Elton John©Kirk Tuck 2005.
I was asked to come along and take photos of Sir Elton John with Andy, and his friends and family, (not for public display) and also to cover the dinner and concert for the 250 people attending.
The camera I was using at the time was the Olympus E-1 and the lens was an Olympus 14-54mm. So, about 5 megapixels of resolution with an older CCD sensor. Should have been a noise machine; right? But we didn't know any better back then so I persevered. We also read a lot of stuff on the early web about how hard it was to do flash with digital cameras in 2004-2005 but most of us found that using manual settings made short work of good exposures with flash...
Of course, I would love to be able to send back a couple of current cameras in a time machine so my younger and handsomer self could make great use of those ISO "invariant" Sony sensors everyone seems to gush about. But I can't currently afford even a Sears time machine so I'll just have to be happy that the images came out, were well used, and assisted the Foundation with their fundraising goals.
Rick Perry was there too, but that's another story. He sure look groovy in his black turtleneck shirt...
Sometimes you just have to use the camera you have on hand. Waiting for the future is too expensive.
7 comments:
My theory has always been it’s the “shot” that counts not the nvecessary the equipment.
You were using the E-1 and those great 4/3s lenses when I first started following your blog.
When I first joined the Digital Wedding Forum in 2004, people were bragging about the great 30x40 prints they were making with their 4-megapixel Nikon D2H and Canon 1D cameras.
I made some of my best photos with the 12-megapixel original Canon 5D. I don't get excited much about the megapixel race.
I'm still using an E1 to this day. In the right light (e.g. overcast days with limited scene contrast) it still delivers the most beautiful colors.
Resolution speaks to the brain, colours speak to the heart. :-)
You posted that photo some time in the past, and I didn’t pay too much attention then. But now... I recently acquired an E-1, and have used it with various 4/3 lenses, 11-22, the macros, the 14-54, 50-200 and 150, and I can say there is much to admire in it. Fits the sufficiency philosophy. With a rock solid build, size and heft, and rich Kodak CCD colors. I find nothing to quibble over when virtually all my photo viewing, as well as all friends and relatives viewing, is on tablets and laptops. So, I added an E-300 and 500 for their Kodak sensors, at yard sale prices. Haven’t tried any flash yet, but these cameras are for good light conditions, low ISO since there’s no IS. In those conditions they are a pleasure to use. And who can ask for more from a Hobby than to be pleased?
Of course those Olympus cameras and others with the Kodak CCD sensors were completely useable. The original 4/3 lenses were excellent, better than many of the recent cleapo kit zooms. It is only the "experts" on the big photo review site that go on and on with the doodoo about megapixels, dynamic range, ISO of 125,000, etc.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the camera very often found in oral and maxillo-facial departments, was an Olympus OM2 with macro lens and ring flash. I had my own OM2 with Vivitar 55mm macro, which goes to 1:1 (better than the OM which was 1:2) and T10 ring flash.
Come the digital age, I bought a new E-1 in 2006 in a 'close-out' sale and mated up the old Vivitar macro and T10 flash with an Olympus OM to 4/3 adapter. And although I now have a Canon FF with 100mm macro and Yongnuo flash, it's the E-1 that I use most often. Lovely colours and great JPEGs.
The best camera, the one you have. It's not the pixels that count, it's the picture as you figured long, long ago.
Post a Comment