Subject: | [OM] Re: Digital, digital, Part 2 (Long, really long) |
---|---|
From: | Doug <dhsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:28:50 -0400 |
On Thursday April 14 2005 2:12 pm, you wrote: I think Walt has many valid points. I've always felt that just because some process is new doesn't automatically make it better for every purpose. On the other hand just because something has always been done someway does that make it perfect either. In many fields of work, from carpentery to art to photography there has been much outstanding work done with "traditional" tools and methods. Many a fine house was built with hand tools as there are many fine houses built with the latest of power tools. Buying yourself the lastest camera or accessory isn't going to make you a better photographer unless you have a clear picture of what you are trying to do. For some people the difference in the process between film and digital makes then better photographers because the digital work flow makes more sense to them, for others like Walt is is just the opposite. The reasons I haven't gone digital are: 1) It's still too expensive. I've got a couple of thousand dollars in the OM system which I couldn't begin to duplicate in a digital system. When you factor in how fast these cameras seem to become obsolete I just can't justify buying one until the market stabilizes. 2) I've picked up both a Can*n rebel and a Nik*on D-70 in one of the big box stores. I don't like the bulk of them and I don't like the huge grip they put on right side of the camera. It forces me to try to hold the camera in a totally unnatural way for me. I can carry one of the OM bodies all day without my hands hurting. I held one of these cameras for just a few minutes in a store just playing around with it and I could tell my hands didn't like holding it at all. 3) Without making a great effort to learn all the buttons it seems to me that there is way too much going on in these cameras for most of it to become second nature unless I used the camera everyday. I could see me getting busy and not using the camera much for a couple of months. Would this mean that I'd have to go back and dig through the manual again to get myself reoriented? It's not that I'm computer phobic or computer challenged. I use a computer everyday at work and home. It may be me but so much of these things have icons that I'm always stopping to figure out. Does the tree icon mean shade or some kind of setting to take nature pictures? These are just my thoughts. I'm not trying to convince anyone that either film or digital is the way to go. Each of us has to weigh all the factors, one of which is our personality and make the decision for themself. For me the balance is still on film. After all I haven't even scratched the surface of what there is to know about photography whether it is film or digital. For me I suspect that I'll always remain a person who uses both film and digital. -Doug ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ============================================== |
Previous by Date: | [OM] Re: Lanscape's via PC stitching, was: Zuiko 18mm and 21mm, Mike Hatam |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] Re: Opinions on E-1 or E-300?, Vargas, Antonio (IT) |
Previous by Thread: | [OM] Re: Digital, digital, Part 2 and good-bye for now., Jim Couch |
Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: Digital, digital, Part 2 (Long, really long), Thomas Clausen |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |