Jim Couch wrote:
> AG, I think the central difficulty here is that you are in
> essence trying to make an emotional decision about a (Jim
> dons flame retardant suit here) MERE TOOL.
Kinda sorta. We've talked about this before, but I believe that
the tool can enhance the work experience. This is one reason why
some people continue to use Leicas and are going nutsoid over
the M8. I don't "understand" Leica--and I generally hate
rangefinder cameras. But, for those who do "get it", they have
found a tool which transends the work it is used for. Does it
take better pictures than other types of cameras? No. But,
what it does do is enable the photographer to change their
mindset into being able to shoot differently than initial
intent. For example:
Today's Digital-Wonderbricks have a grip shape that dictates how
the camera is to be held. It can only be held one way. Now,
granted, most of the time the grips are mighty fine, but yet it
does dictate how the camera is to be used. A brick-shaped
camera (like the Leica and OM and decades worth of other
cameras) allows the camera to be held many different ways. No
one position is overly comfortable (like a grip'd camera), but
no position is overly painful either. This flexibility of
something as simple as the body shape can make it or break it
for some photographers. A camera is a TOOL, but it is also
something much more. It is the mechanical extension of the
photographer.
> You should evaluate the tool on the level of suitability
> for the job and return on investment. It may well be that
> Olympus does not fit the criteria.
Up till now, it did. For portraiture, wedding and event work,
which comprises about 80% of my current photographic income, the
E-1 and A1 combo are outstanding tools. It's for the limited
(yet growing) income engine of stock photography they are
inadequate. Sure, I've got my ways around it, but then the
time-investment is high.
> Make no mistake, I understand that it is hard to separate the
> emotional from all of this...
Right now, my emotion says to dump the entire O-mess.
> 10mp today what will it be in two years? I am guessing it will
> be more.
Possible, but yet again, the "standard" of which things are
compared to is a 50MP 35mm scan. 10MP is there with just a bare
hint of interpolation. Furthermore, if you look at the
Luminous-Landscape megapixel camera shootout, the lowly 5D held
it's own very nicely against 20+ MP medium-format cameras. It's
no longer about the sensor, but about the lenses.
> I think you need to look at bodies as a relatively short term
> investment. You will be replacing them every couple of years
> to keep competitive. Your lenses, flashes, ect are your long
> term investment.
Which is exactly why I bought the E-1 in the first place.
Compatibility with my OM lenses was critical. Still is. I
cannot justify, nor do I want to replace my current lenses with
new, but barely improved ones. The old lens formulas have a
look to the images which define the picture differently than
modern zooms do. What I lose in AF capability I make up for with
DoF markings, Bokeh and a real Aperture Ring!
> For the photo pro, the world has changed a lot my friend.
Yes and no. We've always bought equipment to match client
requirements, be it 35mm, medium-format or large-format. I
really don't see how today is any different than 20 years ago.
We're just spending a whole lot more now with the false
justification of economic benefit of not shooting film.
> Just my opinion, and worth every penny you paid for it.
Still useful.
AG
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|