>Ken, if you don't mind me asking but don't you need MF for professional
>work, eg portraiture, weddings, buildings, glamour, record photography,
>still life, any studio work (except perhaps macro).
For wedding work, I'd take auto-focus anyday. Dim lighting in the chapel
with people moving down the aisle faster than a Ferrari race car makes
getting a second shot almost impossible without some form of automation. I
currently use two cameras during processional/recessional (OM-2S and IS-3)
and very much appreciate the AF in the IS-3. I take one shot with the 2S
that has been prefocused on a spot and then I take the second shot with the
IS-3 while backpeddling.
My studio work is higher precision stuff where control is the key word. If
MF gives me more control, then that is what I use. But don't forget: Not
all studio shots are of inanimate objects. Ever try photographing
saltwater fish?
I shoot a lot of stock photography which basically involves a million
different topics. Whatever interests me is what I photograph. What is
most difficult isn't gaining access to venues, but forcing myself to be a
people photographer. The one weak link in my photography is including
people. This is the one factor that has hurt photo sales the most. Where
a background photo will bring $25-200 per use, a people picture (like
children boarding a bus) will bring typically $250-750 per use. Cover
shots obviously will bring more, but typically top out at $1200-1500 per use.
I don't consider myself to be an A+ photographer by any means. I can hold
my own quite well though and I can "deliver the goods" when needed. 900f
my files (somewhere around 15,000 slides plus an unknown number of
negatives) is not suitable for "fine-art" but is still marketable. For
example: I have two slides of the "American Gothic House" in Eldon, Iowa
that are rather flat-lit and boring--but are perfect for putting into a
comp. Fancy lighting and high mood would be great for fine-art, but
wouldn't work at all for creating an advertisement with. I'll return and
shoot it for fine-art some day with a couple old people and a pitchfork,
but for now I'm satisfied with my grab and run shots taken with an IS-1 and
sensia film.
There is a whole world of wildlife and sports photography that I would like
to venture into. Since the investment in bazooka lenses is high regardless
of brand or whether or not it's autofocus, doesn't it make sense to get the
most bang for the buck? Whether you actually use AF most of the time is
irrelevent, since it pays for itself when you NEED it.
I'll stop rambling now since Mackenzie finally zonked out and I can return
to bed.
Kenneth E. Norton
Image66 Photography
image66@xxxxxxx
(217) 224-5004
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|