John Morton wrote:
> <snip>
> "So I have my fingers crossed that Panny has made some kind of serious
> improvement, both for the E-410/510 and the Panny TZ-3. Unfortunately,
> the TZ-3 probably has the same sensor technology as the SP-550 and the
> usual Venus III engine smear tactics as a way to cover noise and
> obliterate subtle detail. I think Panny NR is an attempt at a tribute
> to Monet."
>
> Moose
>
>
> I like Monet quite a bit;
As do I. You may have noted that I typed "an attempt at a tribute", not
"a tribute". We were blessed recently with an exhibit of "Monet in
Normandy". Seeing a considerable number of his paintings in date order,
rather than scattered amongst other Impressionists was very
illuminating. I had never seen his work in time context. It was a great
revelation to work through some earlier works where the reflections of
light on ripples in water were disturbing, just not right, until I stood
before one of a boat in a harbor where he finally "got" it. From that
time forward, he had mastery of that most important part of his work.
Suddenly, I discovered that a couple of his works, including one quite
famous one, were not unpleasing (to me, obviously) by intent, but just
because his skills hadn't matured yet.
It was also wonderful to come to the conclusion that he really wasn't
going to get surf, curling, crashing waves, quite right - and come
around a freestanding wall to find the only non Monet painting in the
exhibit, Corot, I believe, that just nailed that subject. A great
exhibit that explored many faces of his strengths very well while not
ignoring his weaknesses. Only a handful of lilypads, but well chosen and
one exquisite. The chance to take my time with modest crowds until sated
was a great joy.
Also, in the absence of his contemporaries, it was, perhaps
paradoxically, much easier to see some of the correspondences between
their work and his. One painting of a cliff face from below on the beach
was so Van Gough in the brush work that it was startling.
> I wouldn't mind a camera with a "Monet" preset next to the "Macro" setting.
> But I know what you mean; and, I have concluded that the problem here lies in
> the fact that someone involved with the development of digital imaging
> decided that MOST people who buy digital cameras are not looking to produce
> images that accurately capture the scene they were taken of... MOST people
> are only looking for digital images that 'look like photographs'. Thus, the
> standard has shifted; from "as life-like as is possible", to, "a semblance of
> a representation".
>
You are more the cynic than I, and ascribe purpose where I think the
limits of the people doing the work, of the technically possible and
those imposed by the exigencies of the market place have much greater
effect on the outcome than cynical intent to produce crap. I guess I
prefer joy at finding a wonderful tool like the F30 or the 5D to dismay
at the sea of mediocrity, and occasional downright awfulness, amongst
which they are to be found.
As to "..weigh(ing) whether or not to jump into straight-up digital
photography." I commend to you the 5D. Whatever one may hear about
build quality, or sensor dust, or ergonomics, or the evil of the big
guy, it is capable of simply sublime images. I may not be capable of
plumbing its full capabilities, but enough for now. And it is capable of
images that would simply have been impossible with film. I've posted
these before, but probably before you were on the list.
Low light, moving, significantly 3D subjects, thick glass, so tripod,
fast lens and/or flash aren't useful. But iso 3200 makes the shot. A
little noise at ios 3200, sure, but not much, and look at the details
and the subtlety of color tonality, light and shadow in that small piece
of the full frame.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/5D/Jellyfish/_MG_0194.htm
And this is the 14th. image I took with the 5D. Notice you are looking
at the pixels one to one, each pixel on screen a pixel from the camera.
Creamy smooth, yet clear, clean and giving a 3D effect.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/5D/FFpoppy.htm
Here, you an see full frame, cropped and full pixel. Handheld, 300 mm,
iso 1600. There is simply no film that gets that result, or even close
to it. Instead of needing a 600+ mm lens and tripod (and no bird), or
cropping to a very grainy semi-closeup, I get the shot.
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/PtLobos/LobosSparrow.htm
In it's own field, the F30 is equally astonishing. It has far less noise
than its 'competition' and manages to hide deep shadow detail where
those who look can find it.(which only works because of the low noise,
which Fuji didn't figure out was possible with the F10, but did with
changed JPEG processing in the F30, bless them.) Take a look at the
roll-overs of #2 (1140) and #13 (1191), intentionally "underexposed" to
retain highlights and recover the shadow detail in post. I really doubt
there is any other JPEG producing P&S that can capture such a dynamic
range with proper technique. http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/
I know they aren't Olys, but Oly isn't making best of class in those
categories these days.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|