Hi AG
It's good to know that there's somebody else who doesn't subscribe to the
must upgrade or else
syndrome. I went that route many years ago when I could afford it. The thing
is, the photography doesn't improve in line. My first ever film SLR - 30
years ago - an old Zenith took pictures as good as *any* SLR I've had or
used since. I suspect that my humble 300D takes pictures as good as a 5D
under most conditions - using the same lenses. Rather than more MP I would
rather the 300D be built as rugged as my A1 - it isn't, buts that ok - I'll
just not abuse it as much lol
Arguably the biggest improvement in photography, for me, as I've moved up
through various cameras - has been in flash photography. The OM2 SP and Om40
were notceably better than my earlier film cameras - and, imo, the 300D
seems better still (at least with regards to on/in-camera flash). I think my
T20 may be just a shade more powerful than the 300D's built-in one (I
haven't compared guide nos but the 300D does takes better flash pictures
than my classic OM2 (which, unfortunately isn't an OM2(n) - I sold the OM2
SP to help pay for the 300D).
I'll go out on a limb and say the biggest upgrade I've done is the move from
film to digital - and I'm happy with the 300D. It's 6 MP provides
sufficient quality for my needs and since I tend to end up shooting in
low-light conditions a lot for some reason, and I find it's better so far
than film for that at least. And being able to d/l the pics directly onto
the PC is great! Just about my only criticisms of the 300D are its build
quality is less than that of my film SLRs (but that isn't a really big deal,
maybe) and it (or at least me) is a bit prone to camera shake (at low light
conditons) - although I've gone a long way to correcting that now. Also, I
maybe get 'red-eye' a bit more when shooting people indoors than I did with
film - but thanks to photoshop's red-eye removal tool that's not really much
of an issue.
People telling me I wouldn't look back when I went digital - but I think the
A1 still feels better in use and I'll still shoot film sometimes - just for
the pleasure of using the A1 or OM2. And I still like that film makes you be
more careful about things - although I like the fact that the 300D
encourages more in the way of experimentation :)
In short - I'm happy with the camera bodies I've got :)
Allan
PS No trees were harmed in the sending of this message and a very large
number of electrons were asked their permission to be terribly
inconvenienced. (And threw a party for them afterwards for being really cool
about it).
Disrupting the unnatural balance that you, as a conscious human being and a
confused mass of energy, have created.
-Disturb the mind -
>From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] Re: So, it's a good camera
>Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:55:38 -0800 (PST)
>
>--- Wiliam Wagenaar wrote:
> > AG, I could not agree with you more. I could not write it down
> > as poetically as you however.
> > Very well said.
>
>Thanks. I'm feeling a bit beat up here.
>
>I fully understand normal upgrade/replacement due to wear and
>tear, but we're obsoleting perfectly adequate equipment due to a
>sliding scale of what is determined to be acceptable image
>quality.
>
>This isn't just a "keep up with the Jones' thing", but being
>foisted upon us by our clients. As compared to what I was
>shooting four years ago, my E-1 is as good as anything that came
>before it. Even better in so many regards than the Nikon F5.
>I'm very satisfied with the camera as far as the camera goes,
>even with the imaging as compared to film four years ago. But
>we're no longer comparing to film from four years ago, but
>cutting-edge digital technology that is rivaling the best of the
>film-formats.
>
>I think what is getting to me is that it has been suggested to
>me more than once that I *NEED* to get the 5D. Well, that's
>what triggered my "So, it's a good camera" post. I recall, back
>when the film EOS first came out that it was the best camera out
>there and how we no longer were able to shoot without
>auto-focus. That was bogus then, and my argument is that the
>same argument in favor of the 5D is bogus today. If I would
>have purchased every new "best" out there since 1989, I would
>have spent a hundred-thousand dollars on new and improved stuff
>and not have been much farther than I am now.
>
>The "evergreen" policy, where you buy new and get rid of it just
>as soon as the next model comes out is one way to go, but being
>constantly on the bleeding edge isn't always the best way to go
>and it also requires you to preserve your equipment in better
>shape than what I normally do. Generally, I run my equipment
>till it's either toast, or I buy and sell only used gear.
>
>Why is this different now than before? Cameras always improved
>over time, but the film was a seperate entity. You could
>upgrade your film (sensor) on a continual basis without
>fork-lifting the camera gear. You could choose to use the
>equipment which was "best" for your own methods and procedures.
>
>Maybe what is really bothering me is that I can't buy affordable
>used digital gear that is still viable.
>
>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
>==============================================
_________________________________________________________________
Think you're a film buff? Play the Movie Mogul quiz and win fantastic
prizes! http://www.msnmoviemogul.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|