>A digital film insert to replace the film is quite ideal, but seems that
>with present technologies, it is hard to compare with a digital body.
>From technical point of view, the battery, memory, CCD ... all are
>difficult to implement on a small insert not to mention the
>communication between a conventional camera body and the digital film.
>If for the same cost, I think a digital body will provide you much
>better performance. Also, you will get some extra bonus such as 1/10000
>shutter speed, LCD payback finder and removable memory.
Granted, IMAGEK's solution isn't perfect, but it does meet my 80/20 rule.
Is a digital body better than a film insert? In a perfect world, yes.
However, that would mean carrying an extra body everywhere I go; making an
investment in another system line (you don't think Olympus will make a
OM-5Digital, do you?); and giving up all the advantages of the system I've
already built.
Do any of the affordable digital cameras (<$10000) work with my 35/shift,
200/2.8, macro equipment, OTF flash equipment (or how about external flashes
of any kind????), and take a silver-geletin analog film insert?
We pioneers (Imagek's first customers) will be taking arrows for sure and
the technology will quickly become obsolete, but I can't afford to wait much
longer for an ideal digital camera system. We have to jump on the train at
some point. However, my needs are for professional use--not necessarily for
hobby use, so I can justify the expense.
Ken N.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|