Message text written by "\"Let us not speak foul in folly!\" - ][<en
Phollit"

I lusted after the original Olympus OM-1 when it first appeared. Olympus
has always been noted for the nice ergonomics (feel good) of their cameras.
The OM series were the first compact 35mm SLRs. I bought Pentax MXs
instead, which were similar in size, less expensve, and seemed to be just
as good. I have 3 Pentaxes which I have owned more than 20 years. The
sensible option for an aspiring professional photographer (which I was
then) would have been Nikon, but I was trying to think outside the box. I
also have an Olympus XA (rather reminiscent of the pre-WWII Leica). My
digital camera is an Olypus C-3040z. I researched for about 6 months to to
convince myself that my initial desire for one was justified. I could not
find one camera that had all the features I wanted, but this one has those
I wanted most. The newest in the series, the C-5050z, has what this one
didn't, so I may upgrade eventually. I am very pleased with the Olympus (as
is everyone else I know who has one). My reasons for choosing it (which
reploes to some of your comments about yours) were its ergonomics, long
battery life, the use of the AA battery instead of a proprietary battery
type (giving me four different battery options--I carry spare NIMh
rechargeable batteries, but in a pinch I could use regular alkalines),
excellent picture quality and enough 'serious' features to make me feel it
was a real camera. The all-black finish is nice too. This is a 3 megapixel
camera, and makes quite good 8 x 10s. It is possible to split hairs over
minute quality differences, but in the real world, it's plenty good enough.

The camera was only the beginning; I have now bought a printer and a better
computer. Most of the expense of digital is in equipment. Cost per print is
no less than film, but I don't have to print every image. 

I don't know what kind of digicam you have, but here are some tips for
better battery life: shut off everything you don't need--LCD finder,
sounds, flash, instant-review of pictures you've taken. I also chose the
Olympus because it has an optical finder and a very fast lens. I normally
set it to have no beeps, no flash and the LCD off. In this mode a set of
batteries lasts a couple of days with the camera on the whole time. I often
take shots without looking through the camera--but I did this with film
cameras too, especially when driving the Morgan. I've always preferred
using available light (or available darkness) if possible too. The Olympus
has better low-light vision than I have, and better than any film (CCDs use
light more efficiently than film does--an astronomer client of mine told me
that CCDs revolutionised astronomical photography). Some digicams are set
up to allow the LCD finder to be viewed unobtrusively--but it amuses me to
see people holding their digicams at arm's length to look at the LCD.
Personally, I prefer to use the optical finder on mine (if conditions
permit) as if it were a film camera--I'm used to it, and it attracts less
attention that way. 

I bought the camera with 'field photography' in mind (actually a trip to
Asia that I have been planning for years--it was postponed after 9/11 but I
hope it will happen before the end of 2003, inshallah). I needed something
'good enough', and able to survive travel and extensive use. Since purchase
on Sept 7, 2001 (timing is everything) I have taken more than 3,400
pictures with it. 

The Leica referred to before went with me on a summer bike tour of England
in 1976. My cameras have included 4x5s and 2 1/4 square, so I tend to think
not in rectangular boundaries but to look at the scene and then aim the
camera. It is better not to glue the camera to your eye anyway--you might
miss something more interesting outside the viewfinder frame. It was very
interesting using a 4x5 for field photography--backpacking it on a
landscape photograpy trip. 

I've always photgraphed anything and everything that interested me. Writing
and photography both have their uses. 

>Don

I agree with your observations.
I've floated in and out of various forms of
recreational photography, mainly with a 35mm Olympus
OM-10 (because it was the lightest standard 35mm at
the time I bought it). Spent a decade concentrating on
landscape photography (coinciding with my bushwalking,
field science, botany stage in life), and most of the
past decade trying to be an architectural
photographer.  Since giving in to the digital push
last March, I've barely touched my 35mm.  Don't like
the digital for high quality images; don't like the
limited battery life; don't like the inability to
change lenses.  What I love is the ease of
concealment, the ability to take photos without
putting the camera to your face, so you can maintain
eye contact with the subject.  Used to hate taking
photos of people, because it was so hard to get them
natural.  Now, it is still hard, but there is a
greater chance of unobtrusively getting a relaxed
image.  Don't think I'll ever become a serious people
photographer, but I sure think there will be more
people in my photos from now on.

On the alternatives to photography, I experimented
early last year on a 4 day mountain bike trip in the
Snowy Mountains with not taking my camera.  Instead, I
took my notebook, and tried to capture the special
images and moments in poetry. Some of it worked, some
of it didn't, but I sure as hell remember that I
wasn't forever concentrating on trying to look at the
landscape in terms of rectangular boundaries.

Cheers
david<

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>