Thanks for all of that information, Moose; it is very helpful as I weigh
whether or not to jump into straight-up digital photography. Of course you are
perfectly correct in noting that it is the end results of the camera's imaging
ability, and not what it should or could or might be able to do given its use
of a particular type of sensor. What I know at present about CCD's versus MOS
sensors is really only enough to orient myself within the general discussion;
so specific information is always welcome.
"So I have my fingers crossed that Panny has made some kind of serious
improvement, both for the E-410/510 and the Panny TZ-3. Unfortunately,
the TZ-3 probably has the same sensor technology as the SP-550 and the
usual Venus III engine smear tactics as a way to cover noise and
obliterate subtle detail. I think Panny NR is an attempt at a tribute
to Monet."
Moose
I like Monet quite a bit; I wouldn't mind a camera with a "Monet" preset next
to the "Macro" setting. But I know what you mean; and, I have concluded that
the problem here lies in the fact that someone involved with the development of
digital imaging decided that MOST people who buy digital cameras are not
looking to produce images that accurately capture the scene they were taken
of... MOST people are only looking for digital images that 'look like
photographs'. Thus, the standard has shifted; from "as life-like as is
possible", to, "a semblance of a representation".
John M.
John Morton
http://OriginOfWriting.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|