A Bloated Moose wrote:
> This is the first time in ages that my photographic GAS* has had only
> very mild, intermittent flare-ups.
>
Digital GAS has been pretty much non-existent for me. I was all set to buy
the E-3 when it was coming out, but the arrival of fancy OM gear completely
halted those feelings of digital desire. Although, the M9 sure yanked me
around for a few weeks, but that ain't happening on my budget--I'm more
likely to get a Zero Image 4x5 pinhole camera.
The reason I personally have for justifying an upgrade of my digital
equipment is the fact that 5MP is a bit on the low side for critical
higher-end stuff these days. I'd like cleaner high-ISOs, but frankly, for
the bulk of my real paying work I'm using flash gear anyway so non-issues
abound. But I do run into some limits which do require something a bit more
in the pixel department. But from a features/performance perspective, what I
have is more than sufficient. The weak spot isn't the equipment, it's me. I
like the newer gear for sure, but with just under 50,000 images on the E-1,
I haven't even mastered this camera yet--there's a menu item or two I
haven't sufficiently explored.
2010 is very much the Year of Film #2. I'm having great success with using
film professionally and the image quality is not only quite satisfactory,
but actually giving a bit of a look that my customers are liking. Since the
customers are paying the freight (film and developing costs), it only makes
sense for me to use it whenever possible. Essentially, since the customer is
buying the film anyway, why should I buy a new camera which I personally
have to fund?
The reality is, for a few of us, "sufficiency" arrived a while ago. For the
portrait/wedding/event photographer, 5-6MP is quite fine and 10-12MP seems
to be the practical top-out point. Beyond that, we gain a few options and
any imaging noise is easily whacked without it affecting the final print.
Unless I'm shooting sports, the frame-rate of the E-1 is more than
enough--the flash gear doesn't recycle in 1/10 of a second, does it? But I
would like more pixels for landscape stuff, commercial work, etc.
It's hard for me to get overly excited about a camera, such as the E-P2
which has advancements in many areas but lacks critical items like a PC-Sync
socket or a lens mount capable of holding a big-honking 100-300 F4 zoom.
Just as Canon discovered that people will buy their cameras even without the
DEP mode, eye-controlled focusing and the pellicle mirror, they went to the
adding features via software and 10 years into the digital revolution we're
hard pressed to get a camera that has some of the revolutionary features of
the past. By adding pixels and software gizmos the manufacturers have found
that the customer will still buy the cameras.
I know that my next digital camera is probably going to be some monstrocity.
That's unfortunate, because I really want a professional camera in the size
of the E-P2 or thereabouts. But small and full-featured are
mutually-exclusive to the thinking of the product managers. Small=consumer,
large=professional. Neither the two meet.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|