Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 14:55:54 +0800
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: olympus-digest V2 #3788
<snip>
I have tried Minolta Scan Speed, the once top of the line Minolta scanner
which was in the same age of my LS2000, the color accuracy of the Minolta
was not as good for slide. Two years ago I had exchange my LS2000 with my
friend's (who is a professional landscape photographer) Minolta Scan Speed
for two weeks, he was not happy with the color saturation of his Minolta and
I was not happy with the resolution of my LS2000, but finally we both not
satisfy with deal and switched back.
C.H.,
I don't think its meaningful to compare your experience of the Scan
Speed to the current line of Minolta scanners. These are older
scanners that are well out of production; such statements comparing
to their performance to the current line of scanners e.g. the Dimage
Scan Elite II or the Dimage III is not a fair comparison. You're
assuming that a Mfr. can cannot improve the overall performance of
their products relative to their competition. This is not to say the
Nikon LS4000 you have is not a terrific scanner, it is; you get what
you pay for. But the Minolta Scan Elite II is a better scanner than
the Nikon Coolscan IV ED.
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2003 14:43:18 -0500
From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] The coming generation of 35mm CCD digital cameras
I just read the February 2003 issue of Outdoor Photographer.
<snip>
It's interesting that CMOS sensors are used, not CCDs. CMOS and CCD
are different kinds of integrated chip designs. Semiconductor
memory chips are CMOS, and CMOS optical sensors are based on memory
chips. The difference is that while CMOS sensors are easier to make
in large physical chip and pixel-count sizes, their optical
performance (especially noise) traditionally isn't nearly as good as
CCDs. Apparently, the art of making CMOS sensors has progressed to
the point of practicality in photography, although CCDs still reign
in scientific applications.
What you say may have true traditionally, but it is no longer with
the current state of the art for CMOS D-SLR sensors. The reason that
these mfr's are using CMOS is because they NOW perform BETTER than
CCD's. The propriety CMOS sensors that Canon developed for their
D-SLRs are reknown both for their image quality AND their low noise;
considerably lower than CCD's. Moreover, they consume considerably
less power, and therefore make their batteries last longer.
<SNIP>
long-term reliability of a $2-3000 body=2E =20
Personally, I don't want to re-buy that DSLR puppy ever few years. So I
I've stayed with a pro-sumer camera (Canon G2), which is perfect for me. I
use my Leicas for much of my family stuff, which are superior for available
light, quick action photography to any SLR or digital camera. The OM's
do duty for most everything else and a Contax T2 or the Canon G2 handles the
take-everywhere P&S duties.
Skip
Skip,
The G2 is a beautiful camera...I would really like to have of those
beauties. A freind and high school classmate has one and is stunned
by the image quality from the T* lenses (not that I'm surprised
having owned my T3 for the better part of a year now).
--
2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
< 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 >
|