Moose thus grunted:
> A modest disagreement. I bought into Canon fully expecting to use my OM
> lenses on an adapter for most photography.
> Before I bought a camera, I compared the 300D to the E-1, for my needs, and
> made what turned out to be the right choice
> for me...
In hindsight it probably would have been for me too, but on the other
hand, I have no regrets because the EOS bodies of that era were
unusable for me ergonomically. Looking at my images of the E-1, I'd
suggest that I did rise to the challenge and successfully overcame the
limitations which leveled the playing field enough to be productive.
It's harder work, but I wasn't raised to be lazy.
> Given the choice between slow, solo and few images vs. sharing the experience
> of place, moderately fast and more images of more different things, I simply
> enjoy the later more. {I'd probably pair nicely with Bob Adler. While he sets
> up and takes a handful of shots of one thing, I could wander around and take
> lots of shots of lots of things. Then we could move on to the next spot.
> Complementary opposites
Ah! Here we go agreeing again. (asteroid alert).
There are multiple forms of photography for me. The event shoot
photography where I'm perfectly happy with a massive digital body and
a decent zoom lens. Handheld, maybe mixed with flash. Yeah, give me
all the automation I can get. Then there is the event shoot
photography where I'm tickled pink having a lower profile body with a
short prime attached. Maybe I'm zone focusing half the time too. No
flash, in close and personal. Typical "Leica-like" environment. I'm
looking forward to an event next month where I get to do that with an
OM-4T loaded with NPZ and the 28/2. Otherwise, my DMC-L1 with 24/2.8
really nails it. When doing nature stuff, I'm using different kits
depending on my mood. I rarely drag along much anymore--mostly
predetermine what my kit is going to be and restrict myself to it.
And then there are the times when I'm shooting with another
photographer. Joel and I have done it quite a bit. Our shooting styles
are quite different. But what is strange is that it isn't necessarily
predictable which way we're going to be. There are times when he's
doing the tripod bit and I'm handheld and then other times when I'm
using the tripod and he's roaming around. What's a hoot is that we'll
look at exactly the same scene and end up photographing it so
differently that you might not even recognize it as being the same
place. We tend to give ourselves about 20 minutes at a location. He'll
see something right away and get all into it and I'm bored stiff with
the scene, so I'll go off mad and look for something else. I find
something, spend some time with it and when he's done he'll come by
and I'll be wrapping up at the same time.
> And that has meant happiness with AF lenses, although I not uncommonly fine
> tune the focus manually. (The µ4/3 lenses on E-M5 and E-PLs are, if possible,
> even better for this than Canon's full USM lenses, BTW.)
Agreed. Only bested, in my opinion, by the Contax 645AF.
> Indeed. However, having already disowned logic as how I got here, I don't
> have to be logical now. ;-)
My CDFO still demands logic.
> I've often thought about thinning the OM herd.
Scary thought. I'm not going there. I feel like I'm Jay Leno
collecting classic cars.
> Two sides to everything. Failure to fully embrace new technological
> capabilities may mean not getting their full, useful
> benefit.
Very true. No denying it. You can call me "Knife" as I'm cutting edge
in other areas, but when it comes to cameras, I tend to settle in to
what works for me.
> But you avoid the real question - was correct focus achieved? Were any shots
> missed taking the time to manually focus?
> My image of pelicans skimming the water has been a BIG hit with friends and
> family, as well as well received here. That
> shot doesn't exist without AF.
I've got many pelican and eagle pictures to prove that AF is not the
only way to succeed. If you didn't have AF, you might have been
anticipating what was going to happen and been prepared by follow
focusing the birds. What is happening is that we are adjusting our
working methods to the technology which is available. Do I miss focus
on them? ABSOLUTELY!!!! It's just part of the law of averages. I'm
good, but not perfect at follow focus. So, I tend to take a bunch of
pictures in hopes that one turns out. In reality, it doesn't matter
how you get there as long as you get there.
> Did you achieve focus that was better more often that you would have using AF
> more?
I'll use the Canon 7D with stabilized 70-200/2.8 as the example in my
alternative lifestyle as compared to my E-1 with 100/2 or 200/4.
Shooting a sporting event, I very much appreciate the abilities and
flexibility of the 7D/zoom combination (that is a best of breed in my
opinion). It's very clear as to why this is such a popular
combination. When the unexpected happens, I can cover it in a
heartbeat and get the shot. But for the expected and planned shots it
doesn't yield any advantage other than frame rate. (I'm second-shooter
assisting for someone else so my shots are his shots). The AF and
stabilization are great, but in all honesty, the weight of that
lens-camera combination (with battery grip too) is so great that I'm
having to use a monopod otherwise the stabilization is the only think
that keeps me from totally blurring every picture. For the anticipated
shots, unless you have it locked on center-point only (why then do we
have 10 gazillion points?) the camera is always a beat behind so I'm
having to "prime" the focus with a half-press and MF adjustment before
the action. In this circumstance, there is no advantage of AF over MF
and in fact, it actually is a setback. There is a reason why that
AF/MF switch on those lenses is easily accessable.
> Same question. Were your exposures better, overall than if you had overruled
> AE only 20% of the time? Are you doing
> anything more than someone who uses AE with liberal EV adjustments?
Two methods to accomplish the same task. It's mostly a preference
thing as I'm able to use the same working methods across most of my
cameras.
> Does your choice of quirky cameras with multiple weaknesses get results that
> are any better than using cameras that
> don't many need compensations for weaknesses? If yes, would the majority of
> other photographers agree?
No, not really. But it's a whole lot cheaper.
> Exhorting others to live likewise, well ... Proposing, or even implying, that
> it is somehow a superior, the
> 'right' or only 'real' way, is wrong.
That point goes both ways.
--
Ken Norton
ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|