Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Digital trends (LONG and RAMBLING) with additions...

Subject: Re: [OM] Digital trends (LONG and RAMBLING) with additions...
From: Richard Schaetzl <Richard.Schaetzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 00:42:40 +0100

"Tom A. Trottier" wrote:

> Also fashion, news etc. where time is important.

Fashion?

> > Better quality than film? I went to the Salgado exhibition in Luxembourg

> I saw it too. The big images were pretty grainy.

He use Tri X, 40 year old technology.
Grain is been used as an creative tool. 
 
> > A well exposed transparency has more than enough information on it
> > for the vast, overwhelming majority of users. Any more is like a
> > broken pencil. Pointless.
> 
> Not if you want to crop or manipulate it after. Snapshot users, not
> much problem. Professionals, Amateurs: problem.

It would be nice if digital would be as good as film is today.

I have shoot a roll of the new AGFA Vista 800 film, impressive low
grain and sharp. Try this with a digital camera,  CCD noise? Not to
speak of even inferior CMOS technology.

Speaking of slides is there an economic way to produce wall size large
images with digital?

> So far, digital is pretty fiddly 

1 hour lab is fast, one is not able to produce 36 prints within a half
hour with an home computer.

Prints from digital sources are expensive.

Speaking about developing at home:  Inkjet prints are soooo
inexpensive and soooo long lasting.

B&W printing might be cheaper and the results are longer lasting. 

In one field digital is superior today: Colour enlargements. 
With an affordable filmscanner one can scan print and slide film,
manipulate the data in the computer save it on Zip or CDR and
_print_it_at_an_digital_minilab!

The advantages are multiple: Colour print material is of superior
quality, but normal lab prints tend to be of random colour and
brightness, not the digital data of the scanned images (not to speak
of scratches, fingerprints through lab employees etc.). I'm now able
print colour images with the same control as before B&W. Basically I
have the same possibilities as the top photographers with own colour
printer.  _That's_ a great new opportunity of digital technology.


> Yeah, your lock will weigh more than the bike. But what if the bike
> cost $200 or 100 pounds? And the price decreased 20 0.000000e+00ach year? And
> the Mapei team still used them?

In the photographic field I dare to predict, that consumer and pro
products will diverge even more than today. The split between
affordable but "dumb" and low quality results products and high end
will grow bigger. Professionals and quality conscious amateurs, like
the OM users of today, will have to pay more for decent stuff, because
no subvention through "me too want the newest technical gadget"
amateur is going to happen. 

Olympus user had already a taste what will happen. The quality OM line
is no longer mainstream, prices did explode. Only good thing is that
OM users can take advantage of that mainstream user abandoning the OM
system for AF, P&S, video or digital cameras.

> Digital *will* be more convenient - you won't have wait 6 months for
> a print.

No I only have to wait half an hour to an hour for hard copy results.

> Quality? No better, but the price will keep decreasing for the same
> level.
> Features? How about built-in infrared film. Pix in the dark.

How many IR films do people normaly expose, is this really what Johnny 
Consumer wants or just an marketing gadget? One looks awful on that 
digital IR images.

> Sequences: check your golf swing in .05 second increments.

LOL, would be nice if it would not take several seconds until one can
take the next picture with an digital camera.

> Who needs
> tripods with image stabilisation?

Do we talk about C*n*n IS lenses? They work with 35mm silver based
film.

> Nikon's 990 allows taking 10 shots
> in a row,

An OM allows either 36 or 250 shots in a rows at 6fps, sustained. Just
in case someone needs this, I have the impression not many people.

> keeping the sharpest.

And if non of them is sharp?

> Autostitch 360 degree panoramas.

One word: Distortion

Those lenses on digital cameras are so worse, massive manipulation is
needed to produce results.

Guess why pro panorama photographer use special silver film based
cameras, even to produce digital panos?
 
> So far, film is better along most parameters.

Indeed

> But digital is moving
> very fast, propelled by bunches of improvements.

Maybe, sometimes, if then, there will be..., but now?

> And *new* gadgets
> are cool. Modern. Classy.

OK, but are we using OM cameras because we are like to waste money on
useless gadgets?

> So, in short, digital is probably the photography of the future

Maybe then, but in the mean time I stay with 35mm film.

> for
> the new generation,

As an beginner I wouldn't waste money on digital yet.

> unless film starts making more strides in
> latitude, cost, or quality.

Film is superior and still continuously improving.

Check the new 800ASA films of AGFA, Fuji and Kodak (but don't buy the
Zoom, Supra is the one to go). 

> And we old Zuikoholics will be slavering
> for a digital body

I'll wait for an digital system with smaller (Olympus Pen sized?)
cameras and lenses. I haven't saved any money for it yet, simply because
it will take a long time until this is available in a decent quality.

Hope my comments sounded not to harsh Tom.

Best regards

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 >


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