My Favorite Digital Camera In the Whole Wide World...

[amateriat]

(Bet you didn't think I, of all people, would have one, eh?)

Galfriend's elder son (he's a Senior at Vassar this semester) came to me with an urgent request: to retrieve some important files from his iPod (with a dying hard disk) to a CD-R or someplace other than his lame 'pod (which, by modern tech terms is pretty old...my iPod Photo, the last 'Pod available with FireWire interface, is a youngster by comparison). I gave it the (ahem) college try, then hit on an old techie trick I've rarely used: I put the iPod in the freezer section of our 'fridge for about 20 minutes, since the thing was pretty warm/hot when he handed it to me. There are other details involved, but to keep a long story short, the trick worked, and he was over the moon. "If you need any favor lat me know..."

I couldn't think of anything immediately, but then I remembered something.

"Do you still have that Olympus digital with you?"

"Yeah, I do", he said, after thinking for a moment about it. "I'll bring it up."

I just wanted to borrow it for a while. I recommended it to his Dad as a gift about three years ago, and then (in a fit of enlightened self-interest) put it through its paces to make sure everything was in order.

It's a C-8080. I recommended it because it was about the only digital camera of the moment I would be caught dead shooting with, at least based on its ergonomics and specs, more-or-less in that order. I took it for a brief tour-of-duty and fell in love with it, which was somewhat unexpected. I loved the form-factor, the control layout (mostly), the reasonably-fast buffer (even shooting RAW), and the red-eye-free flash operation, with the option of off-camera flash with the conventional hot shoe. A bonus was the swiveling LCD and solid construction. Olympus never made a digital camera like this before, and, frankly, hasn't made one like it since. (Of course, neither has anyone else...and I'm including Canon's G9 here, too.)

Having the camera back in my hands after this rather long hiatus, the familiarity is comforting. When news hit about the new "mirror-less" 4/3 sensor design, the first thing that I thought of was, "Wouldn't it be cool if Olympus made a somewhat thinner version of the 8080, with a crazy-higher ISO rating?" I wasn't thinking about dSLRs because, frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about them, at all. The 8080 represented a serious digital "Third Way", where serious photography (however you care to define it) could find its way with a serious tool which broke the mold: solid, versatile, precision, but smaller, lighter, and certainly stealthier than your standard-issue Pro dSLR (which, to me, is among the more-obnoxious photographic instruments of recent times...and, no, I've never had someone smush a Speed-Graphic in my face as a child). The fact that there's a Magnum shooter using an 8080 in the field says enough for me, but I probably grokked this camera's goodness before he did. Alas, I don't shoot for Magnum...

http://mysite.verizon.net/bwbenton/Photo-mine/C8080-3.jpg
Not the latest, or with the "mostest" megapixels, yada, yada. yada. I don't #µ©%√π care.

Of course, I'm coming from the perspective of a dedicated film-shooter, and not about to change that for the near future at least (well, as long as I can buy the stuff without selling a kidney...).

And, I ask: why aren't there more (any?) digital cameras line this out there right now? The only other digicam I can stand is my little Casio EX-850. I generally dislike SLRs now, dSLRs in particular, and "pro" dSLRS, to borrow a CIA term, with extreme prejudice.

What to do with a guy like me, except shoot me? (Don't go there...)


- Barrett

[NickTrop]

The deal breakers for all digicams to me is selective focus - bokeh, etc. and 400 (and usually it's 200) and above high ISO performance. This does seem like quite a nice one for a digicam. Still like my ancient (2004) Panny FZ1v2. Only 2 megapixels but 12x zoom @ 2.8 is a nice spec. BUT same as all of them ... where's my selective focus? And 400 ISO reminds me of the "back seat" of my old Nissan NX 2000. There for show (and in the case of the car, insurance purposes) only.

Interesting you mention your dislike of DSLRs. I agree. Everytime I get tempted, there's always a deal breaker, a basic thing I think is a requisite photographic requirement I take for granted with film cameras that you can't get - or have to jump through hoops, or spend a lot of dough, that I take for granted with a film camera...

For example, I was getting tempted with the Nikon D40. Looking at them just tonight... Nice size, nice price. Hey - I think I'll slap a nice fast 50 on it. Oh - forgot. 50 = 70 in digital land. That's a portrait lens. So, I'll have to get me a fast 35 I can slap on the D40. Oh - there's hardly any sub f2 35's. Autofocus and metering is - of course, out. And Nikon mount doesn't play nice with adapters. So I guest it's that 3.5-5.6 kit zoom lens. Oh forget it. I'l stick with my basic fast 50 rangefinders...

Like I said. Always a deal breaker. If it wasn't so late, I would start a "why I hate DSLRs" thread.

[amateriat]

Nick: Here's where it gets even stranger for me: The 8080 utilized an EVF, which i've hurled invective at some years ago with other models. dSLRs, for everything I dislike about them (and their film-burning counterparts) have optical viewfinders, which theoretically for me are superior. But, save for very top-end models (Canon and Nikon single-digit series, etc.), you don't get anything approaching 100% VF accuracy. You get it with EVF, this Oly included. The EVF on this one could be better, but I can live with it (again, I'm not trashing my film-burners for it, after all, and it's not even mine...for the moment, anyway. ;)).

I grok your point about selective focus, BTW. I'm just pointing out what I strongly feel is the best of the pack in certain critical respects. Other opinions will vary.

[wallace]

Can't speak for the 8080, but I use the 5050, only 5mp but f 1.8 !!
It gives very good A4 prints. I hope that some day there will be
a rebirth of the Olympus C-line...

wallace

[sonofdanang]

I would certainly count the 8080 as an excellent camera. So does Alex Majoli. Selective focus is always a problem for small-format cameras. I used to own a Sony R1. APS-C sized sensor and a fantastic 24-120mm lens. So nearly the selective focus of a full-frame, but nothing like medium or large format. Big and bulky, though. And though the sensor is allegedly the same as what is in a lot of Nikon DSLRs, it didn't perform as well at high-ISOs as any of the Nikon bodies. Close but not as well.
Nick, I share your frustration with the FOV crop issue. I like the wide end and I occasionally use an 11-16mm with the best ratio being 2.8.

[Tuolumne]

Try the Canon G9. It's a beaut and good to about ISO 800 with Noise Ninja.

/T

[monochromejrnl]

anyone hear about the Nikon P6000? when is it hitting store shelves???

[DougK]

I'll chime in with a vote for the C-7070WZ. I've made some pretty good 11" x 14" prints with it. I only wish it had an EVF like the 8080, instead of the cheezy optical VF that it has, so that I could use it at eye level and fold in the LCD. Other than that, though, it's been a really great camera.

[sonofdanang]

As an addendum to the Sony R1, and relating to the desire for a EVF, I can't describe how little pleasure I take from using EVFs. I would rather look through an optical and use the LCD for focus confirmation. A kludgy process, but one that has its roots in the pre-M Leica VF/RF routine.

[kevin m]

The lack of selective focus isn't a problem, it's a feature.

[amateriat]

As an addendum to the Sony R1, and relating to the desire for a EVF, I can't describe how little pleasure I take from using EVFs. I would rather look through an optical and use the LCD for focus confirmation. A kludgy process, but one that has its roots in the pre-M Leica VF/RF routine.
Again, I can't say I have a lot of love for EVFs, but the alternative, as offered on nearly all would-be "prosumer" digicams, is dismal: optical VFs which are neither accurate (in framing or parallax) nor informative (no exposure or focus info other than those annoying idiot lights just outside the eyepiece). I like the fact that Casio included an optical VF on my EX-850 (it was, in fact, one of the very last models Casio made with one), because for me it's better than just having the LCD to rely on, but it ain't great. The EVF in the 8080 at least gives me edge-to-edge accuracy and pertinent in-finder info. Of course, this camera isn't my Main Axe, so that helps me deal with the EVF ever better. :)


- Barrett

[sonofdanang]

For example, I was getting tempted with the Nikon D40. Looking at them just tonight... Nice size, nice price. Hey - I think I'll slap a nice fast 50 on it. Oh - forgot. 50 = 70 in digital land. That's a portrait lens. So, I'll have to get me a fast 35 I can slap on the D40. Oh - there's hardly any sub f2 35's. Autofocus and metering is - of course, out. And Nikon mount doesn't play nice with adapters. So I guest it's that 3.5-5.6 kit zoom lens. Oh forget it. I'l stick with my basic fast 50 rangefinders...

Like I said. Always a deal breaker. If it wasn't so late, I would start a "why I hate DSLRs" thread.

Why would you want a digicam, then? I use them almost exclusively, but co-location not being causation, I don't see why you would benefit, unless it is your preference to take out the wet part of the workflow. Just curious.

[POINT OF VIEW]

I have always been a RF person, I will always be a RF person, therefor the answer is easy. The only digital RF camera in the world, that is production today the M8.

[NickTrop]

Why would you want a digicam, then? I use them almost exclusively, but co-location not being causation, I don't see why you would benefit, unless it is your preference to take out the wet part of the workflow. Just curious.

??? I never said I wanted a digicam. For a digicam, the Olympus looks like a decent one but I have absolutely zero deezire for any digicam. My post is that you're crippled by relatively low ISO capabilities with digicams and you don't have selective focus with them. The digicam I do own is 4 years old, 2 megapixels and I basically use it in place of a big zoom lens and for macros.

You can give me the highest end digicam and I doubt I would use it.

DSLRs are huge pricey affairs with slow zoom lenses typically. Bleh.

[kuzano]

Testament to the cult... Bought it used for $400, sold it two years later for $400. Now two more years and guess what they are selling for....???

If the darn things would go down in price I'd pick up another, but they are simply worth it.

Bought an e300... liked it, but not as much as the 8080. Bought and e510... but now selling that to get some money in the wallet for the Micro 4/3rds. If that doesn't match the 8080... well. Have had 2 or 3 Sony prosumers and 4 Fuji Prosumers. Can't think of one that outshot the 8080.

[Thardy]

The lack of selective focus isn't a problem, it's a feature.

Mine won't selective focus, but it will take a photo out of focus.

[sonofdanang]

??? I never said I wanted a digicam. For a ........

Of course you didn't. You used the word tempted. I understand perfectly.

[amateriat]

A few years back, I was tagged to conduct a computer/camera/Photoshop "camp" for kids. Never did this before, and I had no digital camera at the time, but I had just gotten the 8080 to "test out" for its future owner, and thought it would be ideal. But I'd barely had time to even scan the "quick-start" fold-out sheet. I shoved a 1GB CF card in the thing and ran off to hopefully engage and entertain a handful of 7-13-year-olds. In all, it worked out fine, but one of the things I promised was a mini portrait sessions with all the kids, and I wasn't into making half-baked shots. I ran through the camera's menus, held my breath, and hoped the flash wouldn't be too lousy.

I needn't have worried...

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=37566&d=1165788322

(I've shown this one before, but I like it so much...)

I've had far-worse hasty getting-to-know-you sessions with cameras in the past (an Alpa 11 seems to suddenly come to mind...). This one was almost shockingly easy. It almost seems to have that Maitani mojo happening, somehow.


- Barrett

[photomoof]

It's funny how some RFFers really stick to one camera for everything. I tend to use them as purely tools, and so they are all pretty much right for what I am doing at the moment.

I just picked up an Olympus 520, because the new Olympus Studio software lets me control and preview on my 23 inch monitor. It is such a treat -- it still takes my breath away, to look at a 23 inch preview, but you know, I can't see a tethered camera as a street shooter. :p

[sonofdanang]

62878

This is about the best you can do with the R1 - 24mm - ish f=2.8

If you want shallower dof there really isn't much you can do save but scale up the format. I occasionally use a 50mm 1.2 Nikkor which turns into a 75mm on a D40 and the dof is a little shallower. But not by much. If I want less, it's the 4x5 since I've rid myself of the 6x7.

The fact is, this is what I require in terms of selective focus in perhaps 90% of the work I do. So selective focus becomes a rather subjective issue.

[sonofdanang]

It's funny how some RFFers really stick to one camera for everything. I tend to use them as purely tools, and so they are all pretty much right for what I am doing at the moment.



Well precisely, Photomoof. Horses for courses. Hors for 'cors, to mock those that cling to the "one and only solution". And I mock very gently, I hope.

There is a wonderful quote from Ansel Adams that states something to the effect that "....the next technology is the electronic image.....artists and practitioners will have to master the limitations......" or something like that. It's true. I still shoot film, but occasionally. I usually shoot with what makes sense for a) how the work is conceived and/or b) technical/environmental restrictions.

So I use the Sony R1 (or did until I replaced it with the G9) if I'm working on film or theatre sets where quiet is paramount (forget a Leica or even a Hexar AF in stealth) or the various Nikon dSLRs (D200, D40) for situations where I can make more noise. I don't try to take underwater shots with the 4x5 :D, and I don't do landscapes with the G9. For goodness sake it (the camera) is not an object of worship!! Obviously it is for some and I would be naive to deny the existence of that component in this community. I mean no disrespect to collectors or those who enjoy a particular for its engineering or workmanship or those who truly believe that only one type of camera will do what they need it to do. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. But for me those things serve the gestalt of camera, the taking of pictures.

That said, the camera that is with me during the summer when I am on the road is a dSLR with a decent zoom and a 1.4/50 (75) Sometimes I wish I had brought the 4x5 and sometimes, on the road, in a city where I can, I will rent/borrow something to accomplish what I want. But if I can't I can make it work with any camera at hand.

[kevin m]

"Polite western society has long confused scholarship with art." - Mamet

I love that one.

With all the MFA's about, there oughta be a Sistine chapel in every town. :D

[literiter]

I love that one.

With all the MFA's about, there oughta be a Sistine chapel in every town. :D

It took my better half 30 years to get over the damage done by her MFA. She tells me it would have been better to just go out and do it than to have all that virtue imposed on her by others.

[kevin m]

It took my better half 30 years to get over the damage done by her MFA. She tells me it would have been better to just go out and do it than to have all that virtue imposed on her by others.

I don't doubt it. I went back to college full time in my mid-30's to finish my B.A., and I was honestly shocked at the politics involved in getting an M.F.A.. A historian wondering what life was like as a eunuch in the Sultan's harem could do worse than 'go undercover' by applying to an M.F.A. program. :D

My friends at SIU (Southern Illinois University) in the graduate film school program confessed that one of the big motivations for getting an M.F.A. was simply having access to the gear; sync-sound movie cameras, Steenbecks and the like. I wonder if that has changed now with video editing and computer power being so much more affordable.

[Nh3]

Nikon D40 + Sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM.

50mm, autofocus, ISO1600 in D40 is decent.


There is a setup for all those one camera one lens folks.

[sonofdanang]

I love that one.

With all the MFA's about, there oughta be a Sistine chapel in every town. :D

Kevin,
The quote is from a fantastic book by Mamet, "True and False - Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor"

Though it's targeted at the acting community, the advice is bang on for any artistic endeavor. It's a short read. The basic message is, universities produce professors, producing a body of work makes an artist.

[sonofdanang]

Nikon D40 + Sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM.

50mm, autofocus, ISO1600 in D40 is decent.


There is a setup for all those one camera one lens folks.

You are absolutely right. 1600 in RAW is very doable and producing a print from that takes about the same effort, applied differently, as any monochrome in a wet darkroom. Very doable indeed. In fact, my D40 outperforms (in terms of noise, etc) my D200 at ISO 1600. Perhaps because of the lower pixel density. Sometimes the menu systems drive me nuts ..... But I love the size.

[kevin m]

The quote is from a fantastic book by Mamet, "True and False - Heresy and Common Sense for the Actor"

I thought it sounded familiar; I have that book. :)

Another favorite (from memory) "It's probably better to subject the audience to an untutored exuberance rather than a lifeless, baseless confidence."

[sonofdanang]

I thought it sounded familiar; I have that book. :)

Another favorite (from memory) "It's probably better to subject the audience to an untutored exuberance rather than a lifeless, baseless confidence."

Yes. Baseless confidence being the operative phrase. I hear many things spouted as confidences simply because someone in authority (a prof, another photographer, or a forum guru) told them it was so. The so-called academic extension of this perversity is the citation. Something written "must have weight" because there is a citation attached. A following of citations, in dissertations/arguments/theses on the arts, may remind one of the practice of buying on margin. This borders on paranoia - fear of one's own perception.

Take more pictures, study the work of photographers that "speak" to you, and take even more pictures. Subject everything to your own scrutiny. Don't study the academic opinions of the work of other photographers - that will only inform you as to their opinion. Study painting, sculpture, and any other form by apprenticing to a working artist.

But careful, I am not speaking against the intelligentsia, or the academics, or professors. But understand clearly what you want to do. If you wish to become a professor - go to school and take that route - there's nothing wrong with it. It's very good, in fact. The best that we can hope is that out of a sense of deep learning we develop more people with higher ethics. But usually we just get more professors. And that's okay too. A little intellectual rigor would likely do us all some good.

But if you want to be a photographer, just get to work. Figure out how to operate the damn thing and then forget about it. Make pictures.

Rant over:angel:

[amateriat]

Since a few of us have been batting around Alex Majoli's name here, I thought I'd present this link (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844-7845) for those not knowing what the hubub is about. The last two paragraphs are interesting (how I wish Olympus had been listening).


- Barrett