Ken Norton wrote:
> Granted, IMAGEK's solution isn't perfect, but it does meet my 80/20 rule.
>
> Is a digital body better than a film insert? In a perfect world, yes.
> However, that would mean carrying an extra body everywhere I go; making an
> investment in another system line (you don't think Olympus will make a
> OM-5Digital, do you?); and giving up all the advantages of the system I've
> already built.
>
I am willing to carry an extra body if it provide better image quality
then digital film insert, may be our usage is different. You just want
it to serve the Polaroid purpose. I want it service as a camera for
casual shoot where I can get good quality 3R prints if I want. I have no
idea whether Olympus will make a Digital OM-5 but it should be very easy
for them as I don't see any difficulty. They have a quite good DL600
electronics system, just need a change in mechanical construction. Of
course most important is the market, we should show them our interest.
> Do any of the affordable digital cameras (<$10000) work with my 35/shift,
> 200/2.8, macro equipment, OTF flash equipment (or how about external flashes
> of any kind????), and take a silver-geletin analog film insert?
>
Why you insist on a digital camera to take both digital and film? Just
the extra weight of a body? You can sacrifice the convenience of extra
memory card and many others?
> We pioneers (Imagek's first customers) will be taking arrows for sure and
> the technology will quickly become obsolete, but I can't afford to wait much
> longer for an ideal digital camera system. We have to jump on the train at
> some point. However, my needs are for professional use--not necessarily for
> hobby use, so I can justify the expense.
>
Yes, you are right, our purposes are different. But looking at the
sample images from Imagek... I prefer to wait.
C.H.Ling
> Ken N.
>
< 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 >
|