Subject: Re: Olympus Leads the Japanese MILC Run
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Neil<email@example.com>
> >> 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
they also describe efficiency.
no need to stop to change film, waiting for processing, needing to
bring sufficient film and of the correct type (daylight/tungsten,
etc.), keeping it cool, etc.
pick up a digital camera and shoot photos. results are instant, even
wirelessly syncing the photos to a computer, and in some cases, could
even be automatically uploaded to a web site (although most people
would want to at least review them first).
the fuss is completely gone.
> >> 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.
nikon has a very well designed ui/ux, considered by many to be among
the best in the industry. in particular, the two control wheels and
several buttons on the body, some of which can be user-defined, along
with a page of user-defined menus which can even be invoked from a
contrast that to having endless levels of menus and awkward button
placement (often not enough buttons, forcing users to use the menus).
one thing olympus film cameras did get right was multi-spot metering
with the om-3/om-4, which was incredibly useful for theatre photography
as well as other difficult lighting situations. otherwise, their ui/ux
was not very good and those cameras in particular had some reliability
> >> 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.
only when improperly used.
> Manually, I can focus much
> more quickly with a zoom lens because the focal point remains constant
> with focal length. YMMV.
autofocus automatically adjusts with varifocal lenses, making it
effectively equivalent to a true zoom. it 'just works'.
also, you can't focus quicker than autofocus no matter what lens you
use. autofocus can maintain focus on a moving subject coming directly
at you or away from you, even adjusting focus as you shoot multiple
shots while it moves. human reaction time is much too slow to keep up.
autofocus also works in very low lighting conditions where manually
focusing is difficult at best because of the low light.