Friday, March 23, 2012

This is what a camera looks like

I'll tell ya sommin that it seems only Fuji and Olympus have become aware of: there's a pretty big demographic, those of us who photographed before 1980, who miss their Real Cameras.
Today's plastic Wunders are not machines, they are blobs.
And that, apart from good performance, is what will make the new Olympus OM-D sell like hotcakes to old-timers:

to us, this is a camera: 


to us, this is not a camera. It doesn't look serious: 

(Obviously, performance is irrelevant to this emotional stance, most of those blobs are actually amazing cameras.) 

My collection of vintage metal cameras in my living room testifies to this love affair. And now somebody has finally, after over a decade, realized that there is a solid niche there, and I can get the best of both worlds, my metal-addiction scratched and very good  digital performance, in the same machine.
And I'll bet it's not just old-timers either, I'll bet many younger people have an affinity for solid machined metal, rather than Fisher-Price toys, even if they are black and heavy.

posted by Eolake Stobblehouse @ Friday, March 23, 2012   22 comments links to this post

22 Comments:

At 23 Mar 2012 20:39:00, Blogger Timo Lehtinen said...

Yes, I agree completely. And not just cameras but apparently all electric consumer products have become blobs! Dish washers, clothes irons, kettles, ...

Yes, even electric kettles are now blobs! Your only choice is to try to score a used Russell Hobbs K2 from eBay, or, barring that, get a Burco. Otherwise you're in blobland for good! And making tea with a blob is not the way you'll want to live your life.

This madness has been going on for too long. Good to see Olympus coming to the rescue here.

 
At 23 Mar 2012 21:04:00, Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...

making tea with a blob is not the way you'll want to live your life.

Certainly not! Suicide before that!

(The Kenwood SKM100 is nice.)

Oddity: I googled Russell Hobbs K2, but did not yet click on any link. Then I went to Amazon UK, and right there on my customized front page was Russell Hobbs (filters) prominently along with the things I'd looked at recently on Amazon. How did they know??

 
At 23 Mar 2012 21:20:00, Blogger Timo Lehtinen said...

Could it be that Amazon is inspecting the Referer[sic] field in the HTTP header, and seeing that you came from a Google SERP for XYZ they quickly arrange for XYZ to be featured on their landing page? Very savvy, if they are indeed doing that.

 
At 23 Mar 2012 21:21:00, Blogger Alex said...

You think you have problems! What about cars, we are now past when everything looked like a Corolla but most everything else seems to be becoming a Prius.

As for cameras, I started with a Ricoh XR-P which was at the onset of early blackiness blobbiness, so I still think or my D70 as camera shaped, and very much so.

It's all these little p'n's cameras that I don't hold store with, a 3.5" TV on the viewfinder side, and on the lens side - plane fave, but with a tiny lens which looks like the lamentably missing viewfinder.

 
At 23 Mar 2012 21:37:00, Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Timo, it has to be even "cleverer" (insidious?) than that, because I never clicked on a link on that google page! I didn't even look at it, saving it for later. Then I opened a new window and went to Amazon UK.
So I guess google must have sent a ping to Amazon's server that one of their products came up in a search result, and a cookie followed me to Amazon.

 
At 23 Mar 2012 22:16:00, Blogger Timo Lehtinen said...

Hmm ... I doubt they are doing any deliberate pinging. But there might have been some other insidious way you got tracked.

There are some very sneaky ways to use JavaScript to access the browsing history. But I would be surprised if Amazon did something like that, because it's pretty sinister hacking.

Are you perhaps running some browser extension that could be the culprit? Alexa toolbar maybe?

 
At 23 Mar 2012 22:20:00, Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Ah, good point. I am using "Invisible Hand", instant price comparison software, a yellow toolbar. (Despite the color, I'd almost forgotten about it.)

 
At 23 Mar 2012 22:39:00, Blogger Timo Lehtinen said...

Never heard of that one. But it's certainly possible that it leaks this info to Amazon, either deliberately or as a side effect.

 
At 24 Mar 2012 01:14:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your only choice is to try to score a used Russell Hobbs K2 from eBay, or, barring that, get a Burco.

Or avoid them altogether since only hillbillies use electric kettles.

 
At 24 Mar 2012 09:52:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eolake,
Could you give us a list of your cameras and a few comments on the ones you use?
Thanks,
John

 
At 24 Mar 2012 18:47:00, Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...

John,
Would love to, but that would be a very big project! There are so many subtle aspects to consider.

But;
1) Canon S100, one of the best take-everywhere cams.

2) Fujifilm X10, compact and excellent all-rounder with fixed, fast zoom.

3) Micro Four Thirds, a powerful and compact system with exchangable lenses. Now I would go with Olympus because their autofocus has gotten really good, and they have in-body stabilization (so it works with all lenses, not true of Panasonic).

4) Bigger than that, it's all good, depends upon what kinds of lenses you need.

 
At 25 Mar 2012 20:46:00, Anonymous Dave Nielsen said...

I'd actually kind of like a very high quality digital version of the Rolleiflex. I like the kind of view you get with it, the square pix, and the fact that - according to people who've used one - it's easier for street photography because you can take pictures without people necessarily being aware of what you're doing. Having to put it up to your eye puts some people off.

I think there might be a cheapo version of it out there but not digital. I wonder if there's any demand for something like that. I'd want it in color, though, as b/w these days just seems pretentious.

 
At 26 Mar 2012 07:30:00, Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...

"according to people who've used one - it's easier for street photography because you can take pictures without people necessarily being aware of what you're doing. Having to put it up to your eye puts some people off."

I feel that way too.
The same with tilt-able-screen cameras like the Olympus Pen Lite.
It's definitely more confrontational to hide your face and point a big glass eye at people.

Some people find it "unprofessional" to compose on a screen because early on only amateur cameras had that. But that's just an emotional attitude, and one which cuts them off from freeing the camera from the eye-level.

 
At 27 Mar 2012 01:53:00, Blogger Seth Armstrong said...

The same with tilt-able-screen cameras like the Olympus Pen Lite.

I like the look of this camera, the tiltable screen seems very cool. Kind of expensive but not I guess to you since you probably own a lot of expensive cameras.

 
At 27 Mar 2012 02:07:00, Blogger Seth Armstrong said...

P.S. I recently saw a documentary called Eloquent Nude about the photographer Edward Weston and writer Charis Wilson. Quite good. If you're interested you can buy it here. Youtube has a teaser clip here.

 
At 27 Mar 2012 08:06:00, Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Thank you for the tip, I'll have a look. Weston was a very fine photographer, he was one of the few who really sees the picture rather than the subject.

 
At 27 Mar 2012 13:39:00, Anonymous Dave Nielsen said...

since you probably own a lot of expensive cameras.

Yes, I'd say so. :-)

 
At 27 Mar 2012 13:58:00, Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...

More than most, less than some. Ever read on Luminous Landscape. Mike R has lottes and lottes of Leicas and Hasselblads, etc etc. He is my Guilt Shield.

 
At 27 Mar 2012 15:49:00, Anonymous Dave Nielsen said...

To put it in perspective look up "Collectable Spectacle" on Youtube. I'd say spending money on cameras is a lot better than on G.I. Joes. ;-)

 
At 27 Mar 2012 16:15:00, Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...

I saw a TV "reality" show about Tamara, daughter of Formula1 billionaire Bernie Ecclestone. She owns about 12 near-identical leather handbags (same form, different colors), each bought for over 30,000 dollars.

 
At 29 Mar 2012 14:21:00, Anonymous Dave Nielsen said...

I actually watched the whole thing, and there's another one about this dude with a smaller but still very large, impressive (in a way) collection. I guess it's better than spending money on crack.

 
At 29 Mar 2012 18:45:00, Blogger Eolake Stobblehouse said...

Yah. Not illegal, won't kill ya, and you might even get your money back or more if you're lucky.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Website Counter