Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Point and shoot

Subject: [OM] Re: Point and shoot
From: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:07:25 -0700
Chris Crawford wrote:
> I actually agree with MJ on point n shoots. I think they're worthless and
> would never waste my money on one. I used to work in a camera shop here in
> Santa Fe and was amazed how truly crappy all small sensor PS cameras are.
>   
Yeah, there is no way you can get a good image from them. That's why I'm 
going to dump these flower pix taken with an ancient, all auto, 1.9 mp 
digi P&S.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/10-1053.htm
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/14-1075_.htm

Useless for indoor informal portraits, too. 
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/S110Portraits/

And the newer, higher mp ones are just crap too. 
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/

And in dim light, like a museum where flash is not allowed, 
fegeddiboutit! http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Cloisters/

Or capturing the moment with detail and tonal subtlety. 
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4017.htm
> Its too bad too because in 35mm there were some nice point-n-shoots like the
> Olympus Stylus (I had one but later gave it to my mother; she still likes it
> even though she has a digital camera now).
>
> To me, quality is part of making the photo good. There are times when really
> awful quality contributes to the image (eg. Holga type cameras) 
Couldn't agree more, I've never been attracted by those sorts of photos 
in general. There are a very few that really appeal to me, but for the 
vast majority, I can't tell, and don't much care, whether they are 
pretentious efforts to mimic what the few greats have done or simple 
technical incompetence. Of course, I like my occasional "flub", but this 
is with a DSLR.  http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Home/Ghost.htm
> but the digital point-n-shoots aren't don't lend a unique character to the 
> image, they're just plain bad quality.
>   
I've already made my pictorial argument to the contrary. I don't claim 
my above examples are those of a good photographer, but I do think they 
generally demonstrate a singular lack of technical crappiness.
> I agree with you that not having a camera means not having a photo. That's
> why I keep an OM-4T with a couple lenses in my Domke messenger bag that is
> ALWAYS on my shoulder no matter where I go.
>   
Different strokes. I don't carry an SLR wherever I go. Too big and 
inconvenient for some of my life. I do carry a P&S pretty much 
everywhere.  http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/BayArea/SumaTil/

It's usually in a quick access belt pouch, so I can whip it out and 
shoot, as in the first pic above, taken while waiting for an elevator to 
leave a medical office building where I'd just taken my mom for a doc 
appt.  I guarantee I'd outdraw you by a big margin in a shootout.  :-)   
And the truth is, the F30 is a more capable dim light camera than my 
OM-4 bodies have ever been. Not their fault, but they shoot film, which 
isn't as good at high isos, and can't change iso at will.

Then, there's that time when I have used up all the "film" I brought for 
the (D)SLR, think the shooting day is over and discover some amazing 
murals and carvings from the WPA days in a restored building not open to 
the public for decades. I guess these crappy shots will have to do until 
I can get back with a real camera. 
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/Frescos/index.htm  Not!

And do the F10 images stick out as poorer than those taken with a 5D in 
the same gallery? 
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Monterey%20-%20June%202006/Carmel%20Valley/index.html

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