Brian Swale wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> To respond to some points made about format and E-1s etc.
>
Obviously, my lengthy response to your post was based on some false
assumptions. I would, however, suggest that what you said was easy to
misread:
"Compared with film, the restrictive aspects of digital are not confined
to composition. The latitude compared with film, especially with print
film, and that highlights are blown out so badly, are quite restrictive
to subject. I just means that, as for Kodachrome, subjects with much
light and dark must be avoided."
If you replace "digital" in the above, which I took to apply to DSLRs in
general, used to their full capabilities, with "E-1 used in JPEG mode
only", then most of what I said doesn't apply.
> I am unable to run RSE or the Olympus RAW processing software ( or the
> update code for cameras and lenses for that matter).
>
> To be able do so would mean buying another computer, and that is not near
> the top of my priority list right now.
>
> Neither is buying another digital lens, unless I spot a very good buy, in
> which
> case my choice would probably be the 50/2 DZ. The manual Zuiko 50/3.5 is
> quite sharp and does an excellent job, with practice.
>
The 50/3.5 is a really excellent lens on digital, in my experience.
Staying within the limitations of the E-1 - 5 mp and the matching AA
filter, which intentionally limits resolution to avoid moire patterns, I
can't imagine the DZ would offer any performance advantages other than
convenience of operation. The 50/3.5 is up to use the much higher
resolution 5D.
> RAW files are therefore a waste of (unavailable) space for me at present.
>
> In my opinion it is not unreasonable to expect that 3.3 MB jpeg files should
> be usable straight out of the camera,
Absolutely, although with some, to you very modest, compromise from the
full imaging capabilities of the camera.
> and the point I was trying to make is that in contrasty situations this is
> not the case.
I just could not believe that this was true of the E-1, but I don't have
one. Fortunately AG is there to take up that issue.
> Digital shooters therefore must needs confine their shooting to non-contrasty
> subjects.
There you go again, generalizing from your own personal experience -
with self imposed limitations in camera and the ability to get the most
out of it - to all "digital shooters"; to everybody with a digital
camera of any sort . I would appreciate it if you would speak for
yourself, not for me. What you say is absolutely not true for me. Even
my little P&S isn't that limited, and it's JPEG only.
> It is not reasonable to expect a photographer to have to spend a long time
> doing post-exposure processing on a computer to make an image usable.
>
Agreed again, and I firmly believe that is possible with the E-1. AG is
a technically adept pro who has used the E-1 extensively, listen to what
he says.
Two sub-disagreements:
I am looking for something more than a just a usable image.
It only takes a few seconds to adjust most shots. Some really good ones
that can become great are worth extra time to me.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|