Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Olympus Camedia 2500 Results

Subject: Re: [OM] Olympus Camedia 2500 Results
From: "C.H.Ling" <pling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 11:14:57 +0800

>Scott & others interested,
>
>I think you missed my point (which it seems I may be at fault here).
>The Camedia 2500 is an excellent consumer digital camera, maybe the best
>in it's price range.  Overall this camera does a great job.  However it
>just does not compare to a high quality 35mm camera and low-end film
>scanner system for getting the best results. I guess my point is that if
>you already own a reasonable quality 35mm system and you are getting
>into the digital medium; then your next most practical purchase should
>be an inexpensive desktop film scanner.
>


Yes, you are right, the existing mid-range DC is incomparable with an
inexpensive film scanner, but IMO mainly in resolution. On the other hand you
cannot ignore the convenient of the DC that is the main concern. I don't expect
I will buy a DC only when the quality of DC is equal to film-scanner system,
just waiting for the price of C2020 drop to around US$500.

>I'm sure it won't take ten years(as you suggest) for the digital camera
>systems to catch up to the quality of a 35mm film camera.  It just has
>not done so yet. This new offering from Olympus is a good yardstick of
>where the consumer industry is moving. Certainly there are some
>situations where this Camedia 2500 makes more sense then pulling out the
>35mm film camera just as there are situations where using a 35mm makes
>more sense than using a medium format or large format film camera.  Just
>because a 35mm film camera can't match the output quality of a medium or
>large format system does not mean that we should have abandoned the use
>of 35mm film systems.

Exactly, different system have their own advantage.

>Scott... In response to your comments about Photoshop's Autolevel
>command, I agree with you that Autolevels is not the way one should fine
> ...........
>Regardless of using 35mm film or a
>digital camera one SHOULD NOT have to go into Photoshop and spend
>anytime dicking around with color adjustment.  The digital capture
>device should and must be able to do that.  When I get my images
>professionally scanned (usually by the printer who will be responsible
>for the overall quality of the job) I don't touch the color in
>Photoshop. Their scanner better be properly calibrated for the intended
>output use.

For slides, I think professionally scan can provide you a very close to original
result. But for Kodak negative that you have mentioned when you compared the
color/contrast of the C2500, I don't think you can get "close to original" color
without adjustment after scan. Just like most one hour lab, they always come out
with the prints that are not what you expected though they may look great to
other.

I am a digital semi-professional with a Polaroid Propalette 8000 film output
machine and a Nikon LS2000 (also a LS10 since '93), for negative I cannot get
any close to original color/contrast without adjustment even with the Vueue Scan
software and proper film setting.

C.H.Ling

>
>Phillip Franklin
>




< 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 >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz