From: "AG Schnozz" <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
> But does it "inspire" you to take better pictures or does it
> "allow" you to take better pictures.
Honestly, yes it does, but it different ways. It isn't the same, because
the OM bodies, particularly the 1 and 2 go beyond mere tools to being works
of art that literally mold in your hands. As much as I enjoyed using the
OM-4T, it never had that same love that the OM-2 did.
So, back to the D2X. I admit, it starts with the results. They are
stunning and require so little effort. If I shoot JPEG, I can print from the
image with virtually no work. If I want perfection, I start with the
'digital negative', the RAW file.
The camera also just feels right in your hand. The controls are simple and
intuitive. Although there are 12 billion (I counted) different things you
can change, I rarely find the need to change more than the basics --
aperture, shutter, mode (Program, Aperture, Shutter). Mostly I point and
press a button.
When I want to shoot vertically, I turn the camera and boom, there's a
shutter button in the right place. Handy.
And battery life. I just charged the battery for the first time since I
purchased the camera. Almost 1,700 shots. Yes, 1,700. I don't carry a
charger and don't own a second battery. Can't imagine needing one.
Lenses. Ah lenses. Don't have that many. Don't need that many. Most are
leftovers from the D70. Which to muse over first.
The walking around lens. The kit lens from the D70 -- the 18-70. 27-105 in
35mm terms. One of the sharpest and smoothest lenses I've ever used. Simply
wonderful, particularly given that it is a kit lens. This lens is the reason
that the D70 was better than the 10D kit. This lens is why the D70 still
holds its own against the 8mp 20D. It's that good.
The wide angle. The reason I'm a Nikon digital user, not a Canon digital
user. I'm a wide angle freak. When the D100 vs. 10D came around, Canon had
nothing wide. Nikon had the 12-24. Wow. 18-36 in 35mm terms. Again, a
wonderful lens. A walking around lens of its own.
The macro (micro). The 60/2.8 (90/2.8 equivalent). Is it the Zuiko 90/2?
No, it's not. The 90/2 has a butter smooth bokeh that is, to me, unmatched.
That said, it's good, very good. It's also little, light and easy to use.
Simple to switch from AF to MF. Great results.
Anything else is just icing. That's my kit. Body and three lenses. What more
do you need.
Probably the most important point is that. I've shot around 1,600 shots in a
very short period of time -- one where I was more focused on Debbie's health
than photography. 1,600 / 36 = 44 rolls of film. I can't remember burning
that many rolls in a year, let alone in a time period counted in weeks. Can
you imagine the effort of scanning 44 rolls of 36 exposure? I'm afraid I
have a life, and that would completely eliminate it.
OK, having said that all, could I be having just as much fun with my tiny
little Pentax S4i? Maybe. The results from that little camera are quite
good. I strongly suggest that anyone still on the digital fence go spend
$200 on a decent mid-range digital point-n-shoot. Shoot with it. A lot.
You'll see. Eventually.
Tom
Tom
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|