>> I expect that still camera's will still be around altho it seems like
>> Video
>> Camera's and even camera phones are making strides.
Looking at the developments in photography, few have increased quality.
After the early years, b&w settled into two main areas, sheet film and roll
film, for view cameras and box cameras. Anyone that has held and printed a
box brownie neg will agree, under normal outdoor conditions, the results are
remarkable, especially considering the lenses. The 4x5 film shot by news
photographers using speed graphics and the like as also of outstanding
quality.
As "improvements" moved at a fast pace starting in the fifties, the TLR
replaced the speed graphic in newsrooms and, as they became more affordable,
in the hands of many amateurs. Through advances in lens design and coating
and film emulsions, the small loss in quality was offset by the improved
handling.
The 35mm camera became king next, and if I were shooting for a newspaper, I
would be as happy. Still, there is an obvious difference between a print
from a 2 1/4 negative and a 35. As all this was going on, the amateur world
"advanced" to other, smaller formats and cameras that lacked better lenses,
and the results are obvious.
All this shows that in general, quality is the last reason for change.
Looking at the long picture, pictures don't look so good.
I don't see anyone saying that they are using camcorders for the quality.
Although they may allow more creative use of the camera, the results are
still relatively low res.
Although I agree with Schnozz that the E1 has enough megapixels for
weddings, portraits and the like, I don't think 5 does the trick for
commercial and industrial work where resolution of fine detail is necessary.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|