Hi Jono,
It might cost more than a new kitchen where you live . . .
As a matter of fact, it does. Obviously, it won't be the kitchen equivalent of a Leica :ROTFL: I'm definitely hoping to keep my kitchen below €5000. I'm not putting in an AGA, you know.
But it isn't big . . . you know . . . it's the smallest full frame camera in the world!
Sure. The smallest 8x10 camera is also pretty big. I think I let my mind slip into the compact camera way of thinking when I wrote that.
Once the equipment works well enough, I'm simply not fussy enough to keep changing equipment on the hope that some small thing will provide anything much better.
Me neither. Except the small change I'm looking for is a move from film to digital, and a replacement for my broken LX3
Except when I've been on forums for far too long, then everything I have seems bad and everything else seems good, or vice versa.
The aesthetic experience of a top of the line SLR viewfinder is unmatched by any electronic display so far, but I don't rate viewfinders so much for their aesthetic experience as I do by how well they allow me to focus and frame, and control the camera. There the EVF on the G1 and E-P2 excel, imo.
I agree. I completely freaked out on how nice the viewfinder of the OM-4Ti was with the 90/f2 and I used basically just that lens for a 6 week trip to Japan. Afterwards I discovered the advantages of using my other lenses as well and, while still admiring the qualities of the 90/f2, I actually started using it more as a tool. I guess I got a bit of an attack of something similar to audiophilia back then. I use my amp and speakers to listen to music, but I know people who use it to listen to the sound of their cabling
For instance, a theoretical 45mm f/2 direct equivalent to the 90/2 has 2 stops more DoF and even then cannot create the same background blur due to the fact that the background magnification is 1/2 what the 90 produces on 35mm format at infinity.
Now here's a bit that I don't understand. I get the DOF bit: DOF of a 45mm at f2.8 on µ43 should be the same as DOF of a 90mm at f5.6 on film. Others add that, if you increase the ISO of the film to get the same exposure, this also compensates for the higher sensitivity of each pixel on the larger sensor. Is the image even then still different in another way ? Can you elaborate a bit on the bacground magnification ?
In other words, nails really don't care what hammer hits them, and the furniture the nails and hammer together make is more important than the hammer.
... "Equipment so often gets in the way of Photography." ...
Ooh, yeah, after being on a few forums for a few years, that definitely applies to me. I found that love for equipment sometimes helps me to keep going with photography, which results in more experience after a while, which results in me being a better photographer. And because I buy equipment rather infrequently, I sometimes find myself using some old piece of kit and being able to use it without paying attention to the equipment, instead being fully in the moment and reporting it. Referring to the analogy ("Great food, you must have great pots !"), some cooks actually are gearheads about pots and knifes and the lot. Nothing wrong with that, as long as it keeps pointing back to actually doing something useful with it in the end.
I also find it's much harder to discuss photos on a forum than it is to discuss equipment. I was thinking of building a visual photo commentary site that would make it easy to point out some things (circle around a detail: "this takes away the attention from the subject", etc.). But I don't have time to do that at the moment.
Peter.
