On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:34:36 -0000, Simon Worby wrote:
>Barry B. Bean wrote:
>> for
>> instance, the editorial pointed out that there' no reason a
>> digital camera needs a shutter, and made the argument that
>> there was no reason a quality LCD couldn't give a better
>> image than the mirrors we're used to in our SLRs.
>I'm afraid I think that editor is talking absolute and utter codswallop.
>Anything that gets between the eye and the subject is going to cause a
>deterioration in the image. Mirrors, lenses, and prisms don't, at least,
>alter the basic properties of the light; but digitalising it first and
>then looking at a image at massively reduced quality is (to me) just
>plain barmy.
But you are looking at what the sensor sees, and that's what you're going to
end up with. When I was in radio I learned that it didn't matter what my voice
sounded like to me, it mattered what my voice sounded like to the microphone!
That's why we used headphones on the air or when we were recording.
--
Barry B. Bean
Bean & Bean Cotton Company
Peach Orchard, MO
www.beancotton.com
www.beanformissouri.org
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|