probepro
Senior Member
I hope this was meant to be a rhetorical question. I mean, who knows what motivates some people to do what they do.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Minolta challenge
- Thread starter Bob Robertson43546
- Start date
MikeA
Senior Member
It's interesting, in a dreary sort of way, watching The War take place here (and in other forums). The emergence of the Minolta camera appears to have generated upwellings of strange, irrational emotional attachments to inanimate objects--and upwellings of equally strange, equally irrational expressions of contempt for other inanimate objects (all the more strange as nobody aside from a very few reviewers have had an opportunity to use the suddenly-beloved/suddenly-despised new equipment).
The truly splendid thing about both his and your remarks--each denigrating a competing camera--is that both of you, with your mutually exclusive likes and dislikes, are absolutely right. There is no chance of either party's being wrong; the criterion for "Right" appears to be that a thing becomes true merely by being stated aloud; and the more forcefully it is stated, the more True it must be (truer yet if belittling language can be included to help put the despised equipment in its place).
A now-deceased in-law of mine was an amateur photographer at a time when photography was a fairly esoteric pursuit. He had equipment that would be considered both ugly and primitive by the standards of us spoiled-rotten moderns, with our low attention spans. His darkroom equipment must have been extremely primitive. Yet, somehow
, the guy took gorgeous black-and-white photographs and made gorgeous prints--all of this with fairly primitive gear.
Ancient Leicas are not all that attractive, but if I were to see some old fellow carrying one around my first thought would likely be: how much mastery has this gent achieved with his "ugly" camera.
The quality of the E-10 shots displayed on JaJa's site effectively dismiss the foolish idea that the E-10 is merely a "glorified Instamatic". In the future there will also be images of high quality, taken with the Dimage 5 or 7, that will handily dismiss the silly "toy" notion (quoted above).
I would guess that for their own convenience, neither the "Instamatic" guy nor the "toy" guy will notice the high-quality images made in the despised cameras. They will, however, notice how Right they are... [I assume that you do realize: when one begins belittling a camera he has never used and with which almost nobody has any experience, he isn't actually talking about photography any longer. He's doing something else entirely...
Perhaps you should engage in another forum, the one in which another fellow insisted that with the introduction of the Dimage cameras, the E-10 is now nothing other than "a glorified Instamatic" (his exact words). Who knows--the two of you might find happiness together.
The truly splendid thing about both his and your remarks--each denigrating a competing camera--is that both of you, with your mutually exclusive likes and dislikes, are absolutely right. There is no chance of either party's being wrong; the criterion for "Right" appears to be that a thing becomes true merely by being stated aloud; and the more forcefully it is stated, the more True it must be (truer yet if belittling language can be included to help put the despised equipment in its place).
A now-deceased in-law of mine was an amateur photographer at a time when photography was a fairly esoteric pursuit. He had equipment that would be considered both ugly and primitive by the standards of us spoiled-rotten moderns, with our low attention spans. His darkroom equipment must have been extremely primitive. Yet, somehow
, the guy took gorgeous black-and-white photographs and made gorgeous prints--all of this with fairly primitive gear.Ancient Leicas are not all that attractive, but if I were to see some old fellow carrying one around my first thought would likely be: how much mastery has this gent achieved with his "ugly" camera.
The quality of the E-10 shots displayed on JaJa's site effectively dismiss the foolish idea that the E-10 is merely a "glorified Instamatic". In the future there will also be images of high quality, taken with the Dimage 5 or 7, that will handily dismiss the silly "toy" notion (quoted above).
I would guess that for their own convenience, neither the "Instamatic" guy nor the "toy" guy will notice the high-quality images made in the despised cameras. They will, however, notice how Right they are...
[I assume that you do realize: when one begins belittling a camera he has never used and with which almost nobody has any experience, he isn't actually talking about photography any longer. He's doing something else entirely...So true. I was speaking subjectively and should have noted that. I couldn't get used to a Cpix, so it wouldn't work for me.
I (again subjectively) think it is a little pretentious, but again, thats me. Re the robber, yes he would, if he was smart (but not cutting-edge), as for a while at least, black has been used on the pro equiptment, and silver on amateur -- I'm NOT making a value judgement ton the Dimage -- its just been my observation (think Nikon FE vs F3 or Onkyo stereo equipt.)The D-7 does look a little funky, maybe even cheap, but not
pretentious. If I was robber and I had to choose between the E-10
and the D-7, I'd go for the sleek black beauty.
Be Well. Take Pictures. Enjoy Life!
F.J.
Anyway, thats my take, thanks for the nice reply
Be well, take pics, enjoy life!
F.J.
probepro
Senior Member
Mike, I totally agree that this is a pis*ing contest for the folks you referred to.
I’m really excited about the D-7, because I feel I have outgrown my Canon S10 (which I have owned for less than a year), and in good conscience couldn’t spend $1,500+ on such a fast moving area of technology without getting everything I want in a new digicam. With the introduction of the D-7, I think the prosumer digicam has come of age, and at an affordable price. If there are no bad surprises, this is the camera for me.
Chuck
I’m really excited about the D-7, because I feel I have outgrown my Canon S10 (which I have owned for less than a year), and in good conscience couldn’t spend $1,500+ on such a fast moving area of technology without getting everything I want in a new digicam. With the introduction of the D-7, I think the prosumer digicam has come of age, and at an affordable price. If there are no bad surprises, this is the camera for me.
Chuck
Perhaps you should engage in another forum, the one in which
another fellow insisted that with the introduction of the Dimage
cameras, the E-10 is now nothing other than "a glorified
Instamatic" (his exact words). Who knows--the two of you might find
happiness together.
The truly splendid thing about both his and your remarks--each
denigrating a competing camera--is that both of you, with your
mutually exclusive likes and dislikes, are absolutely right.
There is no chance of either party's being wrong; the criterion for
"Right" appears to be that a thing becomes true merely by being
stated aloud; and the more forcefully it is stated, the more True
it must be (truer yet if belittling language can be included to
help put the despised equipment in its place).
A now-deceased in-law of mine was an amateur photographer at a time
when photography was a fairly esoteric pursuit. He had equipment
that would be considered both ugly and primitive by the standards
of us spoiled-rotten moderns, with our low attention spans. His
darkroom equipment must have been extremely primitive. Yet, somehow
gorgeous prints--all of this with fairly primitive gear.
Ancient Leicas are not all that attractive, but if I were to see
some old fellow carrying one around my first thought would likely
be: how much mastery has this gent achieved with his "ugly" camera.
The quality of the E-10 shots displayed on JaJa's site effectively
dismiss the foolish idea that the E-10 is merely a "glorified
Instamatic". In the future there will also be images of high
quality, taken with the Dimage 5 or 7, that will handily dismiss
the silly "toy" notion (quoted above).
I would guess that for their own convenience, neither the
"Instamatic" guy nor the "toy" guy will notice the high-quality
images made in the despised cameras. They will, however, notice how
Right they are...
begins belittling a camera he has never used and with which almost
nobody has any experience, he isn't actually talking about
photography any longer. He's doing something else entirely...
Terry M
Leading Member
TechTV's Jim Louderback fumbles his way through a "review" at
http://www.techtv.com/products/consumerelectronics/story/0,23008,3329013,00.html
Click on the "Video Highlight" button
http://www.techtv.com/products/consumerelectronics/story/0,23008,3329013,00.html
Click on the "Video Highlight" button
Mike Greer
Leading Member
I'm not saying camera aethetics should be ignored. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I personally don't find the Dimage 7 to be as ugly as most seem to think it is. Yes, the E-10 is more "professional" looking. But if the D7 outperforms it in my application(s), then I really don't care. The look and feel of the camera means next to nothing to me in comparison to image capturing ability! If the gorgeous camera can't consistantly get you the shot, then who cares? If the ugly camera allows you to get the shot consistantly, then that's what I care about. If you're a pro, you get paid on your ability to produce the shot. Give me the instrument that gives me the best opportunity of consistantly getting the shot at the best price and that's the one I want.
Ken Huckeba
Leading Member
That's cool! When my son moves out, that's what I'm going to do with his room!!!
Ken
Ken
Ken Huckeba
Leading Member
I think that it's hard enough to get people to want to hire you when you speak "digital" The Oly E-10 goes along way to ease their mind that you're serious. Showing up with the Damage, would only serve to make them eat antacids while they wait for their memories. There's many reasons other than appearance to desire the E-10 over the Damage, I think that I'd like to own both. Kids will love the look of the Damage. It's noisy pictures though will definitely throw some people off. I think that for it being so "amazingly better" and making the E-10 look like an "instamatic" that it's image would be "amazingly better" and it wouldn't look so much like an "instamatic"!
Ken
Ken
The downside to having a "professional looking camera" is I keep
getting people asking to load their films for them. Happens all
the time especially when there's a lot of tourist around
)
getting people asking to load their films for them. Happens all
the time especially when there's a lot of tourist around
)MikeA
Senior Member
When it gets to the point at which people begin hurling puerile insults, it's clear that at least the most extreme of the contentiousness is not about photography at all. It's an irrational Us Against Them game--a fight for its own sake. The issue could be...well, any issue. The true reason for the food-fight is to have the food-fight, not to learn anything about photography, or teach anything about photography, or even have a rational conversation. When it reaches that level, it's a children's crusade, and it should surprise nobody that the most extreme of the contentions are never rationally defended...they cannot be; they aren't based in reason in the first place. And I am always left to wonder: why do they bother? What does it get them?
But wait. According to this one fellow, the Dimage 7 is simply a "toy". Given such compelling logic (not to mention the detailed defense of the position
, how could you possibly consider such a camera? But no...wait...you can't get an E-10, because the other fellow insists it's a "glorified Instamatic." I think you'd best stick with...no, you can't buy that one, either, because this OTHER fellow said......I can't possibly know if Olympus' upcoming (when?) interchangeable-lens SLR will shake up the market...but imagine what'd happen if it did. Could I live with a D30, or some successor to it, priced at $1800? Well, sure!
Likewise, a successor to the E-10. But I wonder if Olympus won't find the development of interchangeable-lens systems far more attractive...MikeA
Senior Member
This issue is fairly important. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
But I have never understood...how does it work, exactly? I'd be interested to hear more about the play-by-play workings of the mind as, intimidated by the ugliness of the camera, the photographer is gradually driven (against his better wishes, I daresay!) to take ever worse photographs.
It would be useful to know: when the eye is at the camera's viewfinder, and if the other eye is closed, can the photographer actually see the camera?
If the answer is "yes"--well, how does it happen that the mind is engaged in framing the scene and taking the shot, and yet the camera is simultaneously perceived in such a way that its ugliness makes the photograph lower in quality than it would otherwise be?
On the other hand -- if the photographer does NOT see (or at least perceive) the camera while the picture is being taken: could you work through how the (unseen) ugliness of the camera at that moment nonetheless produces the detrimental results you have predicted?
And: would this problem affect every photographer who possesses an ugly camera -- or only some photographers? Would there be any way of predicting which photographers might be thus afflicted, and which would not? I would hate to run afoul of it, myself. If I could learn in advance when my work would be negatively affected by the appearance of a given camera, I would surely consider some other brand! I would AT LEAST choose a camera system with a well-designed logotype on the box it came in! There are limits!
View cameras...I never found view cameras especially attractive. I'm sure you'd agree that in fact some of them are supremely ugly. But this is a bit confusing...can you say a bit about how the ugliness of view cameras does not always produce detrimental effects in the form of inferior photographs? The same question applies to, say, the old Speed Graphic. Now, THAT was a hideous-looking thing. How did users of Speed Graphics manage to produce decent (and sometimes even excellent) photographs with those bloody-awful-looking machines?
My girlfriend bought me a book of Robert Capa's photographs. Now, we KNOW Capa had pretty ugly-looking equipment, especially when he began shooting 35mm film. As I looked at the pictures, I thought: "Well, small WONDER those are such bad pictures! Egad, consider how awful-looking his equipment was! To say nothing of that ghastly-looking enlarger he used!"
Anyway, it's really heartening that some of the more critical problems in modern-day photography are being aired and solved in this forum.
MikeA
Senior Member
So, invent a camera in which there's one dial for everything.
The description of controls' workings doesn't strike me as ergonomically unpleasant at all. In fact, compared with the kind of button-pushing and menu-surfing I have to do with my present digital camera, the Minolta approach sounds as if it could be rather a relief. It's a your-mileage-may-vary sort of world...
Odd but not unusable. This doesn't strike me as an issue worth worrying about, considering the situations in which I would likely be using manual focus. Your mileage may vary...your mileage may vary...your mileage...
Phil didn't like it so much, no. And: hard as it might seem to believe, someone else might not have a problem with it at all--which will become known when that person (whoever it might be) has the thing IN HAND, a state in which neither your nor I find ourselves. Further, the present grip configuration might change before this apparently diabolical butt-ugly un-ergonomic machine is unleashed on an unsuspecting public. ()
Nah. It's the wrong color. I thought EVERYONE knew that.
With respect to the soft-looking images, I am basing my image quality remarks on samples I saw (as did my co-worker) on four different web sites--not on what someone else wrote about them. That aside, I am not drawing a conclusion about the quality of the Minolta lens based on this brief observation. But the images' softness does strike me as curious. I don't believe we simply imagined it...
probepro
Senior Member
There was some news a few weeks back about Oly promoting standardized interchangeable lenses for digicams. This of course we be a trumendous benefit to the conusumer, but I cann't see digicam manufactures agreeing on this. And in lieu of a standard, I'd prefer not to make a big investment in interrchangeable lenses. One of the things I like best about the D-7 is the compact zoom with excellent optics over a very usabable range of focal lengths. I really don't want to have to carry a bunch of lenses around.
Chuck
Frank B
Veteran Member
Say what you want, but I have owned 3 digital cameras, many 35mm SLRs and 3 medium format cameras and the E-10 is the first that makes me feel guilty if I neglect using it too long. It has something to do with the look, feel, superb ergonomics and high quality pictures. It begs you to pick it up and use it.
Frank B
Frank B
Peter Hughes
Active member
That's a VERY good point, Ken! I'm doing a model shoot on Sunday with a person who has never posed for a "professional" photographer before. She works behind the counter at my MBE and I've been trying for weeks to convince her to pose for me. If I pulled out a toy like the Minolta she'd instantly doubt the wisdom of agreeing to my request, thinking that I was just some jerk who was trying to take sleazy pix of her. (And I'm certainly no jerk!
- ) The E-10, on the other hand, looks like a professional tool and says to the model instantly, 'This guy knows what he's doing.'I also do shoots for agencies, who would not be amused if I showed up with something that looked like a cheap camcorder: regardless of how good the images were, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get over the poor initial impression made by a camera such as the Minolta.
Of course, Minolta have never appealed to pros so their degign department doesn't have to worry about such matters.
In any case, since people are my primary subjects, and since I am working on several projects where my professionalism is very important, having a camera that makes a good first impression is a must.
There was a thread a year or two ago on some forum or other debating the value of having a Hasselblad to impress clients. From my experience such things DO matter, as silly as they may seem to some.
Mike Greer
Leading Member
You're stating an opinion as if it were fact. Like I said earlier, I really don't object to the look of the D7. I like the E-10 better, but that doesn't mean I hate the D7. What impresses me more is the shooters portfolio. I dare say that most (not all) potential clients put more stock in what you've done as witnessed by your portfolio than what you shoot with.
Why? I think you put too much stock in your own opinion and how others would react. Look, I totally understand how people want the people they hire to "look" like a pro. It IS important to paying clients. But if your photography seperates you from the competition and the price is acceptable, then they won't care what you shoot with. If the photography is roughly the same and prices are about the same, then other issues will tip the scale one way or the other. From that standpoint, you do want to slant things in your direction as much as possible so I understand wanting a "professional looking" camera. But if that means forgoing on a better camera simply on the basis of looks, then I personally have a problem with it.
STOP! How do you know it will produce noisy pictures? It's not even in production yet. All we've seen a pre-production samples. It's totally unfair to label this camera with ANY image quality ratings as of yet.
We can comment on the look of the camera. But we can't yet comment on its image quality capabilities.
Scott Larson44967
Active member
Remember when guys used to fight over whose car was better? Friend would turn against friend over something as simple as a new car purchase. Strangers would wave at each other just because they were driving the same car. If a guy loved his car, you couldn't shut him up about it. Some guys would lose sleep from speculation over what next year's model may bring.
Aren't digital cameras way more exciting than new cars these days?
Intriguing topic, I like it.
A few one-liners to consider, from my some common subjects, e.g. love, food, and business:
"Love at first sight" (dubious, I admit)
"The eyes feast first!" (wish I knew who to attribute that to, but its true)
"First impressions..."
Check this out, too:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=1083159
-- a little thought I wrote a few days a go
Continuing...
Is this sarcastic? If so, I missed it. No offense meant, just curious. If so, though, don't bother with the rest. I am serious here, and will try to explain how I feel about this topic, as best as I can word-wise.
Here's how it'd go for me, at least (note that this is an isolated example, and, mind that I get a little more abstract.)
Don't like camera. Ugly camera.
Good specs, must buy camera -- because "(whatever)"
Buy camera -- excited, but wary, just doesn't "suit" my eyes, feel, soul,
- but, lets take pictures!
Take pictures, not too good maybe, (don't think of learning curve) Bloody, (now the FUD creeps in) did I get the right cam? maybe I should switch?
Struggle with learning - (complain about control layout). I wish this were here, and why isn't this...
FUD introduced at the outset by initial aesthetic judgement hinders development of knowledge of camera and its limts/abilities. Determination would overrule the "learning curve" problem, though it would take longer. One would get used to the unit, but the FUD is like a TSR program that is there even subconciously -- not allowing one to reach full potential. Of course, if you are a pro or are supremely self-confident, that would be overruled by confidence in self rather that need to feel inspired? comfortable by/with -- your tools.
The photograph's quality at the time of shutter release is absolute/unchanging. However what photograph is there (i.e. creative compostion) is dynamic and shaped by the photog and his "feel" for his equiptment and conditions.
Know how pro's talk about getting "in the groove" with a model -- it's the same thing-- the model becomes comfortable/trusts the photog. If the model thought the photog was repulsive (looks, mannerisms,whatever) in some way, could that "groove" develop? Maybe so, with some open-minded models, if other aspects of the photog's person (kindly temperment, for example) make up for it, but it would not be to the same level as if the model was set at ease to begin with.
Certainly not to the same extent. Some would doubless be able to eliminate the difficulty entirely. I don't know any people like that, and I'm certainly not.
Would there be any way
I think you would know yourself. It doesn't just apply to cameras. Cars and clothing are examples in their own niche way. If you had to wear a style of clothing that you hate to an important event/function/etc where you had to perform, would you be at your best? If you really can't stand the look of something, you probably would be disinclined toward purchase.
I would AT LEAST choose a camera system with a
Well, alot of people will buy clothing with a particular logo/name on them...
If you mean, say the color or typeface of the logo (as opposed to brand recognition) well, they're all pretty much designed to be rather inoffensive and bland... so as not to create that problem. Also, most of us would rule the box as inconsequential as we don't constantly interact with the box!
(or, at least, I hope not!) LOL!
Well, I'm running out of time here, so I've cut your remaining two paragraphs (though I'll comment on them later too, if you're interested...) and leave you with just a line or two more.
Again, I hope this wasn't meant as sarcastic, if so, you've either wasted your time reading this, or you've been ROTFLing!
In closing, USE WHAT YOU LIKE!
Be well! Take Pics! Enjoy Life!
F.J.
Ken Huckeba
Leading Member
Ken Huckeba
Leading Member
How strange, that's exactly how I feel! The urge is always there. I find myself dragging it around everywhere for fear that I'll miss a great shot! I never did that before.
Ken
Ken
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum