> If Sports Illustrated is the poster child for high-end
> imaging...
There were, at least...
Can we make an assumption here that most sports
> photography is done with Canon cameras? Well, since Canon
> cameras are used for most of the images in Sports Illustrated,
> then I think that Canan Cameras take absolutely hideous
> pictures.
My resistance to their cameras comes from two things. First, I shoot mainly
wide angles, and Canon is a bit weaker there. Second, there is great truth
that processing the image as it comes off the chip is very, very important.
Canon has taken a particular route that at one time was considered
offfensive to many on this list (remember the plastic skin threads?), but
now has become acceptable. Is the skin less plastic, or have tastes changed?
. This has nothing to do with scaling, but
> everything to do with moronic editing and pre-press.
Certainly possible.
I continue to be depressed by the apparent lack of commerical direction in
the Olympus digital line. If the E whatever doesn't come out soon, and with
something dramatic, I predict a bad outcome.
Is anyone courious about the new Pentax? It seems that it could be very near
where Olympus should be. Will it pan out?
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|