Well, perhaps my earlier post on this subject was a bit of an
over-reaction. Having read everyone's opinions and information and
reflected on things I will speak again, in a calmer and more rational
way :)
So there are two philosophies for film-based manufacturers moving into
digital. One is to keep things compatible with the film-based systems,
the other is to design a new system around the new technology. My whole
rant was provoked when I discovered that the N**** D1X takes the same
lenses as film-based N****s, which seemed to me to be by far the best
way of going about things. I do agree that as Olympus really stopped
supporting the OM line a long time ago it makes more sense for them now
to develop a new system. But what fools they were for letting the OMs
drop by the wayside!
The future: I do think that chip sizes will have to get larger. There
is still way more data in, say, a Velvia slide than you get out of even
top end digitals. 4000dpi scanner = 20Mpix output. Digital needs
60Mpix to match that in colour. Pixel sizes could be made smaller, but
if pixels are less than half the size of the lens resolution you don't
get any more information out (so if your lens resolves 60lpm, each
'line' being a black line and a white line, then any more than 240
pixels per mm is a waste of pixels: 4.2 micron pixels). 35mm film is a
compromise between image quality and camera flexibility, and I think
digital cameras will have to tend towards a similar format.
Incidentally, one post mentioned that CCDs have entirely superceded film
in astronomy. Almost true, but not quite. Although highly linear
response, large dynamic range, high quantum sensitivity and a wide range
of wavelength sensitivity are attributes much prized by astronomers,
there are still some applications where film is used. A recent survey
searching for planetary nebulae used Tech Pan film, simply because it
comes in a much much bigger format than even the very largest CCDs. The
survey has already discovered 700 new nebulae (about 1500 were known
previously). So in astronomy as well larger chips would be desirable.
Whatever happens, let's hope that Olympus innovates and improves and
comes up with a world beater!
Roger
Roger Wesson wrote:
>
> ClassicVW@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > Here's the main paragraph of the Photo Industry Reporter article. The
> > new interchangeable-lens digital SLR *will not* use existing Olympus
> > lenses....
> >
>
> This INFURIATES me! Why on earth would it not? If you really do need
> different optical technology for digital as opposed to film use (and I
> am not sufficiently informed to know why this is. In astronomy, there
> was no need to build masses of new telescopes when CCDs began to replace
> film 10-15 years ago) you could at least use the same mount as the old
> lenses. The Nikon D1X can use Nikkor lenses made in the 50s, and this
> doesn't seem to have affected its reputation for producing high quality
> images. I've never seen a review that didn't drool over it.
>
> Is this just Olympus wanting to force us all to buy entirely new kit if
> we should want to go digital? If so, then that's the kind of thing
> that'd make me want to switch to another less cynical manufacturer (if I
> didn't have an irrational and unshakable affection for Olympus cameras).
>
> Right, done with ranting for now...
>
> Roger
>
> < 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 >
|