On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> The imaging chip is probably no more than 1/2" diagonal. (The size isn't
> given in the spec sheets.) That's less than _one-third_ the diagonal of
> a 35mm frame. So your existing lenses' focal lengths are effectively
> multiplied by more than 3, and your ultra-expensive 14mm ultra-wide
> angle becomes 45mm! Wow, that's a really useful wide-angle lens. (The
> specs say nothing about the use of a fiber-optic bundle to "compress"
> the image.)
OTOH, if true, it turns that ole 300 into a whopping 900mm! (does it
retain it original max aperture ? Imagine a 900/2.8...or a very compact
and backpackable 600/4 that you can buy new for less than $400...(AIS)
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...
> In fairness, a digital SLR body _would_ be of real advantage to someone
> doing a lot of close-up work that needs to be in digital format. But
> unless Nikon introduces a reasonably fast zoom lens of (say) 8 to 32mm,
> you might just as well buy a non-interchangeable lens digital camera --
> and THROW IT AWAY when it becomes obsolete.
Ewwww, such anti-techno invective...:-) you forget the zillions of PJs
that use digital cameras every day. I agree that the multiplier factor
(if true) is a big problem, but may have some advantages for others.
> And it _will_ become obsolete.
In 550 days or so, odds are...
> When 4 Mpel and 8Mpel chips become
> available, will Nikon offer an upgrade to the SLR? (Nikon will hopefully
> have the sense to design the camera so that imaging chips can be
> interchanged simply by changing the back.) If they don't, you'll have to
> sell it at a big loss.
Just like that $4k computer/scanner/printer one bought back in July of
'97. Rapid supercession is the norm for today's hardware. These things
have the shelf life of an orchid by comparison to older cameras.
> A digital SLR that takes _existing_ interchangeable lenses will only
> "make sense" when the imaging chip is (at the very least) 1/2 the size
> of 35mm film (12mmx18mm) -- and preferably larger. And the chip should
> have enough pixels to give film-like resolution for an 8x12 enlargement.
Well, one man's "sense" is someone else's nonsense. In certain fields
there's no need for an 8x12 "film-like" resolution. Newspaper
journalism, website publishing, newsletters, some advertising to name a
few, and digital cameras (with a fraction of Kodachrome's 360mb)
info are in everyday use. Think of it as the 8x10 thing. Not everyone
needs one...
*= Doris Fang =*
< 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 >
|