Ken Norton wrote:
> Before we digress into a Canon or plastics bashing I must say that the image
> quality from some of these new "plastic" lenses is awefully good. They
> definitely ain't the stuff of 10 years ago. Infact, I'd say that the lack
> of visable abberations or murkiness of these lenses is superior to many of
> our cherished proven lenses of the 70's. It just gripes me that you can't
> get a true 2.8 lens anymore.
It was exactly visible aberations, what let the picure look realy bad.
The pullover of the girl looked as if it was in flames. Nice orange
light from the white pullover into the dark background, you should look
for the examples.
> Usability in some applications can be tough with these new cameras.
> Checking DOF for instance isn't even available on most models.
There was a thread in the newsgroups "How much is a DOF button?", I
would say not more than 10 cents for C*n*n and M*n*l*a.
> Part of the problem is that we are trying to use old techniques with new
> technology.
Don´t think so, just not perfect technology.
For example the number and locating of AF sensors is still growing. With
old designs, like F90, you had just one centered AF field, with new
designs, like EOS-5, EOS-1n, F5 and Dynax/Maxum, you have several
fields, improving your compository posibilities.
> Time spent configuring the camera to take a picture might better
> be used actually taking the picture.
=> Bad user interface design.
> But once set, the wonder-brick will
> probably shoot circles around a retro-grouch camera.
I seriously believe, that it takes brain to shoot good pictures and
thinking takes his time.
An Leice M6 is a realy retro design camera, but it has a user interface
which enables the knowing photographer to take the pictures -he- wants
(not a preprogramed exposure roulette).
Richard
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|