>
>
>From: Chris Barker <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [OM] DSLRs, was OT language stuff again
>Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:10:37 +0000
><SNIP>
I have to agree with Winsor...you seem off your feed, Chris...
>OM content (warning, polemic): the DSLRs that I see are little better
>than point and shoots, given all the restrictions that the sensor
>places on their low light capability.
Low light capability? Huh? Wha??? My 1D can shoot with an equivalent
ISO of 1600; the new Mark II is rated to ISO 3200. The noise on the
new Mark II is so *low* that pros at Rob Galbraith and
SportsShooter.com are saying that images at ISO 1600 looks like ISO
400 and ISO 800 looks like ISO 100 on previous generation cameras.
Furthermore, I'd like to see you change ISO from frame to frame on
your OM-1 and have all the photos come out correctly.
>We on the List have long ranted
>against 'wunderbricks', but what we are being presented with are just
>that: clumsy, limited in exposure range, dependent upon batteries of
>limited life, providing flawed reproduction of certain scenes (high
>contrast edges, deep shadows) and slow to use.
Chris, I'm sorry, but you clearly have not used a current D-SLR for
any length of time (enough to produce a meaningful amount of work
from one).
Limited in exposure range? Clumsy? Flawed reproduction of certain scenes?
As I said before, the sensitivity of DSLRs rival and likely surpasses
that of film cameras, in addition to the flexibility of changing ISO
on the fly as the need arises. Moreover, the color accuracy and
purity is better. My D-SLRs are much better thought out than my
OM-1s, and easier to use. As for flawed reproduction of certain
scenes, go download the sample images from Canon's web site for the
1D Mark II, or look at the work on Luminous Landscape or Fred
Miranda. Or for that matter, Nat'l Geographic or Sports Illustrated.
Beautiful, beautiful work; John Paul Caponigro's comes to mind as
well. Not to mention how your learning curve goes straight up with
digital; the instant feedback translates immediately into improved
learning and higher quality results.
> In addition, we are
>told that the lenses for the SLRs have to be specially designed, the
>shorter focal lengths are subject to a disadvantageous magnification
>factor and dust has to be eliminated with increasingly complex devices.
Wrong again. Look at the no. of pros using legacy Canon lenses with
superlative results. As for dust, with CMOS sensors, dust is hardly
an issue. I've had to clean the sensor on my D60 just once in over a
year and that's with swapping lenses frequently while traipsing over
hill and dale in the tall grass and ticks that comprise the roadrace
tracks in Northern California. Other friends have never had to clean
theirs. Ever pull an old slide out of the drawer and spend 15 minutes
dusting it before printing or scanning it?
> Finally, because the sensor sizes that we can afford are small, we are
>talking of using software to increase our file sizes for reproduction.
>We are being led down a garden path beset with thorns ladies and
>gentlemen. The DSLRS are gadgets, pretty gadgets I grant you (and I
>love gadgets), but gadgets nonetheless.
This is just completely incorrect. These are superb tools for
delivering the goods. You should go rent a 10D or 1D or an E-1 for a
week. That would change your mind. This is why Stephen Eastwood, Paul
Pope, Douglas Dubler (who uses an E-1), Greg Gorman, Jay Maisel,
Peter Read Miller, David Hume Kennerly, Graham Nash, Bill Atkinson,
and many, many, many other pros haved moved or are moving to digital
faster than you can shake a stick. The bottom line is image quality,
productivity and profit. Go to the media center of any sporting
event, and my best guess is that *maybe* 10% of the photographers
there are still shooting film. I think I was reading something
somewhere that 85% of 65,000 photos submitted by photojournalists for
the Reuters "Photo of the Year" submissions were digital.
There is very little future for film (especially 35 mm film) as a
photographic medium. It will be relegated to fine art. the ever
dwindling no. of legacy users, and limited commercial applications,
and even that percentage is dwindling every year.
-Stephen.
--
2001 CBR600F4i - Fantastic!
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|