Rawfa
Active member
Hahaha. You´re right in so many levels.While this is not shocking what would replace it could be.
Just look what they did to try to replace the G1 (new G1s are still available for great prices)!
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Hahaha. You´re right in so many levels.While this is not shocking what would replace it could be.
Just look what they did to try to replace the G1 (new G1s are still available for great prices)!
The car analogy isn't apropos. "Way more horsepower" does not by itself "require" stabilization systems, anti-skid, anti-lock brakes or any of the other modern conveniences, and all of those things do not require (or permit!) any customization by the user to do their job. Customization by the user would be deadly in most cases. Modern cars only rarely have more horsepower than cars of the past anyway, at any reasonable equivalent price point.... I'll use a car analogy throughout to show what I mean. It is obviously defective by design,
...
as cars have way more horsepower now, they require stabilisation systems, anti skid, anti blocking brakes, and lots more that I don't even know. ...
Yet, the interface is quite simple.
... the Panasonic LC-1 has a very elegant system to do the basic operations...
Don't you mean you don't think it is?The car analogy isn't apropos.
:ROTFL:I want a micro L1.
And a 14mm prime.
And to be 6'3".
I'll settle for two out of three.
Do you qualify every opinion you state with "I think ..." ? Qualifying one's speech constantly when writing or speaking is poor English. The fact that I'm stating an opinion is obvious from the context of the discussion.Don't you mean you don't think it is?
I thought it was rather good!
So do I, on (a) and (b), although I suspect the 7-14 zoom would do me better at that end of the focal length range.I want a micro L1.
And a 14mm prime.
And to be 6'3".
I'll settle for two out of three.
And yet, it becomes tiresome on a regular basis, says the 5'6" guy.So do I, on (a) and (b), although I suspect the 7-14 zoom would do me better at that end of the focal length range.
I'm happy with 6', however. It's nice to look up to someone once in a while.
I disagree. The Panasonic LX3 is not a crappy camera, yet, I had to use a little stick to change the diaphragm in A mode. The fact that DOF wide open is already very deep is a bad excuse for a bad interface. At my first attempt to use an E-P1, I also thought the thumb wheel and the wheel around the 4-way controller were not the best, but I'll refrain from calling both the E-P1 as well as its controls crappy until I used it more.The steering wheel, brake and gas pedals remain simple ... so do the controls for aperture, shutter speed and shutter release on most cameras. Crappy cameras have crappy controls for these things.
Generally speaking, you're right. If you look at smaller cameras, you're not.But that doesn't mean other control systems are not also excellent. For instance, the Olympus E-1 (skipping the good example for brevity)
What's the solution to cameras with crappy controls? Don't buy those cameras. Period. There are plenty of choices out there, from crappy to superb. Pick the one that works for you.
+1 for the weathersealed body. And a good portrait prime (45/f1.4 ?). And enough cash to get either the 7-14 or the 9-18 to go with an E-P2 with viewfinder !I want a 12-60 zoom
I want a weathersealed body (camera that is, mine is already tolerably water-resistant).
I'd like to be 25 again
LOL. To match my weight, I should be around 9'6", so I think a m4/3 camera sized like the LX3 with a sensor equal or better than the GH1 and built-in EVF is more realistic I'd even waive the whole video schnickschnack.I want a micro L1.
And a 14mm prime.
And to be 6'3".
I'll settle for two out of three.
LOL! I'm exercising my right to hyperbole, and my lack of restraint. ;-)I disagree. The Panasonic LX3 is not a crappy camera, yet, I had to use a little stick to change the diaphragm in A mode. The fact that DOF wide open is already very deep is a bad excuse for a bad interface. At my first attempt to use an E-P1, I also thought the thumb wheel and the wheel around the 4-way controller were not the best, but I'll refrain from calling both the E-P1 as well as its controls crappy until I used it more.
...
Generally speaking, you're right. If you look at smaller cameras, you're not.
I wasn't going to skip the E-420 and get an E-3 just because the controls are in a better place: the E-3 nearly weighs as much as any OM body with the 90/f2.0 macro lens, which I consider to be a lot to lug around. Size is no excuse: all OM bodies are smaller than the E-420, yet, their controls are much better. User interface design just isn't the primary focus of camera vendors anymore: featuritis is, because "it sells" when you're able to brag about 3D sweep panoramas, but not when your camera is just easy to use for its purpose.
Godfrey . . . you . . . hyperbole? surely not :ROTFL:LOL! I'm exercising my right to hyperbole, and my lack of restraint. ;-)
I think that the problem here is that crappy really implies objectivity (which offends the people who's cameras you refer to as crappy), whereas (although I actually agree with you about most of those cameras), these are subjective calls.To me a crappy camera is a camera I can't be bothered to work with, regardless of how good a photograph it can make. There are tons of crappy cameras that make excellent photographs, I've owned several of them.
...........
It's a personal judgement call as to what qualifies as a "crappy camera". Whether it's control ergonomics, size, overall responsiveness, etc ... there can be all kinds of reasons. Buy it, try it, move on if it's crappy, work with it if it's not. Period.
Can't quibble with that - fantastic lens, one of my very favorites - sharp but not brutal, and with a lovely gentle bokeh - fab.BTW, I see you've gotten a Pen digital and were talking about portrait lenses. At present, the top of the class on that is the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH OIS. While there might be a faster lens that works well, I doubt anything's going to surpass it by much in overall practical usability or quality.
I do occasionally speak with a certain amount of passion. ]'-)Godfrey . . . you . . . hyperbole? surely not
I don't know how the word "crappy" has any specific implication of objectivity associated with it. The dictionary defines it as:I think that the problem here is that crappy really implies objectivity (which offends the people who's cameras you refer to as crappy), whereas (although I actually agree with you about most of those cameras), these are subjective calls.
That's all subjective, there are no metrics involved.crappy - adjective ( -pier , -piest ) ::vulgar slang
1 of extremely poor quality : crappy wine.
2 disgusting or unpleasant; worthless : Phil's room is the crappiest.
3 ill; in poor physical condition : I feel really crappy today.
"Yuck!" seems to do well by me, as does "crappy".Interestingly, apart from 'it doesn't suit me' there doesn't seem to be a very good subjective expletive . . . perhaps you should invent one Godfrey?
It is a delightful lens. My buddy has loaned his to me on several occasions, I've made over a thousand photos with it and they're all amazingly good quality, even if many of them are crappy pictures ... ;-)re: ME45 lens ::: Can't quibble with that - fantastic lens, one of my very favorites - sharp but not brutal, and with a lovely gentle bokeh - fab.
And I'm exercising my right to not relativate ! Hah ! :ROTFL:LOL! I'm exercising my right to hyperbole, and my lack of restraint. ;-)
Oh, I know exactly what you mean. The mind shouted yes to DSLRs and the E-420 that was in my hands, but the whole rest of my being shouted no. I still miss that 11-22 a bit sometimes. Anybody care to donate a 9-18 in µ43 mount to help a poor soul ?To me a crappy camera is a camera I can't be bothered to work with, regardless of how good a photograph it can make.
I used an OM-1 for a few years until the light meter broke right when I was starting a photography course. Nice camera. I handled it a few times afterwards, too. But nothing compared to the OM-3 or OM-4Ti I got afterwards, particularly when fit with the 2-13 ultra bright focusing screen. Those cameras' user interfaces are just so unbelievably good.(I had Olympus OM1 and OM2n cameras: liked them overall but didn't like their ergonomics much: they didn't fit my hands well and the viewfinders had insufficient eye relief. But they didn't annoy me enough to qualify as "crappy", I was sad to sell them but the Nikon FM and FE2 did better for me ... ;-)
I see that it's less than 1cm smaller both in diameter as well as in length compared to my beloved OM 90/f2.0 macro, but the weight is exactly half. The 90/f2.0 is brilliant as a portrait lens, though, because it is so bright. Of course, watching the image it projects on the 2-13 screen is half the enjoyment. I wonder what it'll be like to try out lenses on an LCD... The problem with the "dump it if crappy" mentality is that it will lead me to an X1 that I cannot afford, or to a GXR+A12 that I can't afford and that has that weird "lensor" way of working. I don't find any camera on the market that makes me go *wow* and that does not combine this with severe limitations: the X1 has a fixed lens, the NEX UI seems to be very so-so, the M9 is big and costs more than a new kitchen, the S2 with lenses costs nearly as much as our house's new extension, the µ43 have a lack of fast primes and so on. I still want to make photos, so I'm trying out different compromises while curmudgeoning my way through the market.BTW, I see you've gotten a Pen digital and were talking about portrait lenses. At present, the top of the class on that is the Macro-Elmarit-DG 45mm f/2.8 ASPH OIS. While there might be a faster lens that works well, I doubt anything's going to surpass it by much in overall practical usability or quality.
Isn't that just another definition of hyperbole?I try to be honest and direct rather than undermining my meanings with PC dumb-down-speak.
Hi Peterthe M9 is big and costs more than a new kitchen,
I always thought the OM-4ti and later OM-3Ti were lovely bodies, but by that time I was completely happy with my Nikon FM2-FE2-F3/T generation cameras and lenses and saw no sensible reason to bother with any other SLRs. 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. I find that my best work comes from long familiarity with both the excellent aspects of my equipment and learning how to ignore the warts ... and all equipment has some warts.... But nothing compared to the OM-3 or OM-4Ti I got afterwards, particularly when fit with the 2-13 ultra bright focusing screen. Those cameras' user interfaces are just so unbelievably good. ...
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.... The 90/f2.0 is brilliant as a portrait lens, though, because it is so bright. ...
I find few cameras that make me go "wow!", frankly. Cameras are tools, just like hammers and wrenches, or pens and pencils. There's only so good a tool can become before further deliberation over the tool's qualities start to overshadow enjoying what the tool produces as the primary reason for being involved with it.The problem with the "dump it if crappy" mentality is that it will lead me to an X1 that I cannot afford, or to a GXR+A12 that I can't afford and that has that weird "lensor" way of working. I don't find any camera on the market that makes me go *wow* and that does not combine this with severe limitations: the X1 has a fixed lens, the NEX UI seems to be very so-so, the M9 is big and costs more than a new kitchen, the S2 with lenses costs nearly as much as our house's new extension, the µ43 have a lack of fast primes and so on. I still want to make photos, so I'm trying out different compromises while curmudgeoning my way through the market.