Donald,
It took me three and a half years of hemming and hawing over to digi or
not to digi.  My wife even bought the Olympus for me last Christmas to
silence me, but after opening the box and reading through everything, I
just couldn't do it.  Returned that one.  Now have the Minolta DiMage
7Hi.  I always had Minoltas:  101 slr, XD 11 (best) something else and
then the Maxuums.  All said and done I wish I'd just gone with Nikons,
including the digital.  Nevertheless, I feel very guilty about those two
beautiful SLR Minolta bodies with motor drives and hand straps, wireless
flash stuff and great lenses including the macro 105 and the rectangular
format 17mm.  Pound for pound they still could beat the crap out of the
miniature virtual brother.  Then again, I suppose if I spent the money
on the digital that went into the slr's it would be a little more even.
Those burly hunks of metal are like old friends to whom I have neglected
to write a thank you note.
Best,
Leland

-----Original Message-----
From: "Let us not speak foul in folly!" - ][<en Phollit
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Donald
B. White
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 10:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Conspicuous photography, contd.


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>

--
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>