Of course, I don't think that problem exists in the SLR cameras with digital
backs (Fujix, Nikon, Minolta, and Canon all have "normal" slr bodies
grafted to a digital back). Besides, the ultra short lenses are usually
found on the low-end consumer models, which are sold as E-mail and
web picture cameras. The market at which these cameras are aimed
probably would not include anyone who knows what depth-of-field is.
>>> "Bau Struye" <Bau.Struye@xxxxxxxxxx> 07/09/99 12:53pm >>>
I read somewhere that since the digital cameras use shorter lenses
(starting
around 6mm, I think), their depth of field is MUCH greater.
Unless one is doing macro work, this would seem to be a big
disadvantage to me
since using depth of field obviously gives you a tremendous creative tool
for
isolating subjects etc...
Can anyone comment on the depth of field differences between digital
and film?
On the positive side, the one picture I saw of the 2500 (on John's web
site)
looks like Olympus may finally give us a digital tool that looks and possibly
feels much more like a solid modern day OM setup. Does anyone know if
there is
a web site with more info on that new camera? Has anyone even used
it?
Thanks a lot
Bau Struye, Los Angeles, CA.
--
---------------------------------------------
Baudouin Struye bstruye@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Walt Disney Feature Animation - Burbank
(818)526-3216
---------------------------------------------
< 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 >
< 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 >
|