On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Ken Norton<ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At the rate I'm going, though, the E-1 will be my 10-year digital camera...
I'm about to borrow a friend's E-500 for some testing to see if its
capture is reminiscent of the E-1's with a few pixels to spare. He
also owns the 510 but I've been enabling his venture into the OM
system and he's pretty much gotten lost therein. You might get a
chance to meet him if the Zuikofest cum ribs is on for this weekend.
However, to qualify for that kind of longevity, I think the camera
needs the feel and handling of the E-1. My E-330 is probably
technically superior to the E-1 in terms of capture and it has those
two lovely LV modes. But held up to the eye, it's just sort of
tolerable compared to the E-1.
If you get a chance to score a 50-200, old type or new, at a good
price, go for it, but I have found that while the E-1 is very accurate
focusing the 14-54, the 50-200 can be very poor with the E-1 and even
with the E-330. I'm sure there's more than a bit that could be blamed
on the photographer in my case, but I found myself using LV with the
50-200 on every possible occasion to get assurance about critical
focus. (The E-3 finally brings home the bacon with the 50-200, BTW.)
8-10 MP is completely adequate for me. I find that my backroads kit
consists of E-3 plus 14-54 in my digital bag, another bag with one OM
body and 4-5 primes and small Velbon tripod. All this fits in the
commuter bags of my BMW motorrad ("Wow, I didn't know BMW made cars
too!"). I have finally found a way to make digital and film work
together, where the E-3 works as a means to proof some of the things I
think might work well on film as well as to capture occasionally
things that I would otherwise miss shooting slide film in particular.
I might start carrying the DZ 1.4 TC in the digital kit to get a wee
bit more length now and then, but the 14-54 pretty much gets it all
done for me.
The E-3 is such a pleasure to use that its relative size and weight is
not a deterrent. I'm really hooked on the viewfinder in particular,
but I need to work harder on figuring out my base settings. On
Saturday I put over 200 miles on the motorcycle, scouting and shooting
in the two counties north of here, about 12 hours straight at it, and
I brought along the PL, thinking it would improve my photos. Well, it
does and it doesn't. It really improves clouds and sky, but it so
flattens foreground plants that it almost appears to mess with color.
I was actually kind of disappointed with a couple shots on digital
with PL that I think will be OK on film with PL. I just think that's
kind of weird, but I guess we have to remember that a sensor is not
the same as film. In practical terms, I'm still learning what that
amounts to. I see it working in a more nuanced (i.e., trickier) way
with ND grad split filters as well as PLs.
Yours rambling on,
Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|