On 5/7/2013 5:58 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Wet Moose wrote:
>> Which assumes that using a Leica would not have led them to leave
>> photography for other, more enjoyable, or at least less annoying, careers or
>> pastimes.
> Now now. We've talked before about my past dislike for rangefinder
> cameras. We don't need to go down that dark alley again.
That was not in my mind at all.
> HOWEVER, I will say that rangefinder camera or not, I fell in love with
> photography and was actually a pretty decent photographer long before
> I ever got an SLR.
Also irrelevant to my highly personal, ergonomic point.
> So, I'm going to just reject your negativism and recognize that by your very
> statement I can surmise that your photography is now about the gear, not the
> image.
I really disagree.
Let's assume I'm an artist who cuts out thin materials to act as resists in my
chemo-mechanical creation process. I'm
right handed. If I object that I just can't do my work with scissors molded for
left hands, would you say the same thing?
Is a gravedigger who objects to using a trowel worried about the tool over the
product?
Ever known a painter who is incredibly fussy about brushes? My son the graphic
artist would really like to use
mechanical pencils, rather than spend so much time sharpening. But they don't
feel right to him, somehow getting between
his hand and the feel of the graphite being put/pulled onto the paper. He can't
get the results he wants, and at achieve
with a wooden pencil. He's also tried, but just can't use a stylus for work on
a tablet, his fingers have to feel the
surface.
You've commented a couple of times, and not in a negative way about my
capability as a photographer, about how you saw
something about my work decline when I took up the 60D, and improve again with
the E-M5. While I would not have put it
that way, once you point it out, I have to agree in part. I say in part because
I did get quite a few images I really
like with the 60D, yet overall, the results didn't quite inspire me. (Something
for you to consider when pulled toward
the 7D with the same sensor system, and perhaps even the 6D.)
I recall feeling with some subjects that browsing through the images, they
didn't feel 'right', maybe not alive enough,
and I had to work harder than I should to pull them into what I wanted.
So yes, I chose a new tool for several perceived benefits, which did turn out
to be benefits. (I have, for example, some
short videos I Love.) Yet as I worked with it, I eventually found myself pulled
toward something else. So, I made a
mistake. It made sense at the time. I liked the 5D, but wanted an articulated
screen, live view, video, etc.
In the end a vague sense of dissatisfaction had me looking around. Fortunately,
Oly birthed the proper successor to the
OM-4(T(i)) about that time.
As I got used to the E-M5, I was puzzled, and fearful that it would not do what
I wanted, with some, seemingly random,
images just not 'right'. Fortunately, it turned out to the the shutter shock
problem, and easily avoidable.
Are E-M5 images perfect? No, but they so often please, and even excite me.
Do I like "new, shiny'? Absolutely. Do I like wonderful mechanical things? Oh,
yeah!
And yet, I was never (not just 'now about') able to maintain interest in any
rangefinder I tried for more than a few
minutes, with the one exception of the XA. I still hated the rangefinder, but
found it superior to the scale only
focusing of all the other contenders for pocket camera at the time.
A Leica is a beautiful artifact, a wonderful piece of engineering and
manufacture, but it's left handed scissors to me.
Cut It Out Moose
--
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/
|