Rob Harrison wrote:
> On 9/5/06 9:44 AM, "Jeff Keller" <jrk_om@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>> If
>> the OM had approached the marketplace with that attitude, there would
>> probably be a lot of people on this list that never would have bought OMs.
>>
>
> Yep. _Exactly_ why I traded in my SRT-101 for my OM-1md at 47th Street Photo
> in 1976....
>
And why my Nikon F went away in favor of an OM-1 in '73 (or was it '74?)
> When someone makes an AF compact dSLR camera with the basically perfect
> control interface of my Ricoh GR-1v I'll be all over it.
>
> Now there's a company that thinks about how photographers actually use a
> camera. I'm sorely tempted by the GR-Digital.
I was disappointed, surely they could have found a better sensor system.
So many good things, even RAW, and then "High noise levels at all ISO
settings, noise visible even at ISO 64" NOBODY should be introducing a
new camera with visible noise at iso 200, let alone at 64.
> Maybe combined with a F30 for low light/indoors....
>
> Which leads me to another OT ramble... I think someone here in fact (Moose
> probably...) brought up the idea of digital camera as the film. (the
> sensor/processing part of the camera anyway, which is probably more of a
> determinant of image quality than lens at this point?)
I'm sure I didn't go that far!
> What we're trying to
> do here is make one film cover all situations. So we gripe about how bad
> Delta 100 is in low light instead of just loading up a roll of FP4.....
>
Interesting idea, although the F30 has no visible noise at 200 and none
that can be seen at less than full pixel at 400, so the purpose would be
for the ergonomics of the other camera, not its sensor.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|