding of its characteristics and how best to use them. At least
based on your initial post, it appears that you were not aware until it
was too late of some well documented characteristics of the 5050. It
also appeared, absent clarification, that you weren't aware of and/or
didn't use the camera's features that can compensate for the weaknesses.
Whether it is a good, bad or indifferent camera, it seems to me to be
unfair both to the camera, other owners and potential users, to
criticize it without fully understanding its operation.
I've made plenty of operator errors with my 300D, as I learn its rather
complex nature, but I don't knock it in public for my ignorance. It's
really easy to forget the learning curve we have gone through to become
adept with our OMs, film and accessories and forget that a very
different photographic tool requires different skills and experience.
No, I am not suggesting that the 5050 is a good tool for weddings or
not, I don't have the experience to make that call. It does appear that
it has the capability to mitigate, if not eliminate, some of the
specific results you complain about thorough WB fine tuning, custom WB,
custom parameter sets and, possibly, through use of RAW files with
RawShooter or Vuescan.
I don't think that digital is inherently superior to film. I think each
has their own strengths and weaknesses.
>I wonder if the advancing
>technology of digital in the last 2 or so years has brought about the
>change, or something else, such as a veiled admission that we might have
>been wrong about the advancing technology of film cameras of the 80's and
>90's as well.
>
I don't think it is all one way or the other. Certain aspects of
wunderbricks annoy me and I simply put up with them to get the
advantages for some uses of Digital. I certainly have no wish for a film
wunderbrick. Another thing that has happened over in AF land, through
the continued development of optical technology, is lens designs that
exceed those available to older, manual focus, SLRs in several aspects.
Not saying you should be using a wunderbrick, only that there are
advantages there for some of us.
>Personally, I still don't get along well with auto-focus.
>
I don't find it all good either
>It is fine for subjects at infinity,
>
Even scale focusing is quick and accurate for infinity. :-)
>and may be a help for those who chase moving objects,
>something I rarely do,
>
My grandaughters. Even pretty good AF can't keep up with them sometimes.
>or for those who have failing eyesight.
>
No problem here.
>But for me, it comes with the price of a poorer viewfinder, and too many
>out-of focus shots.
>
It seems to me you are mixing up 2 different things here. AF and
wunderbricks are not the proximate cause of poor viewfinders.
I've tried out a neighbor's high end EOS AF film wunderbrick. The
viewfinder is fully comparable to that on an OM-4 and also has
interchangable screens. Poor viewfinders are not an artifact of AF or
wunderbricks. The are a result of cost constraints, in the case of
optical finders on cameras like the 5050, technical/cost constraints in
the case of EVFs and LCDs and technological and cost constraints in the
case of DSLRs. Optical physics and the size of sensors in current
moderately priced DSLRs mean that viewfinders cannot be both as big and
as bright as those on 35mm film SLRs. DSLRs with full frame sensors and
large, bright viewfindrers exist. At the moment, they cost US$5-8,000.
It won't be too very long before they are down at $1,000 or so,
eventually less.
>It is one of the chief problems of going further into digital, for me. That of
>course, and the cost.
>
At least the OOF shots don't cost for film and development before I know
it happened. I may even have the chance to reshoot. But I do know what
you mean, I too would like an OM-1 finder on the 300D.
And good for you! If you find this sounds like a rant against you, I
hope you will consider my intent to be fair in characterizing various
cameras in a public forum. And perhaps you will remember that I was one
of those who helped you find a solution to color balance in slides taken
at high altitude. I DO try to use my fetish for knowing the uses of
tools for good! :-) And I am sometimes wrong, as I recently
demonstrated here in a really silly, preventable way.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|