|
She reminds me of Peggy Noonan
| “
|
There’s
a new camera category in town. It’s EVIL, and it’s going to kick your
DSLR’s ass. EVIL stands for Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens,
and is our favorite acronym for cameras like the Olympus Pen, the Lumix
GF1 and the Samsung NX10. These small, mirrorless, finderless cameras
can fit in a pocket and outperform bulky DSLRs. Here’s why your next
camera will probably be EVIL
Now we can see what the sensor sees either on a screen, or through an
electronic finder. With the mirror gone, the body can be a lot smaller,
just like a compact digicam. This means you can carry it with you
everywhere, fit it in a jacket pocket and be ready for *that* picture,
wherever you are. [cont]
| ” |
Which means there'll be some great buys on Digital SLRs ahead.
|
|
Actually they are not that small. I have the Panasonic G1 micro 4/3 and unless you're wearing a very large coat it is not pocketable. The Olympus pen with the pancake lens is but has no EVF only the LCD screen on the back.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why pro photographers don't buy camera backs ... they rent them.
ReplyDeleteYou don't pay $60k for something that will be obsolete in six months.
Yeah, but that's a film camera she's holding. Pentax, by the looks of it.
ReplyDeleteReal photographers use film.
Bull.
ReplyDeleteFilm is becoming an art form, not a professional choice.
Oh, digital is fine for fast portraiture, sports, journalism, wedding photography.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, none of the photo's I give a fart about.
For the stuff that counts, studio portraiture, good landscape work and black&white, digital isn't even close to the same quality as film, especially not for the money. The difference between a used medium format system and the only digital cameras I would even consider for serious work (start at the Sony A850 and work your way up, resolution-wise) buys a LOT of film, processing and scanning.
Which means that I'm at digital for the end of the process anyway, but starting with film means I have true color data at every pixel instead of extrapolating 2/3's of it. Bayer sensors suck.
All of that aside, I will own a Panasonic GF1 or it's successor. Or the Nikon version, when it hits market, if only because the SB400 flash is smaller than any of the 4/3 system compatible flashes.
ReplyDeleteIt will make a jimdandy light meter for my Bronica SQA-I!
My money's on a Hasselblad 'H' series anytime.
ReplyDeleteoy vey ole'
6x4.5? I went with the Mamiya 645AF for that. Even used, the Hassy stuff is outrageously expensive. I managed to pick up a Mamiya, two backs and an 80mm 2.8 lens for under $500.00.
ReplyDeleteRandy: One of my other bad habits is astronomy.
ReplyDeleteYou statement about digital not beating analog film for clarity and detail is simply incorrect. You are starting to sound like an audiophile ranting about russian vacuum tubes and $3000 sound cables.
If you wish to continue to use film for arts sake, be my guest.
I run a minilab that averages about 3,000 prints a day, so if we're going to get into an Experience Dick Waving Contest, well, maybe you better just zip that astronomy stuff right back up.
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness to most folks, all they ever shot was negative film, and negative film sucks. Period. So I can see your point of view.
Ah, but slide film, that's another story altogether. While I wouldn't take most 35mm negatives above 8x12, I'm quite happy taking a good slide (especially Velvia 100, Astia 100 or either of the Provias) all the way up to 20x30.
Pull your parent's Kodachrome slides out and have someone that knows what they're doing (North Coast Photo, for instance) scan them. You'll wonder why everyone lost their mind and went digital.
It can make a good meter though, if you buy the right one.