On 1/9/2014 8:57 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> Moose howled thusly:
>> Yeah, yeah, but your opinion don't count, 'cause you never buy ANY of this
>> stuff. You can posit that the stated desire
>> for about 28-135 doesn't really matter for someone else. You can natter
>> about what you would buy, if you ever bought
>> anything but phone cameras, and change it every week or so, at no cost and
>> with no actual picture taking consequences. :-)
> Hmm. No more often than two year intervals. My Google Nexus camera
> phone was finally reaching the point of rapid death.
You misunderstand. I'm pulling your chain pretty hard, but not that hard. Take
out the qualifying clause and you have:
"You can natter about what you would buy and change it every week or so, at no
cost and with no actual picture taking consequences. :-)"
True on the face of it. And not unlike actual experience of reading your
interesting, informative and sometimes entertaining endless search for the
perfect, but always theoretical, camera.
The phrase ", if you ever bought anything but phone cameras," was inserted to
EXCLUDE phones from the statement, not include them.
> I would dare say
> that for my embracing the "connected camera" the way I have, I've
> chosen to be current with technology AND technique. Some of you have
> chosen to eschew the "connected camera" because of your own perceived
> advanced age, bias or head-in-the-sand attitudes.
How about because:
1. I have no known use for an instant JPEG posted somewhere. I don't do social
media (except this list) at least as yet.
I've not done an event since the late 60s, and have no clients who would like
instant posts.
2. The majority of my shots are taken where there is no wireless connectivity
of any kind.
3. I am not interested in showing unprocessed shots.
I AM interested in connectivity for remote shooting and geocoding. E-P5 and
E-M1 look pretty good for geocoding, pretty
limited for remote operation. GX7 has extensive remote capability, but not
geocoding, that I've found.
> ... In the last several years, while the Moose has bought multiple digital
> cameras in the quest for something better because the old one wasn't
> good enough but he bought them anyway,
Aw c'mon, each move was to achieve something not part of the old camera,
generally not available at all, when the
predecessor was bought, not some vague will 'o the wisp 'better'.
And yet, referencing my comment above, you have not bought, nor used
extensively, anything even remotely like the
cameras being considered. I have no regrets about the Canon 300D. It turned out
to much be more than the inexpensive
proof of concept of digital for me. As it turned out, I enjoyed it and got many
images I still like.
The 5D was a definite winner. I got the FF and superior IQ I expected, and five
years of first class use and results. I
moved on for size, weight and live view, without significant decrease in IQ.
The 60D met those requirements. As you
pointed out, It turned out wasn't quite right for me. But, back to my point, I
don't see how I could have known that
without intimate use. In the end, though, I 'got the shot' many, many times
over a year and a half and 7000 shots. Lots
of keepers.
Long term verdict isn't in on µ4/3 yet. The goals of size, weight and improved
IQ have been met. And I'm sure having
fun and getting results I like.
> I've bought or been gifted
> multiple cameras. I did FINALLY sell the E-1 this last year, but my
> reasoning is pretty specific--It doesn't take the Eye-Fi card. Why is
> that? Because I value the "connected camera" that much. Oh, and the
> Panasonic DMC-L1 is a pretty decent camera and satisfies my retro
> nerdiness enough that I'm not going all mushy over the Fujis.
You can dance as fast as you want, your most recent, non-phone camera is a 7 MP
model from 2006. I at least have
extensive experience with Oly ILCs and a growing amount with GX7.
> But I'm sorry you feel that since I don't ever buy any new cameras I
> shouldn't have an opinion on any of them. Well, to some extent you are
> correct,
Of course you should have opinions. Perhaps giving them with a disclaimer that
they are from specs, sample images on the
web and occasional handling for a few minutes might be useful.
> but maybe, maybe not in this circumstance. Why? Because I
> think I have a pretty good idea of what camera gear Bill has and what
> he likes. Don't forget that while you were off on your "Canon rules,
> Olympus drools" dock walk,
Even though it was true, for what and how I shoot? :-) I did try, more than
once. They just didn't work for me.
> Bill and I were still shooting OM-2S and
> E-1 cameras. Our kits were and probably are still close enough to be
> almost interchangeable.
Nope, irrelevant without a disclaimer. See below.
>
>> Whoa, whoa, whoa, when did the A7 get in the mix? I thought we were talking
>> NEX. Year, I know Sony terminology is
>> getting more incomprehensible than Dr Who. Still ...
>> The A7 body alone eats up 85% of the budget. They are talking lenses, but
>> this is Sony, Dood! Only a 35/2.8 actually
>> buyable as yet, with an exciting 55/1.8 promised this month. Wheeeee! The
>> carry around zoom, 24-70/4, possibly actually
>> available for summer, is shorter than the Fuji, and slower, and breaks the
>> bank, at 145% of budget.
> The A7 enters the mix (not necessarily the A7R, which might be
> overkill for everybody but the insane), because it is the same price
> AND size/weight as the EM1. Who gives a rip about the lenses.
Hold up again! The request was rather specific, a relatively small, light
camera for a tour of Italy with a tour leader
who will have everyone moving much of the time. Fool that I am, I assumed that
meant he didn't feel his existing
equipment was right for that job.
In that circumstance, and yes, I've been the one lagging behind, being 'yelled'
at by the guide, as I take pics, I would
want native, AF lenses for whatever camera I take along. He also specifically
said a zoom of certain range and that he
would prefer to take only one lens.
You may second guess someone you know personally. I stuck with the request.
Doing so, Fuji doesn't measure up, unless,
as I specified, the requirements are modified.
> Bill and
> and I both have an extensive collection of OM glass that puts the Sony
> stuff to shame.
I'm pretty sure I have more than you do. But that's beside the point.
> See previous paragraph. I would consider it a huge
> mistake to consider the EM1 without evaluating the A7 too.
To me, you are off topic again. It sounds like you are on to larger questions
of a camera to replace the E-5 and
supplement OMs for FF with OM lenses. That was not the question asked. It was
only reluctantly that I even mentioned
possible choice of an EM-1 for later use, as well. It may well be that the A7
is a superb FF camera for use with OM
glass, but that wasn't the question asked.
> By getting
> the A7 and an adapter, Bill is able to meet budget. He's got more F2
> glass than Texas has Republicans.
As above, I assume if he wanted to use MF glass, that would have been part of
the question. Personal opinion? Trying to
shoot on such a tour with MF is a recipe for deep frustration. Take an ILC with
a good, decent range zoom. Then if one
wants and has room, an adapter and a favorite MF lens or two for the more
relaxed moments.
We're talking whirlwind tour, not leisurely photo shoot, as I understand it.
That's the reason for the stringent luggage
limits that cause the need for a new kit in the first place.
On Task 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/
|