NSURIT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>Moose, without doing a critique on all you images,
>
That would be pretty exhausting - for you to do and for me to read!
>I will tell you that they remind me of many that I do . . . some I really
>like and others would get
>moved to the digital trash can.
>
Agreed. Images may be presented for different purposes. If presenting
them as examples of my best work, only a handful, at best, would make
the cut. Even there, though, being over selective may not serve the
purpose best. Two listees selected the same image as a favorite; one
that probably wouldn't have made my own cut. I loved the idea of it a
great deal when setting up the shot, but the actual image didn't quite
reach my vision. Seen by fresh eyes, it apparently worked pretty well.
Another reason for presenting images is certainly true for these. They
are for those who shared the experience of the original subjects with
me. Posting the images on the web allows us to revisit our shared
experience. And Carol Anne and I can share them with friends who weren't
there to enhance our stories of our trip.
There are yet other reasons why I shared all these images with the list,
rather than just the "best". Although this list is mostly (at least much
of the time) about Oly gear, there is also a part of it about the tools
we use to accomplish our photographic purposes. I was trying out a new
piece of gear for the first time and intentionally pushing the envelope
of what I can do with it in specific areas for which I acquired it. I
thought the results might be informative for others too. Interestingly,
the cloisters gallery includes 35 of the 42 interior shots of exhibits
that I took and two others aren't there because they are being saved for
another purpose. So I give myself and the camera a 35/40 = 87.5% 'hit'
rate for usable shots in dim lighting where my old compact, non-DSLR
camera wouldn't get more than maybe 10-15%.
Also, there may be other listees who would be interested in the
capabilities I was looking for and largely found in this camera.
>So here is my guess. Figuring it has to be some variation of a zoom point
>and shoot with a built-in flash. Figure it is not Olympus,
>
Correct both times
>because if you had told us that before your trip we all would have given you
>so much cr#p about it your trip might have been spoiled.
>
Not likely! Besides, all the shots were taken on a 1gb Olympus xD card.
That even qualifies it for TOPE, doesn't it?? :-)
>Some of the close-ups were tack sharp and others not so sharp, so I'm
>guessing no tripod.
>
Right! I did have a tripod along on the trip, but intentionally didn't
use it for more than a shot or two, none in these galleries, because I
was testing what I could do with the camera hand-held. Many of the shots
are at less than 1/30 sec., the lowest being 1/8 sec., and those and
others were wide open at f2.8. So you are right, quite a few aren't tack
sharp, from camera shake and/or slight focus imperfection with low DOF.
On the other hand, I thnk almost all will make good 4x5 or 5x7 prints.
All in all, I learned a lot and got better overall results than I might
have expected.
>You didn't say if it was new or used.
>
>
New
>I'm guessing some version of the Canon G series. If the newest one, the G6.
>
>
Naw, if I'm am going to carry anything that big, I might as well carry a
(D)SLR.
>You will no doubt let the cat out of the bag at a later date, won't you?
>
>
But of course!
>The prize for a correct answer is, no doubt, a like new in box OM 3Ti which
>is
>being replaced by your new best friend.
>
Can't be that. I've never had or wanted one of those. I just can't see
the improvement over a nice OM-1n for the mechanical aspect and it's not
as good as an OM-4x for everything else. About the nicest finish of any
camera I've ever seen, though - looks great.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|