First, I should say that I hardly considered these posts as burdening
the list. It's what makes the list what it is. That said, however, I'm
still not sure what it is you're trying to show. My impression is that
you want to know how the E3 compares to an OM as an every day shooter
with most of the images that get printed being limited to 4x6 or 8x10 at
the most. But I'm confused when you throw in 20x30. I'm sure your MF
cameras did that but that's a huge image for a 35mm frame. Your E3 will
certainly do it with careful image prep and as long as you don't inspect
the print from normal reading distance.
As long as you don't mind the weight I think you'll find the E3 superior
in almost all respects well beyond just image quality. Its high ISO
performance, while less than some other camaras, will certainly equal or
exceed any film you've ever used. It's image stabilization will
increase the odds of a good hand held shot with long lenses, it's
articulating view screen and live view will greatly facilitate macro
work, the histogram will be found (IMHO) far better than a spot meter,
autofocus is a boon for aging eyes and the 1/250 second flash sync speed
greatly aids daylight fill flash. What's not to like.
ps: I don't have 100 20x30s hanging around the country.
Chuck Norcutt
Bob_Benson@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Note to Chuck and Nathan -- generally I fully agree with you -- if my
> efforts were intended as a thorough scientific study, I certainly
> couldn't just use only the small images and JPEGs as a basis for
> comparison. RAW I would think would be the only basis for comparison. I
> certainly appreciate your thoughts.
>
> What I'm interested in, though, is how the equipment (OM vs digital)
> compares for use in general ... particularly for guys like me who frankly
> are just picture shooters ... using the camera as an opportunity to take
> something really nice when the opportunity comes up. It's certainly not
> point-and-shoot exactly, but it is opportunistic. So I'm really
> interested in how the equipment can make it easier and straight-forward to
> get something nice from a circumstance that appears in front of me -- a
> nice landscape, a nice in-city situation, etc. I want to be clear: I
> take a lot of images - maybe a thousand on an extended trip. I want to
> know how the results might be better in the digital context.
>
> But this is what made the OM such as wonderful system for guys like me.
> Terrific image thru the viewfinder - and wonderful glass and really great
> electronics to produce a nice result. And terrific responsiveness - I
> never felt that I couldn't react to an opportunity well, with the OM
> system. PS: the E-3 feels like a great extension of this; I picked up a
> 420 yesterday, and it just didn't have the same positive feeling. Man oh
> man, small is good, but light maybe not so good.
>
> I've followed through on this philosophy for over 40 years -- from my
> first OM-1 (hmm, I think in 1966); earlier, the Pen-F (I think in 1963,
> but this might be a bad calendar memory.) I had a lot of mamiyaflex and
> rollicord B/W experience prior to this. I've probably taken 25,000
> images and some seem to be really good. PS: 20x30 for landscape etc.
> works well in this context, and I have probably 100 of these hanging
> around the US. That's just fine for me (arggghhh - i know that for you
> that are real photographers, this is an awful perspective.)
>
> Anyway, sorry for this stream of consciousness. I just wanted to put in
> perspective what I'm trying to understand about the new world of digital
> -- by comparing what somebody like me can get from the E-3 (and maybe 420
> et al) compared to what I had been getting from the OM system. This is
> why I'm probing the low-end (e.g., 4 meg JPEG) and what it might produce
> -- and I want to see for myself what this means by seeing real examples.
> Incidentally, Chuck and Nathan - I'm now including RAW as a part of the
> investigation.
>
> So why am I burdening this list with all of this? Mainly, I've been
> lurking (and sometimes contributing) for a number of years, and really
> respect the perspectives you all have given. I can't name all of the
> people I've come to respect enormously -- for example, Moose, Iwert, AG,
> Walt (bless his heart), Chuck, Bill B, Winsor, ANdrew, C.H., etc... this
> is just a small list, and I've left off so many of you. But all of you
> have really contributed to what I like about photography and, as a
> consequence, have told me a lot about what I don't know. But maybe what I
> learn about myself in this small project and the OM vs new world (E-3)
> might be interesting to you.
>
> Bob Benson
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1476 - Release Date: 5/31/2008
> 12:25 PM
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|