On 1/9/2014 2:26 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> You misunderstand. I'm pulling your chain pretty hard, but not that hard.
> Understood. But there is an implication that I've turned into some
> hayseed hick because I don't OWN the latest/greatest flavor of the
> month.
Not from me. Jungians call this projection.
Owning whatever it is, new or old, and having extensive experience with
whatever it may be, simply gives greater
credibility to opinions of that owner than those of others. That's all I'm
saying.
You've never heard me utter any opinions about the use or performance of the
Panny L1, 'cause I've never used one. I
have commented on the IQ of the E-1, but made it clear at the time that it was
based on comparison of images of the same
test subjects, not personal use. I also stated that, in a short, in hand
comparison the E-1 with original 40-150 lens at
150 mm was unable to focus on contrasty stuff in dim light, where the 300D with
comparable lens did so readily.
>
>> 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.
> Few professional camera reviewers actually own the cameras they are
> reviewing. What's the difference? They have their criteria, I have
> mine. They qualify their criteria, I qualify mine. For those who
> understand and agree with my criteria, they appreciate my "reviews".
My point remains, that your "reviews" not uncommonly make statements based on
reading and occasional camera store
handling that sound like they are from far more extensive direct experience.
> Generally speaking, i don't give a full soup-to-nuts review, but what
> I do is give an "impressions" review on specific areas that interest
> me. Ergonomics being one of the things that I find specifically of
> interest. I might be a bit fixated on a few areas, like ergonomics,
> but for crying out loud, by this point it should be a perfected
> science, not a 6th-grade science project.
I disagree. The reason is that equipment like this is used by people with a
very wide range of body dimensions,
cognitive characteristics, body capabilities, vision, and so on. There is just
no way any one design can be anywhere
near optimal for everybody. They are all compromises.
Example: several folks here buy tiny, light cameras, then put big, heavy
battery grips on them. That smacks of insanity
to some others here. As someone posted recently, why not just buy a big, heavy
camera to start with?
Other than pure bloody mindedness, I often respond to your authoritative
statements about camera ergonomics just to
mention that they may not apply to everyone.
>
>> 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 developed a pretty good gut feel about cameras and how I will
> take to them over the long term. With the latest/greatest version of
> the E-Px (5 is it?), I could actually be pretty happy with it.
You would be happy with something so relatively small, with no grip to speak of
and no viewfinder?
> The
> EM5, while everybody gushed all over it, I felt like it was lacking
> something important to me. Turns out that I'm not alone and the EM1 is
> the current gush-o-camera and the EM5 is used bird-cage newspaper. Not
> that it really is, but it is revealing how fickle we photographers are
> when we like a camera because it's the best currently available so we
> will overlook the faults until the new one comes out and then suddenly
> the faults are totally unmanageable.
Maybe our difference can be summed up in one thing; you do facebook; I don't.
I'm seldom even aware of the gush quotient
of any given camera at any given time. I still think the EM5 is a better camera
for me than the EM1.
I have noticed there seems to be a lot of noise about the E-M1. (Or am I behind
again? Has it dropped off?) I am
certainly bemused that so many people without 4/3 lenses got excited about it.
But I am not fooled.
I think the E-PM2 is the cat's meow, but I'll bet it has no buzz at all.
I didn't even know the RX10 existed until it you mentioned it. It's a camera
aimed at some imagined, possibly very small
market segment; one that certainly doesn't include me. What with my
responsibility to churn out words on this list, I
just don't have time to keep track of everything. :-)
You might find it easier if you paid far less attention to all the flotsam and
jetsam of opinion on the net.
>
>> 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.
> Well, my BMW is a 2004. It may be old, but it's still twice the
> vehicle as a new vehicle twice the price.
My BMW was a 1968. :-) My Oldsmobile is a 1995, and at least thrice the vehicle
your BMW is. Give me objective data
behind your statement, and I'll do the same for mine. ;-)
> That's how I feel about the DMC-L1. It may be "old" and it may have its
> quirks, but it is still a remarkable camera.
See common knowledge, below.
> Not all of us fixate on high-ISO performance or pixels on a pinhead.
Isn't it legitimate to consider how we work and the circumstances under which
we shoot in deciding what's important? I
shoot a LOT out in field, forest, swamp, mountains, etc. The light is often
dim, the subjects often moving. The most
interesting light is often dim. The higher ISOs with low noise have allowed me
to capture things I like a great deal,
and could not have photographed successfully before.
Can you think of a better reason to be greatly interested in high ISO
performance? Can you give me a good reason why I
should not? I don't give a sh** about camera of the week, hot feature of the
month, or any of that crap. What I care
about is what allows me to get the shots I want.
As you know perfectly well, cameras with clean pixel level images just tend to
look better at normal sizes. I find it
hard to say why, but I find it to be so. So why would I not pay attention?
>
>> 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.
> I do. Or if I don't, I will use commonly known and accepted knowledge.
I'm not common enough, I'm afraid. You often reference things you consider
common knowledge (or commonly shared
delusions) of which I am not even aware.
> I didn't need to own a YUGO to know that it was a horrible piece of junk.
If I went on the common knowledge criterion, I might be tempted to say
something similar about the L1. :-)
You want it both ways, to use 'common knowledge' to bolster opinions not based
on experience and to cry out how wrong
'common knowledge' is about things you like and use.
>
>> 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.
> Of which, I disagree with the entire basic premise. I believe what
> Bill is asking for and what he really is going to do is two different
> things. I was addressing what I think he'll end up doing.
I don't know Bill personally, haven't shot with him, haven't fought over the
last piece of TP out in the wilds. I have
nothing to go on but the actual question asked. What he does with the reply,
what he ends up taking along are not for me
to speculate on.
--
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/
|