I didn't mean it to sound negative! I was hoping it would sound neutral.
It's a fairly radical change for most of us, and for those for whom "the
decisive moment" is a goal, probably is negative. The real conceptual problem I
have is that the manufacturers of storage and cameras would eventually get to
the "why choose the frame?" question, and then you really are left with a high
- res video camera, which does rub a little the wrong way.
The benefits of potential size and weight, plus the ability to throw off the
shackles of traditional design would provide a strong positive.
Once you go down this route, you can forget flash sync issues. You can stop
making the sensors flat, and therefore allow them to contribute to the solution
of the optical problems rather than contributing to the problems themselves.
You can even forget about correcting distortion in the lens, and leave that to
the computers. In effect you can produce a synthetic (MK2?) eyeball.
But will it have soul?
Julian
> from: Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 09:33:29
> to: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> subject: Re: [OM] E-1 first impressions
>
> Skip Williams wrote:
>
> >I looked at about 10 pro-sumer cameras at Photo Plus in NYC this weekend
> >that had electronic finders and the view in ALL OF THEM WERE HORRIBLE!
> >
> >Weird colors, slow response time, poor resolution....I hated them
> >
> >Give me the SLR finder any day.
> >
> I did say "In the long run." and "Sure they are crummy today". And
> indeed you confirmed that they aren't any good today. I was making a
> little speculative prediction about the future of camera technology. The
> technology of digital imaging is very far from mature.
>
> >
> >I believe that most of the digital SLR's don't have live image capabilities
> >on the back LCD. It's only for image review and playback.
> >
> Well of course they don't, there is a mirror in the way, and probably a
> mechanical shutter too. I'm talking future technology, where, as Julian
> says "Once you get there, you have a high res video camera,
> and all you're doing is choosing the frame to store." The way he says it
> somehow makes it sound like a bad thing, but it sounds like a good thing
> to me. The idea of a camera with TTL viewfinder (at least as good as
> current optical finders, or there is no point), but no size, cost,
> noise, vibration and weight burdens from mechanical shutter and mirror
> assemblies, pentaprism, screen, etc., sounds quite attractive to me.
>
> Please don't anybody tell me why it can't be done with current
> technology, I know that. Back in the mid 60's, I conceptually designed
> the digital quartz crystal watch. My brother the techie electronics
> wizard poo-pooed it on the basis of then current technology and what he
> could imagine in the forseeable future. You can bet there is a lot of
> research going on along these lines because of the potential cost and
> performance advantages.
>
> Oh yeah, then you can do short focal lengths without retrofocus; better
> performance, less money. smaller, lighter. Notice that Can*n already had
> to redesign the mirror action in the 300D to accomodate optical needs.
> You don't think they are thinking these kind of thoughts?
>
> Moose
>
>
>
> < 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 >
|