Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: thoughts on shooting wedding

Subject: [OM] Re: thoughts on shooting wedding
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 18:28:17 -0800
Wayne Culberson wrote:

>A further thought not related to the reply:
>
>........... It almost seems, at least to me, that
>now if you  want to post something positive about the OM system, you almost
>have to expect to put yourself in the defensive position, a rather strange
>thing to happen given the title of the list. 
>
Well, I certainly hope I don't come across that way. I still have, value 
and use OMs.

>And criticizing anything digital is guaranteed to get you in trouble. 
>
Again, that was certainly not my intent in my last post on the thread. 
What bothers me, and I tend to respond to, is incompletely informed 
characterization of a class/group/brand/whatever of tool based on 
comparison of an example not properly suited to the job at hand to an 
example better suited to the job from another class of tool.

An extreme example might be a 35mm shooter of wildlife who is curious 
about MF, tries out a fixed lens TLR, and concludes that MF is not good 
for his purposes. Or perhaps anyone looking for traditional photographic 
values who uses a Holga as a way to try out MF. A camera like the 5050, 
while an excellent tool for many photographic purposes, is not, within 
the range of available DCs, comparable to an OM with Portra within the 
range of 35mm cameras available for the purpose of wedding photography.

I also tend to react to criticism of a tool based on an incomplete 
understanding of its characteristics and how best to use them. At least 
based on your initial post, it appears that you were not aware until it 
was too late of some well documented characteristics of the 5050. It 
also appeared, absent clarification, that you weren't aware of and/or 
didn't use the camera's features that can compensate for the weaknesses. 
Whether it is a good, bad or indifferent camera, it seems to me to be 
unfair both to the camera, other owners and potential users, to 
criticize it without fully understanding its operation.

I've made plenty of operator errors with my 300D, as I learn its rather 
complex nature, but I don't knock it in public for my ignorance. It's 
really easy to forget the learning curve we have gone through to become 
adept with our OMs, film and accessories and forget that a very 
different photographic tool requires different skills and experience. 
No, I am not suggesting that the 5050 is a good tool for weddings or 
not, I don't have the experience to make that call. It does appear that 
it has the capability to mitigate, if not eliminate, some of the 
specific results you complain about thorough WB fine tuning, custom WB, 
custom parameter sets and, possibly, through use of RAW files with 
RawShooter or Vuescan.

I don't think that digital is inherently superior to film. I think each 
has their own strengths and weaknesses.

>I wonder if the advancing
>technology of digital in the last 2 or so years has brought about the
>change, or something else, such as a veiled admission that we might have
>been wrong about the advancing technology of film cameras of the 80's and
>90's as well.
>
I don't think it is all one way or the other. Certain aspects of 
wunderbricks annoy me and I simply put up with them to get the 
advantages for some uses of Digital. I certainly have no wish for a film 
wunderbrick. Another thing that has happened over in AF land, through 
the continued development of optical technology, is lens designs that 
exceed those available to older, manual focus, SLRs in several aspects. 
Not saying you should be using a wunderbrick, only that there are 
advantages there for some of us.

>Personally, I still don't get along well with auto-focus. 
>
I don't find it all good either

>It is fine for subjects at infinity, 
>
Even scale focusing is quick and accurate for infinity. :-)

>and may be a help for those who chase moving objects,
>something I rarely do, 
>
My grandaughters. Even pretty good AF can't keep up with them sometimes.

>or for those who have failing eyesight.
>
No problem here.

>But for me, it comes with the price of a poorer viewfinder, and too many 
>out-of focus shots.  
>
It seems to me you are mixing up 2 different things here. AF and 
wunderbricks are not the proximate cause of poor viewfinders.

I've tried out a neighbor's high end EOS AF film wunderbrick. The 
viewfinder is fully comparable to that on an OM-4 and also has 
interchangable screens. Poor viewfinders are not an artifact of AF or 
wunderbricks. The are a result of cost constraints, in the case of 
optical finders on cameras like the 5050, technical/cost constraints in 
the case of EVFs and LCDs and technological and cost constraints in the 
case of DSLRs. Optical physics and the size of sensors in current 
moderately priced DSLRs mean that viewfinders cannot be both as big and 
as bright as those on 35mm film SLRs. DSLRs with full frame sensors and 
large, bright viewfindrers exist. At the moment, they cost US$5-8,000. 
It won't be too very long before they are down at $1,000 or so, 
eventually less.

>It is one of the chief problems of going further into digital, for me. That of 
>course, and the cost.
>
At least the OOF shots don't cost for film and development before I know 
it happened. I may even have the chance to reshoot. But I do know what 
you mean, I too would like an OM-1 finder on the 300D.

And good for you! If you find this sounds like a rant against you, I 
hope you will consider my intent to be fair in characterizing various 
cameras in a public forum. And perhaps you will remember that I was one 
of those who helped you find a solution to color balance in slides taken 
at high altitude.  I DO try to use my fetish for knowing the uses of 
tools for good!  :-)   And I am sometimes wrong, as I recently 
demonstrated here in a really silly, preventable way.

Moose



==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz