I tried to correct myself in the resolution phrase, but I obviously didn't
succeed. I understand that film offers several times the resolution of
CCD's. That was just my poor phraseology.
I understand your issue and argument on Olympus' strategy, but I'm not
convinced. I want to see some hard facts on this whole issue before I'll
turn over and yield. I'm sure there are more issues than I'm aware of
regarding lenses for Digital and Film, but I haven't seen the one that
describes why existing, state-of-the-art lenses won't produce optimal
results on a CCD.
I might buy the argument that the lens flange to film distance of OM-System
lenses is not easily compatible with their digital camera architecture. It
might be a big deal to adapt the older lenses to the new body size and
configuration.
But until proven otherwise, I'm staying up on my flagpole. I'll take my
stand that this is Marketing driving a current product line at the expense
of a dead product line. That's not a bad business decision, if I'm
right; but they should have a better argument than the one relayed to us at
PMA.
Skip-I'm-a-dinosaur-and-proud-of-it Williams
At 2/9/00 11:07 AM -0800, you wrote:
CCDs, even the best of them, _do not_ have several times the resolution
of fine grain film...in fact far from it. When they do, there will be no
more use for film (except for esoteric and nostalgic reasons) and we
ain't there yet...
The devices are indeed little light capturing "buckets" and depending on
imager design, you have either three little buckets next to one another
(for RGB) or you have three seperate imagers (again RGB). While for film
the ideal is to get all colors to land on the same spot of the film
plane (hello Apochromatic lenses), this may not be the case for digital
imaging. I have a feeling Olympus digital design people may actually be
on to something here. Ideally you want the red bucket to get mostly red,
green mostly green, and well...you get the drift.
Yes, there are pro bodies from Kodak, N*k*n and C*n*n that accept std.
SLR lenses. Was this for best performance or was this to get a leg-up in
the professional marketplace at a compramise of performance? I would
suggest the later.
I wonder if Olympus is making the right marketing strategy on this (as
in I too am not convinced they couldn't do this and make it work). It is
important to note that in the high end consumer/semi-pro digital camera
market that Olympus is generally regarded as the best. (Take a look at
images from a C2000 or C2500 and compare them with a Coolpix 950 for
example...)
Doesn't sound like Marketing double-talk to me...sounds more like
Engineering winning the battle of when to come to market against
Marketing. That's my take on it anyway...
-----------------------------------------------
Skip Williams
Westfield, NJ
skipwilliams@xxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------------
< 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 >
|