So what?
There have been many cameras introduced since I bought my first
OM-2S that were "better" in so many ways. Shoot, I missed out
on buying the three-dozen EOS film cameras that came out before
digital! I also missed buying a D30, D60, 10D, 20D, 1D, 1Ds,
1DmII and 1DsMII. Why is the 5D THE camera for me to buy now,
when all of these others came and went and are no better than
what I have been shooting all along?
Why?
The 5D is the cat's meow of cameras--the one everything is
compared to. It's the "Messiah" of digital cameras! But wait,
haven't I heard this theme before? The D30 was as good as 35mm
Provia, the 20D as good as 645 Portra, now the 5D is as good as
4x5 Velvia. In retrospect, we realize that none of the previous
claims are "true", but we keep falling for the "latest/greatest"
hype and the "unbiased" tests.
In a couple very short months, the 5D will be rendered obsolete
by Canon's next offering. Something that shows that it is no
better than all of those stepping-stone models that came before.
By this time next year, the "common wisdom" will be that 10MP
images cannot be printed larger than A3, maybe even A4. 22MP is
where it's at. 22MP and ultra-clean ISO 12800. Oh the
horror--you can't shoot a wedding anymore unless it's at ISO
6400 and 12 FPS.
I despise this current photographic world where we have to buy a
new camera every 18 months to stay "current". My E-1 is far
from worn out and probably will outlast any practical
application of the camera. Last night I shot 514 pictures in
about 45 minutes and with every click of the shutter (during a
Christmas Children's Musical) only I heard it. Nobody around me
was disturbed other than maybe the occasional time my LCD lit up
for a "chimp". Yes, I shot at ISO 1600, yes there is noise in
the images, yes I could have used image-stabilization. But you
know what? For the application (4x5 prints for every
participant), it was more than sufficient. I'll have about 200
keepers out of the entire project. My AF was fast enough, the
frame-rate was high enough, the noise-level was even low enough
to not even show up in these small prints WITHOUT
noise-reduction. Would a 5D have resulted in better images?
Possibly. But for the desired output would it have been worth
the investment? No. Besides, I couldn't have fired that many
shots since I was right down front and within three feet of the
microphones.
Yes, I need more pixels for various reasons, but why do we keep
feeling the need to jump on the upgrade treadmill at really
obscene costs? Why can't I just live in peace with the cameras
I have? My desire is to have a digital camera be viable for at
least 10 years. Is that too much to ask?
The argument that you are saving money on film and processing is
bogus. That only works the first time around. Besides, as I
look back, I couldn't afford the film and processing anyway.
I'm looking for cost-savings, not cost-tranferrences.
The 5D is the current "shiny", but in too short of a period of
time it will be rendered as out-of-date as the 10D and the E-1.
It used to be that a professional photographer would go through
two, perhaps three camera "systems" in his entire career. There
is an entire generation of photographers who have used the same
Hassleblad or Mamiya lenses and bodies for 25+ years. We have
no such luxury today.
Just grousing.
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
==============================================
|