Brian, even though I am a film convert for the time being, I do think
you're
not making any real statements regarding the medium, but just how much
damn nicer the
OM film cameras are than typical digital cameras :-)
When I used to shoot a C*non 1D Mk IIN on full manual, also with a
split-prism
or lumi-micron focusing screen, it was all in all a much better
shooting experience
than an OM SLR - two control wheels to easily change aperture/shutter
speed without disturbing
delicate Macro work, a camera which had *much* less vibration for
Macro work (as I am dreadfully finding
out now with my experiments with OM-n and 20/3.5 Macro) etc.
Of course, the C*non was a huge brick, and the viewfinder was smaller
than the OM-1 - but with good
dioptric adjustment which I seem to need more and more these days, and
I hate the OM eye cup and what it
does to the visibility of the focus screen image). So I am naively
trying to "re-train" my eyes to
switch their damn diopter back to that of a naked OM-1 viewfinder!
Still, there is something pleasant about using the small, finely
crafted OM bodies. And I have fully switched
to a shooting mode which people annoyingly keep on calling the "Leica"
way of shooting. That is nonsense,
you can pre-visualise, determine exposure, and zone focus with any
camera. And for my money, and OM body is
best for setting aperture / shutter speed unobtrusively with one hand
by "feel" before lifting the camera to
the eye, I never have to look at the camera. It quickly becomes like a
kind of instinct. And *that* is not
possible with a digital camera, where we have to look at the LCD
screen etc. to set parameters. And *that*
is why we are "forced" to rely on the auto-electronics of the digital
camera to, in a heartbeat, determine the
technical aspects of the shot for us.
Still, I feel these are only physical design traits of the body, and a
Leica digital M on manual would come
close to doing the same thing. But I can make a strong argument that
an OM's shutter dial around the lens through
is much easier to work by feel than a small dial on top of the camera
body.
What I do like about film (Black+White), is the immensely higher
dynamic range and resolution (e.g. Ilford FP4)
that it has, compared to digital sensors at low ISO, so guess exposure
(via the above-mentioned "pre-visualisation"
technique) has never failed to yield me a perfectly printable picture,
even if I'm out by a stop or so.
And the darkroom is a lot of fun. After almost a year, I am starting
to find my way around, it sure is a craft that
takes time to learn.
I have settled (for now) on doing all my prints as split-grade prints
using my colour head, which seems to provide
a contrast range geater than the standard filters I've been suing,
even if fiddling with C,M,Y adjustment wheels get
annoying. But it's like I have an imaginary grade 6 and 7 also with
the super-rich Magenta this head delivers, and
split-grade generally relies on an overlay of two extreme contrast
grades (well, my style does, anyway - not sure if
it's always "right").
When I ever do go digital in a big way again (maybe a couple of years,
and when I have the $$$) it will be difficult to
choose a system that comes close to the OM system, that's for sure.
Four Thirds is out for me. Canon / Nikon is so
huge (bodies, lenses). Pentax etc. are a bit misguided IMHO, and poor
on cool lenses / accessories. Hmm....
Nope, nothing compares to the OM system for the moment.
cheerio,
Dawid
On 27 Sep 2009, at 5:37 PM, Brian Swale wrote:
> Not in the nature of a complaint so much as observations.
>
> I have spent quite a lot of time in the past week taking photos,
> using both
> film (that new gear :-)) ) and digital..
>
> I really like the control over the process that using film gives.
> Even though I
> wait with some trepidation to find out if I have been using exterior
> viewfinders more or less accurately (Bessa L & Obsession 617).
>
> With the OM slrs, I can actually see the zone of focus (split-screen
> viewfinder) and the depth of field. With digital, one is at the
> mercy of the
> camera electronics, and really left in the dark, so to speak. The
> DOF and
> zone of focus seem to be a matter of guess-work.
>
> Then, there's the matter of white balance. With the E-1 this seldom
> was a
> problem. I wish I could say the same for the E-3 and 510. Much less
> of a
> problem with film.
>
> Brian Swale.
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|