Some of you have been batting around the whole "digital versus film"
question here, so forgive me for throwing out a few thoughts on the
topic. . .
I don't have any ideological reason for preferring film to digital.
Quite the opposite. I got so backloggged with unprinted negatives
that it was a major reason I drifted away from using my OM gear in
the 90s. And I think photoshop is fun! Also many people had told me
stories of digital re-awakening the pleasure of photography for them.
So a year ago, I stuck a toe in the water with a Canon S200 Elph.
It's a cute camera--actually smaller than my XA, which impressed me!
The quality is fine for snapshots/web/email. But I became quite
frustrated with the "feel" of shooting with it, particularly the
SHUTTER LAG. This led me to dust off my old OM gear, and fall in love
with it all over again. . . which is how I ended up here.
I'm sure many of the rest of you also hoped that Olympus would revive
the OM lensmount when introducing their first digital SLR. However
when I started hearing about the 4/3 format, I was willing to give
Oly the benefit of the doubt--after all, starting with a blank sheet
of paper had achieved great things for them in the past.
But whatever the theoretical justifications,
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/index_01.htm
I feel like the E-1 and the E system have not really lived up to the
hype. Image-wise it doesn't sound like the real-world quality is
there yet,
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse1/
And so far the E lens system hasn't delivered the advantages the PR
claimed: Where are the ultra wide angles? Where are the f/1.4-class
lenses?
Worst, contrary to the PR claims, the E-1 throws overboard the most
beloved feature of the OM series, its *compactness*. The E-1 is
BIG--though peeking inside the mirror box at the size of the vital
organs, I find it mystifying why. The grip is too large for my hand
(I have smaller hands), and the whole body seems unnecessarily deep.
And I just don't understand why the viewfinder magnification is so
much smaller than life size.
Meanwhile, the OM-2N feels like a familiar friend. So in the near
term I'm staying with the tool that feels right to me. I'm thinking
perhaps Kodak's PictureCD processing will give me enough digital
convenience to handle the inevitable "emailing copies to friends."
Any experience here with how well C-41 process B &W comes out with that?
Of course if I want to shoot both color and B & W, maybe I'd better
better pick up another body. . . (uh oh). . .
best,
--Ross
~~~~~~~~~~~~
42.2855 North
83.7497 West
< 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 >
|