Why is it that people get a point of view and then select details to
prove it and ignore what is in front of their face?
On Oct 12, 2006, at 4:48 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
> As the act of photographing something became simpler and less
> expensive, it
> also became more trivial. The Kodak was the first of millions of
> cameras
> that let the user snap away thoughtlessly. The modern 35mm camera (as
> exemplified by the first Leica) * offered a 36-shot load of relatively
> inexpensive film that further encourage "care-less" shooting.
And how many photographers do you remember from the spread your own
emulsion era besides Matthew Brady?. I would bet that most of those
you know are from the era of 36 shot" care-less" shooting.
>
> The problem with digital photography is that it reduces the
> incremental cost
> of taking a photograph to essentially nothing. The photographer
> thus has
> zero motivation for paying any attention to what he's doing. How
> many photos
> remain in the camera's memory, unprinted, simply because they
> aren't any
> good?
Why would you equate cost with motivation for taking a good picture?
I find that lack of cost for film and processing has enabled most of
the people on this list to experiment more, develop their skills and
to find new ways of getting the images they want.
Few us could ever afford the space and money for a color darkroom.
Instead of machine prints and automated processing of slide film,
those who care about their images are now able to do post processing
that has a flexibility technically and financially impossible before.
To paint the whole digital revolution as the triumph of mediocrity is
just missing the real point that nonprofessional people who love
photography now have more control than they have ever had.
>
> The other day I pulled out one of my OM-4Ti's and played with it for a
> while. It's an elegant product, as 35mm SLRs go, and as its model
> number
> suggests, it's intended to be the SLR equivalent of a Leica.
>
> The E-500 is nothing like that. It's easy to handle, but grossly
> outsized
> for an SLR whose format has less than 1/4 the area of a 35mm frame.
> ** There
> is nothing "elegant" about it; Olympus's claim that the 4/3 System
> would
> permit compact cameras and tiny lenses seems naive at best, a
> blatant lie at
> worst.
Well, yeah. The E-1 is still the top of the line digital Oly. The
E-500 is more like an OM-10. The clue is in the extra zeros in the
model number. So dogging it because it is not an OM4Ti makes no sense
to me. The OM10 was not elegant either. It just took good pictures.
Considering that the E-500 costs less than half of the final price
for the OM4Ti several years ago, I don't know why you would expect
elegant. The Leica M8 is rather elegant, but it costs a bit more.
> * A number of cameras used 35mm cine film before the Leica.
The Leica innovation was to use two cine film frames per picture. As
for being the first precision camera, I am not sure what that even
means, especially considering that the early Leica lenses were copies
of Zeiss lenses.
If you would like a factual history of Leica lens development you can
download it here:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/ebooks/llcforweb.pdf
William, why not lighten up on your E-500 and enjoy it? Or sell it
and get what you want.
Winsor
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|