Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] E-5: Digging in the menus, a few thoughts - Now film and/or dig

Subject: Re: [OM] E-5: Digging in the menus, a few thoughts - Now film and/or digital.
From: "Bill Pearce" <bs.pearce@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:58:18 -0500
When we look back 20 to 50 years from now, I suspect that the late twentieth
century will be viewed as the time of great lenses. Today, only Leica
produces great lenses, everyone else relies on software to fix things that
lens designers previously fixed. Not a fine day for photography, these days.

Bill Pearce

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Norton [mailto:ken@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2010 9:58 AM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] E-5: Digging in the menus, a few thoughts - Now film
and/or digital.

> Ken,
> is actually the film or is it the camera?
> I'm not sure  that it is the film that makes the OM-4ti my favorite 
> camera. If  there would be a digital camera with the same user 
> interface I would  abandon film instantly.


I like Bill's response and tend to agree with most of his comments.
Photography is a process, not JUST the result. If it's just about the
result, then just go buy a postcard.

However....

Can you separate the camera from the medium? I do believe so, I can choose
to shoot the OM-4Ti as though it's a digital camera, and just hand off the
roll of film to the lab for processing and scanning. End result is the same
as if I shot a digital camera in the first place. By separating the camera
from the medium, you use the camera for specific working advantages.

On the flip side of the equation, what if the E-5 could shoot film? Would
the result/process be any different? Each camera design has distinct
advantages during "production". I like that image-stabilization and the
live-view, but other than that I'm hard-pressed to really see any distinct
advantages of the camera over the OMs. Again, we're separating the medium
from the camera. The medium has advantages, the camera doesn't.

Film vs. Digital is a totally separate issue. Each medium can do things the
other can't. One requires frontloading your costs, the other is incremental.
For most people, the costs are a tradeoff with film actually being less
expensive. (true). Until recently, the imbedded costs per wedding for the
typical wedding photographer was running almost exactly the same whether
shooting film or digital. This cost analysis is for here in the USA, your
mileage may vary.

I REALLY prefer shooting the OM bodies for the following reasons over the
digital bodies:
1. Metering System.
2. Manual Focus screens which are usable!
3. Viewfinder size.
4. Full-frame 36x24mm image capture area.
5. The lenses--oh, those lenses...
6. OTF flash control.
7. Camera shape promotes left-hand balancing.
8. Convertable (with or without motordrive) 9. OTF auto exposure.
10. Tactile control of all major functions.
11. Size.
12. Accurate auto-exposure in ultra-low light conditions.
13. Best feeling shutter-release around.
14. Interchangeability of all accessories between all bodies.
15. Fujichrome Velvia, Kodak Portra 160NC and Ilford Delta 400.

Hmm. Only one out of fifteen is medium. The rest is camera.

AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
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/

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