I'm with Chuck, other than the lusting part for a 1D, unless it came in an
OM size and I don't have to begin weight lifting classes or feel I'm
clobbering my subject with the camera.
Not many digitals these days are going to give you the view of
a 50/1.4 on an OM body. I found the 100/2 had a similar affect
when it came to subject framing.
The 5D is the closest digital that frames like an OM. But even still,
looking back over my film shots with the OM, the 5D shots are just not
the same. Could be the lenses, could be the cheapness of digital
versus film. Not really sure. The juice is different.
I recently purchased the NEX-5n, but have not yet received the EVF
that goes with it - out of stock item. Sorry I have not posted any photos.
My hope was to return to a more unobtrusive style of photography.
I have some shots from a recent funeral, the NEX was reasonable for
that situation, and maybe no view finder even helped. The pull out
LCD back was very helpful and I felt less intrusive, which was the goal.
It is amazing how we have become addicted to our viewfinders.
But don't forget the lens attached, wide open, has its affect.
And the OM, closest thing to a Leica, but in an SLR form.
At 11/17/2011 10:51 AM, you wrote:
>Along with OM lens compatibility viewfinder size was one of the driving
>forces in choosing a Canon 5D, a full-frame camera. It's only recently
>that I've discovered that the 1D cameras also allow all the old film
>style focusing screens to be used as well. Now I'm lusting after a 1D
>something but... I know I'll never go that far. :-)
>On 11/17/2011 9:59 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> I had a fascinating experience earlier this week. I happened to have
>> the 50/1.4 on the OM-3Ti and was out shooting in a cemetary. The view
>> through the viewfinder snapped my brain back about 20 years. Suddenly
>> I was seeing things like I did back then. All "new" photographic
>> opportunities opened up again.
>> What happened along the way was shooting digital. The smaller
>> viewfinders meant that I started composing the images differently.
>> I've learned that even though that generally my compositions are
>> stronger, the eye-flow is gone. Also gone is my subject layering. I
>> had developed a style of three or more layers. With digital, I went
>> down to two layers or even just one. No more foreground subject,
>> mid-distant subject and far subject. (generally speaking).
>> Even though I've been shooting with the Olympus OMs a ton over the
>> past two years, I didn't get that vision back until this week. Of
>> course, it'll take me a while to get back in the swing of things, but
>> I'm overjoyed that I'm starting to see things this way again. It's a
>> good thing. My most satisfying work was done in this style.
>> It's not that I'm trying to recreate the past or live in the past, but
>> there is an imaging characteristic which I lost along the way and it
>> has really been bugging me. My more recent work lacks the visual and
>> contextual depth which used to be part of my images.
>> This has nothing to do with "digital". I'm thinking that there are two
>> issues involved: 1. Viewfinder change. This seems to have a rather
>> profound impact on me. I'm a weak person when it comes to this and if
>> the viewfinder isn't comfy to me, I'm a lost puppy. 2. General
>> evolution of the photographer. New styles come along and I'm
>> constantly adapting to whatever is new. It's partly staying fresh, but
>> also a matter of keeping from being bored. But with that change I've
>> noted that I've lost the layering. In fact, others have noticed that
>> too. Uh oh. When others notice, it's time to wake up and figure out
>> what is going on. No matter how hard I tried, it just wasn't working.
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/