It seems thay many on the list share my views about the digital future
of photography as we'd like to practise it.
To sum up:
We'll only be happy with it when we can afford a 6+ megapixel camera
that will take interchangeable lenses and store lots of pictures.
A CCD that size is likely to be about the same size as a 35mm frame, so
the focal lengths and optical performance will have to be about the same
as we're used to getting from our 35mm kit.
Therefore, it would be good if we could pop our existing lenses onto a
new digital body.
I'd further observe that, IMO, putting a digital back onto an existing
OM body, or using a digital "film cassette" gadget is a dead end, and
here's why.
The 35mm SLR is a prime example of the "form follows function" design
philosopy - it has a lens mount roughly in the middle so there's room
for the film cassette at one side of the body and room for the take-up
spool, winding & shutter release mechanisms and battery compartment at
the other side; that big lump at the top follows the shape of the prism
underneath, which *has* to be that shape to do its job; the body is as
deep as it is because you need a chamber with a mirror in it that's big
enough to reflect a focused image onto the screen, which also has to be
the size of a 35mm frame.
A digital camera needs none of those things. You still need a chamber
with an image sensor at the back, but the storage device doesn't need to
have a specific location in relation to that, unlike film. Likewise,
the "viewfinder" could (should) be an LCD screen which could also be
located anywhere, either viewed directly or through a pop-up mirror &
lens arrangement (reversing the image appropriately shouldn't be
difficult to do electronically). It will need a much larger battery
compartment.
What I'm getting at here is that in order to work properly, from an
ergonomic & technical point of view, our hypothetical digital 35mm
replacement should be designed as a digital body, not somehow adapted
from a camera designed to use film. Since it still uses light to make
an image, though, there's no reason to change the optical part of
the system. Not yet, anyway. Our hypothetical body has no need for a
mirror, so there's no reason why future lens designs, using the same
mount, should not have protruding rear elements, which will make
designing compact fast wide-angle lenses easier.
I'll give it 2 years before the technology is available (if it's not
already) and another 3 after that before mere mortals who subsists on
the cast-off -1s & -2(S)s of others can think about getting one.
--
________________________________________________________________________
* | |
| / | |/-\ | Ian A. Nichols |
| | | | | | |
| \-/| | / | i.a.nichols@xxxxxxxxxx |
| * iann@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|