Excellent post Ken!
I think lighting may strike twice. I was just starting to learn
photography when the OM-1 came out (at the time I had a Leica M2 and
50mm f2 Summicron and used a manual light meter...I was at the bottom of
the learning curve then but obviously had pretty good taste, and fell
into some luck, in cameras). As a kid my very first job was in a camera
store/rental lab in Monterey, CA. and I learned alot in those early
years. When the OM-1 came out lightning struck. I had to have one the
moment I saw one. It was a SLR that, to me, rivaled the Leica. I gave
the Leica to my grandfather (who gave it back to me years later but fool
that I am, I sold it) and in return my grandma bought me a brand
spanking new OM-1. Pre-MD, 2xx,xxx serial number range oldie. I still
have, and treasure, that camera to this day and last time I used it
(last summer) it was still working flawlessly (but it should make a trip
to John H along with my other bodies soon for a CLA/checkup).
In playing with and reading about the E10 the past week I believe Ken
may be right. Lightning may have struck twice. In the E10 Olympus has a
real winner. I have seen 13x19" Epson inkjet prints with my own eyes
that were beyond description. Add to that the Olympus 8x10" dyesub
printer that does not require a computer to make prints on location and
for ~$3000.00-$4000.00 (depending on how many adapter lenses and flash
accessories one needs) one could be in business right away selling
instant $25.00 each prints. Of course they are only tools and would
require capable hands (I have no doubts Ken's and most others among us
are more than capable) and eyes along with some ambition...that the
return on investment would certainly be faster than it would be going
digital any other way. I am also curious to find out what the real costs
of the media per print will be on that new dye-sub printer. I already
decided that on-line digital-to-photographic printers are less expensive
overall than Epson prints, are more archival, and they ship directly to
my customers (a huge cost savings in time).
I am also considering a switch to digital output (from slides) for my
highest quality prints (in addition to having already gone to digital
prints for my low cost prints). My local pro lab's owner is not wanting
to continue doing Ilfochromes. I currently am sending Type-R prints to
my custom enlargement customers and while they like them, I am not as
happy with them as I was Ilfochromes. The Ilfochrome processing machine
broke down and was running almost at a loss. They are unable to relocate
the machine due to local environmental laws also. A pro lab in Monterey
stopped doing Ilfochromes and offer Fuji Type-R prints instead. I called
Calypso Color Labs in Santa Clara where I used to get Cibachromes done
and they are now Calypso Imaging and no longer offer Ilfochromes. Rather
they tout (highly) their process using a drum scanner, lightjet digital
enlarger, and crystal archive paper. According to them one can go 50%
larger print sizes than traditional process for the same level of
detail/sharpness and they feel that the Crystal Archive prints exposed
from the digital files they create are better than Ilfochrome which is
why they made the switch. Some of their customers are a who's who of
reknowned nature and wildlife photographers. The costs are high for the
first print, but at Ilfochrome levels once you get the first one (first
print includes the scan from their new state of the art drum scanner).
Check these folks out at: http://www.calypsoinc.com/ Curious to hear
advice in this direction as well.
For me, for now, I am very excited about the 2001 season and shooting
with my new-to-me Tamron SP 80-200/2.8 and Zuiko 350/2.8 and of course
the OM bodies they will mate with. That combo and Provia F works well
for me and I plan to continue to learn and improve upon that for now.
But, once I layed my hands on that E10, lightning did strike again for
me and I do know that I will have to get one, or more likely the
improved lower cost version that will no doubt be out in a couple years.
Olympus "did done good" and we OM users should be proud of that and try
not to allow our lament of Olympus failing us in film to influence our
perspective of that. My advice to disbelievers is to read all you can,
get your hands on one, and look at some prints made from the files it
captures...I think then lightning may strike you again as well.
An aside, the store owner where I played with the E10 told me that the
technicians who work at Olympus Service who work on these make $120k a
year. While I am sure that is a load of crap, in case it isn't...I'm a
pretty darned good and trainable tech. Where do I sign up?! ;-)
(Comments John H.?)
Mike Veglia
Motor Sport Visions Photography
http://www.motorsportvisions.com
< 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 >
|