Subject: Re: Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run
Full headers:
From: Neil <>
Subject: Re: Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 18:40:00 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <p3rb88$i7n$>
References: <> <p3otmo$dq9$>
<p3qupu$r7s$> <180120181707290642%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 23:39:52 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info:; posting-host="839422096e0232bce0f03b1f3ab85096";
logging-data="18679"; mail-complaints-to="";posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18yRj3lKbFKrJ0ni/Drtd8xQm7APbd9ZV8="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
In-Reply-To: <180120181707290642%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Content-Language: en-US
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+tIabC3NDp8oH5iP3lJuroeaUVA=
Print Article
Forward Article
On 1/18/2018 5:07 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <p3qupu$r7s$>, Neil<>
> wrote:
>>> To be fair, those dedicated to photography find themselves, for different
>>> reasons, drawn to the entire spectrum of great image producing machines
>>> including, but not limited to Olympus, Fujifilm, Nikon, Canon, Leica,
>>> PhaseOne, Panasonic, Sony, Pentax, Hasselblad, and others. It is just that
>>> many of us, pro, or enthusiast have made our choices, and in some cases have
>>> made a considerable investment in cameras, and glass.
>> No doubt that brand choices are made for various reasons, and some of
>> the makes are comparable in most ways. I was fortunate, in that all of
>> my kits paid for themselves through the work that I did with them. In
>> terms of image quality, I think that lenses make the biggest difference.
>> In the digital world, I'd say that ease of use is pretty important,
>> since they're all less efficient than film cameras.
> digital cameras are *more* efficient, since they are not limited by
> having mechanical linkages, film transport mechanisms, etc. nor do they
> need to have film swapped every 36 shots (or less). control placement
> can go *anywhere*, with the space that once was needed for film can be
> repurposed for bigger batteries or faster and more capable electronics,
> or just make a smaller camera.
Those aspects describe flexibility, which I agree are where digital 
cameras excel. Efficiency is about how easily one can get the shot 
they're after, and having too many variables is a detriment to efficient 

>> So, control
>> placement, menu structure, and a well thought out user interface are the
>> most important factors to me.
> that applies to every product.
> there are examples of well thought out digital and film cameras as well
> as poorly thought out ones and everything in between.
I already covered that, which is why I prefer Olympus cameras to my 
Nikon digitals.

>> I've never been a fan of autofocus, finding it more of a compositional
>> hindrance than a benefit. When combined with a varifocal lens, the
>> camera becomes pretty useless to me. So, my choices are mostly for the
>> least frustrating kits!
> autofocus has the *most* benefit with varifocal lenses, and as a side
> benefit, it offers more flexibility for the lens formula.
There are two aspects of this where I'd disagree with you. First, 
autofocus presumes what you want to focus on, sometimes fights with you, 
and even in the best of cases screw up with varifocal lenses because the 
location of focus changes with focal length. Manually, I can focus much 
more quickly with a zoom lens because the focal point remains constant 
with focal length. YMMV.

best regards,