On 7/20/2012 6:59 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose thus snorted:
>> OTH, I can let the scorn of the AG crowd wash over me without damage.
>> The 5D was 5 years as primary body...
> Whoa, Moosie. You know I'm not going to let this one slide.
No, no! I wasn't referring to Canon scorn, I was referring to scorn for those
who keep changing cameras regularly, even
rapidly.
How it is profligate of both money and capabilities. I happen to agree with you
that it is most rewarding in terms of
photographic skills to live with a camera and lenses, learning how to get the
best out of them - and only fair to the
equipment to give it a full, fair trial.
As to fiscal profligacy, that depends a lot on the individual, to my mind. As
to a balance between fiscal conservatism
and tools of such a quality as to allow one to maximize photographic results,
it's my own opinion that you may have
occasionally erred on the conservative side during the time I've been privy to
your equipment choices and photographic
skills.
Me? I think I've been reasonably non-profligate from Ftn through 5D. And the
only compact 35mm I ever owned was an XA,
which I still have. On the digital compact front, I'll admit to being more
profligate, but my goodness, the capabilities
have grown fast. ;-)
But only 15 months from acquisition to ordering of a likely replacement for the
60D does seem a bit speedy to me. I may
expound on the reasons if I get around to answering MikeG's request for the
pros and cons I have for the OM-D.
I'll let you in on one. It seems my Oly attachment may be stronger than I
thought. :-)
>
> You should remember than my scorn of things Canon had to do with
> several distinct issues:
>
> 1. The plasticy look that so many of the early Canon DSLRs had.
> Whatever it is that caused it is of much debate, but it is generally
> accepted now that they were a bit "off" and that today's cameras are
> "much better" without giving any reason why.
We just don't have the same issues. The 300D is pure plastic, in look and feel.
Didn't bother me in the least. I even
tested silvery plastic against matte black in the sun. Silver doesn't get as
hot = less sensor noise.
> 2. Control interface and general ergonomics. Again, in retrospect, it
> is recognizable that the early EOS digital cameras had some issues.
Again, it was comfortable for me to hold and use, I would have liked a second,
top LCD and second control wheel, but
made a conscious choice to skip the 10D, see how I did with a DSLR, and trade
up if I liked it. Thus the 5D.
> But at the time, image-quality was so good that we all just looked the
> other way. At the time, the reviewers and general opinonators wouldn't
> trash talk the body design because that would be admitting that their
> "perfect camera" wasn't so perfect. Some of us were crying foul and
> getting shouted down. When the Nikon D3 and D700 came out, suddenly,
> there was a vocal recognition of how bad the Canon ergonomics were.
> (It's not that they really are all that bad, but they definitely
> weren't as good as they could be--and now Nikon has reshaped the grip
> so much that the ergonomics of their bodies are actually pretty bad).
We simply have different hands, etc. I think people were arguing about camera
body configuration, when the real subject
was largely human body configuration. And all the noise about tunnel
viewfinders, on entry level bodies of all makes? I
simply didn't notice. Sure, point it out, compare, and I can see the
difference. Look through the camera at a subject,
and it just didn't matter.The old eagle eye, I suppose?
> 3. Attitude of the Canon Zealots. The general attitude among many was
> that they did a careful analysis of all the cameras on the market and
> "the Canon ____ is the best. Therefore if you don't buy what I buy
> then you are an idiot."
>
> That last point is what really sticks in my craw. This type of
> statement was both blatent and subtle. Blatent, if you ever hung out
> in the DPReview forums,
That is jut not a good place to spend time. Your poor judgement, in risking
your mental health that way, is not my fault
or problem. ;-)
> subtle from you and Chuck. You guys applied
> selective logic to your decision which made your choice the "best
> possible choice" and you weren't encouraging of us that used a
> different set of criteria in our logic. Whatever things that Olympus
> did get right didn't matter since "image quality", etc. was the more
> important thing to you.
And yet, it was most important to me. Still is - and a major driving force
behind this new switch. It drove me away from
Oly to Canon and mow appears to be driving me back.
But it wasn't the only issue for me. I've told this before, and I think/hope I
made it clear that it was about my
desires. I've always liked macro and tele used to isolate small areas at a
distance. I know many folks aren't interested
in tele at all, but it's really important to me. I'm already apprehensive about
going from 480mm eq. on the 60D back to
the 300mm I had on the 5D.
Soooo, when I tried an E-1 with tele zoom, and it couldn't focus on a dimmish
corner of the store with lots of contrast,
and the 300D snapped right into focus with a similar lens, that was the final
nail.
I agree we had different needs and desires. For example, I've never really
cared that much about great skin tones in
JPEGs. It's not what I shoot. If I shot school portraits, events, weddings,
etc., I might well have chosen a different
camera.
> Your reasons weren't our reasons and our reasons weren't your reasons.
Yup. Consider the possibility that you projected on us attitudes and opinions
that weren't there, or at least not as
strong as you perceived them to be. Did I think you were crazy for buying and
loving an E-1? Nope. Did I think you were
crazy for buying the Panny/E-300? Yup. But I didn't say a thing. Would I have
said "Buy a Canon!"? Nope; I'd have said
"You shouldda bought an E-620!"
> Now, that all said, I will acknowledge my own brand bias as well as
> the selective logic that I had/have. I disagree with many of your
> assessments because they are of different value to me than my own.
> What is important to me is not what is important to you.
Yup!
> I will also
> acknowledge that in the grand scheme of things, the original 5D
> remains one of the best imagers out there and has a tonal smoothness
> and extensive dynamic range which none of the newer cameras have. A
> true classic and turning out to be a one-of-a-kind camera.
Yup, at least for the immediate future, it stays. But who knows, the OM-D may
change my mind. ;-)
> However, the body is substandard to the imager. But this is part of the
> selective logic. What was important to me, at that time, was not what
> was important to you. And what is now important to me at this time is
> not what was important to me then. Different stages in life.
>
> So, to see you come full circle back to Olympus is quite interesting.
> I actually agree with you on your reasons and your logic.
Have I at least shown myself to be consistent with what I've contended many
times, that my choices were not brand
driven, but IQ and feature driven? If Nikon had chosen a shorter register
distance, oh long ago, so lensless OM adapters
were possible, I might well have been shooting Nikon for the last seven years.
I'd have missed the 5D, though.
Yes, after a couple of Fujis, I'm on my fourth Canon compact in a row. But it
sure is a fine camera, and I balanced its
tele insufficiency with another brand with a tiny sensor and looog zoom range.
> My own personal lens choices would be a little different, but that just
> illustrates that photography is a wide world. I'm probably headed a
> different direction (from Olympus to Canon) because of very specific
> reasons related to lenses.
I only actually own two Canon lenses. The 50/1.8 is cheap, gives me a speed
option in a pinch and shoots waaaaay above
cost. The 10-22 is simply a very fine lens for APS-C.
I would be interested to know what you are looking for, and why. I know my
preference for long ratio zooms is out of
place in such a photographically august place as this. But if I'm gauche,
that's OK, as long as I can make the images I
want - and I'm not thrown out. :-)
> I also have concerns about Olympus as a company.
Yeah, that worries you more than it does me. µ4/3 seems to have enough life to
last for some time, and the camera and
lenses will keep working even if Oly falters again.
> One successful product (at least so far because Panasonic has
> withheld the GH2 replacement for a litle while yet
Wouldn't it be fun if it's because the OM-D caught them flat-footed? We've all
assumed the OM-D has another Panny
sensor, but there is a rumor camp that thinks it's Sony. In DPR's studio tests,
the OM-D simply outclasses the G3 at the
pixel level, both low and high ISO. What if the GH3 was ready to go, until they
got their hands on an OM-D, and went
back to the drawing board?
> , Sony is struggling, Nikon screwed up and Canon is delayed
I think Canon has their job cut out for them. Going with a unique mount and
CDAF* means they need to put out lots of new
or reworked lenses pretty quickly to gain any traction. It seems like everyone
who has chosen to go it alone, rather
than joining the µ4/3 bandwagon has underestimates how important a good range
of available lenses that focus quickly and
accurately on a CDAF body is.
> does not a company make.
It's also possible that Panny made a mistake going with in-lens IS, as I assume
Canon will do. I don't know how much is
the IS, but the Panny zooms are expensive monsters, from my perspective. If the
five axis, in -body IS proves itself and
if Oly is able to follow up on the OM-D with E-Px replacements clearly as good
as or better than Panny in IQ, they may
have a good run. Smaller, lighter, cheaper - with better performance, isn't a
bad recipe for success.
> Olympus has shown the middle-finger to the customers so many
> times that it will take quite a while for some of us to forget that.
Making decisions based on old emotions isn't necessarily the best way. I simply
went elsewhere without bad feelings.
They are a business, not a girlfriend. :-)
> (besides, I'm waiting for the encore which might contain a certain
> feature that would make it nearly impossible for me to say "no").
You tease, you.
> So, yes, I'm acting a little bit like the snotty brother that is upset
> because daddy killed the fattened calf when you decided to come back
> home. But at the same time, I'm glad you did. I'll give you a hard
> time, but know that I do actually agree with you when our logic paths
> cross.
Yes I do, bunkie.
Descorned Moose
* Contrast Detect Auto Focus, Nathan
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|