I was talking to my friend, the one that got me into photography in the
first place, he's an aerospace engineer. We talked about the irony of
the digital age.
"The ultimate goal of digital, is to replicate analog." Isn't that
ironic?? CD's goals are to sound like an analog signal, and digital
picture's goals are to look like an analog picture. So if I have analog
already, why do I want digital??
Albert
Mike Veglia wrote:
In a message dated 9/25/2002 Tom Scales writes:
<< Problem solved. >>
Not quite. Many I talk to at the track who are using latest greatest DSLRs
don't trust, and don't use, microdrives. While storage capacity is ever
increasing at a lower cost, even Firewire and USB II take a fair bit of time
to transfer 20MB image files, especially when moving several hundred at a
time. In reading the specs on the new Can*n I noticed it is only capable of
3 frames per second. While I would call this acceptable, because of my
shooting style, most I know would not in sports photography--they want that
7-10fps blazing "speed" (I guess they like spending time editing more than
taking care to time their release and compose in the first place ;-)...).
Kod*k states in their press release that their mondo-pixel wonder is
intended for studio and wedding type work.
The technology in high end DSLRs will certainly push storage to become
smaller, faster, and more reliable...but the "problems" are far from solved.
(Film solves them all very nicely still though ;-)...)
I can see DSLRs for field sports and press use hovering in the 5-7 megapixel
ballpark for a while. Speed, low light capability, and noise reduction will
be areas of more meaningful advancement (problem is, the Marketeers have
gotton ahold of "MEGApixels" and anything "mega" has got to be good so more
must be better). A whole bunch of work has been published by folks using ~3
megapixel Can*n D30s after all. The money they made is what bought the
latest crop of 1Ds flying off the shelves. Alot of people still make money
with D30s.
If by "late Spring" next year Olympus can deliver a semi-compact and robust
DSLR body with a basic assortment of fast glass that is half the size of the
competition for a given focal length, and this system produces results
comparable to, or even better than, the competition for a lower cost (it
certainly costs less to make a 300/2.8 that functions like a 600/2.8 for
35mm than it does to make a 500 or 600 f4, not to mention that it is faster
and potentially sharper). If other camera makers embrace this new open
lensmount (hello Minolta and Pentax--the door just went wide open for you to
come back to the professional market along with Olympus) it could be the way
of the future still. Admittedly, alot of "ifs" and Olympus does have a tough
row to hoe. At this point working pros are adamant that they'll never give
up their enormous investments in 35mm legacy glass and are demanding full
frame bodies. However, if something smaller and lighter comes along that
_gets better results_ many will see that advantage and embrace the new. I
can almost see it being like the new 4/3 systems being the "35mm of digital"
and the full frame (35mm) systems becoming the "Medium Format of digital."
Fun to talk about and speculate. I haven't given up hope (on Olympus) but I
can't put my money where my mouth is anyway, cuz I don't have any extra
OMoney right now anyway ;-)
Mike Veglia
Motor Sport Visions Photography
http://www.motorsportvisions.com
< 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 >
|