Tom,
A really long post, but I'm going to reply on some of your points:
I have an Olympus C2000, the quality of DC is not as what you said,
with a closer look I can easy distinguish a 4x6 print from traditional
camera or from my DC. I have output a roll of negative from the C2000
(at SHQ mode, although may not as good as TIFF but I'm sure the
different is very very small and the bottle neck is the quality of CCD
not compression at this grade of DC) and print it to 4x6" at an one
hour lab, my wife immediate complained about the quality of the prints
although they look fine. The quality different is very clear, unless
you compare a poorly shot film to a good shot from the DC, otherwise
no match at this moment. Besides resolution, the color bleeding at low
light is also a big problem.
Also, are you serious that the print can compare to a good Olympus
P&S? Olympus µ[mju:]-II can resolve over 90 lp/mm which is much better
than Zuiko 100/2, also I think my Yashica T4 is as sharp as the Zuiko
35/2.
I'm a guy very serious about quality and not a die-hard traditional
camera fan, I will change when the quality of DC is as good as current
film based system. Actually I'm quite digital orientated, I have a
Nikon LS10 since 1993 and two years ago I brought a LS2000 and a
Polaroid ProPalette 8000 film recorder, only with these devices the
quality can come close (but again not match) to direct output from
film camera.
If anyone need sample of 2700dpi output slide or slide sample from my
DC please tell me. I'm please to do as I'm doing promotion for my
slide output service.
C.H.Ling
http://www.glink.net.hk/~accura
http://www.glink.net.hk/~olympus
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Scales <tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Saturday, April 01, 2000 6:18 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] the future of film (long)
>Well, I'll jump in. I've mentioned before that I'm <gasp> also a
digital
>camera user. I have owned each successive Kodak, trading up (thanks,
ebay)
>as they improved. I just got my new Kodak DC290 in the mail
yesterday. For
>me, film and digital are just different tools. I can produce great
shots
>(and equally bad ones) with both tools. For those of you that
haven't
>experienced digital, then I would challenge you. If I take a nice
shot with
>my DC290, at 1792x1200 resolution, in uncompressed TIFF, and print it
at 4x6
>(my normal print size) on my ALPS MD-1300 Dye Sub printer, unless you
used a
>loupe, I don't think you could tell it apart from a film print. At
8x10,
>you could probably tell by looking closely, but not from a normal
viewing
>distance.
>
>Does it compare to an OM-4T with a 100/2 portrait lens, of course
not. Does
>it compare to a high-quality Olympus Point and Shoot, heck yes. Is
it more
>versatile than the P&S, again, yes. I can take pictures of my kids
>unwrapping their birthday presents and 30 minutes later have them
posted on
>my website for my parents to view, download and print. Even with
one-hour
>photo and FedEx, I can't match that.
>
>I really enjoy the digital as it combines my two hobbies, but film
still has
>a place and will, in my mind, for a long-time. It was the sports,
>particularly indoor sports, that got me back to film. Even a Nikon
D1 (more
>than I'm willing to spend) would not do the low-light, fast action
>photography that my 25 year old OM-2MD with a fast lens will do. So,
I
>invested in a cheap film scanner (have to upgrade soon) and switched
back to
>film. In a big way <grin>
>
>As you all know, I'm still building my little in-house portrait
studio. It
>should be done this weekend, with the homebuilt light stands and
diffusers
>(PVC) and a twin T32 setup. I've also build a 'backdrop holder',
also out
>of PVC. Do I think the best shots will be with the OM and the 100/2,
again
>yes, but will I happily mount the DC290 with a Vivitar 283 on my BG2
and
>take shots with it too? Of course. Best of both worlds. I'm going
to
>treat digital as a form of 'polaroid back', letting me see if I like
the
>composition before I shoot the film. I'll be driving a TV monitor
out of
>the DC290, so I can frame and see what it looks like, than shoot the
>side-by-side mounted OM-4T.
>
>(BTW - suggestion on portrait photography are greatly encouraged).
>
>Does this put the discussion to rest, of course not. We're going to
>continue to see digital improve for many years and there will be a
>crossover, not that far away, that digital quality will match film.
Will we
>still want our film 'vinyl'? yes, I don't see digital as ever being
as rich,
>but I also see almost every journalist switching and I'd see it in
the next
>couple years.
>
>OK, I just fueled the fire, but it's an interesting dailog. Anybody
that
>wants to see a 4x6 printed on the ALPS, let me know. I'm willing to
send a
>few (maybe the first 10 requests) out just for fun.
>
>Now, if I can just get my own portrait taken, developed and scanned
by the
>deadline. There are many, however, that fervently hope I don't make
the
>deadline....<grin>
>
>Off my soapbox now.
>
>Tom
>
>
>< 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|