> My wife just doesn't understand. I can't seeem to convince her
> that film is better.
>
> It came to head this weekend when I made a test print from a 4x5
> B&W negative and did the same shot from the digital. She liked
> the 8x10 from the digital better than the 8x10 from the 4x5
> negative.
Hi AGs,
I traveled to Chicago last Friday for a weekend downtown with family
visiting from Honolulu. We all took cameras of one kind or another.
The Mr. among my visiting relatives had his somewhat aging digicam, the
Mrs. had her Fuji P&S, my daughter and wife their Stylus 35-70s, my son
his OM-1, and I our family's IS-50. My son kept asking me why I was
using "Mom's new camera." She won't use it. Too complicated.
In any case, film won this particular vote.
The Mr.'s son got to use the digicam most of the time. He made about 80
shots on Saturday, our most fun-filled day. Almost filled the card.
Dad dumped them onto his HD that evening back at the hotel. I overheard
a conversation between him and another guy up in the Hancock observatory
in which he said, "It's great to let the kids shoot with this kind of
camera because it doesn't waste film." In the meantime, I helped him
figure out that the camera has a fill-flash feature and he could use it
to get a nice group shot of us against the window with the Sears tower
in the background.
He told me later that he rarely prints anything. He's cheap. They just
look at them on the computer monitor. He says it's good enough because
he's not trying to take "good pictures like yours." Explains a lot.
His wife won't use the digicam, mainly I would guess because she likes
to have a print to look at once in a while. In this instance, a digicam
is to film as Coffeemate is to cream in your coffee.
I shot 5 rolls of Fujicolor HG-200 with the IS-50. I wish I'd had a
polarizer, but it takes 52mm and the PL from my N*kon set is linear. I
don't think I've got a stepping ring that goes from 52 to 55. Gotta
work on that. The IS-50 is nice plastic. I think I might look for a
good IS-3 sometime. I'm becoming more tolerant of autofocus. Hitherto
it has always been a matter of working around a feeling of dread that I
won't be able to get it to focus on what I really want it to focus on.
Occasionally, that is so, but mostly it was successful, and quicker than
MF, just not as easy in some ways. Close focus and macro with AF is
really quite a chore when you recall what a Zuiko like the 90/2 and a
bright screen can do.
I told me son on the way home that next time I'll take my OM-1 and he
and I will shoot our vintage cameras together and compare notes. He does
not long for something "better," and I felt a little like I had betrayed
him with the IS-50, and maybe I had.
Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|