At 04:16 1/6/02, Rich wrote:
Just got back from doing a circuit of the computer stores. The rush to
digital cameras and all the scanners, printers, etc. to accomodate digital
images is very apparent. Downright scary, in fact. A much larger section of
each store now given over to digital imaging products than just six months
back.
As I have become known more at work and in other activities locally as an
avid photographer I am frequently asked "Why haven't you gone digital yet?"
sometimes with no small amount of surprise. I've come to the conclusion
many "Joe Consumer" are under the impression digital is doing a "trickle
down" to them from a high cost only affordable to commercial and
professional photographers. This has been a trajectory in the past, to
wit: the Nikon F in 1959. It's not with digital. Although the industry is
pursuing pros, the real thrust (IMO) seems aimed at consumers, albeit
initially at those with the big wallets that buy the newest electronic
playtoys.
The fellow in the office next to mine just bought a digital (Olympus). We
discussed some digitals before he bought it and I believe he got a very
capable camera (for a consumer digital). He has run into a number of
problems though:
(a) Near zero DoF control; he understands the concept and wants it, but
cannot achieve it with the apertures he has.
(b) CCD artifacting. An [arti]fact of life with digital.
(c) Loss of detail in low light that is *not* graceful degradation.
(d) Integral flash is too *weak* for a significant portion of what he
would like to do that requires a flash.
(e) Integral flash location has *poor* shadow control and is a hideous
red-eye generator.
(f) It does support an external flash; it also requires a bracket and cord
and totals to over $300, about 650f the camera price; that was a real
shocker to him!
(g) Discovery that even with max memory it will hold *less* than a roll of
film at the resolution (max) he needs for the print sizes he wants to
make. Further discover that the memory ain't cheap!
(h) Don't know if it's the camera or the software, or what, but in using
the bundled software in its defaults it appears it's over-sharpening his
images. I suspect it's because the "sharpening" being done automagically
is over-simplified and it's *not* an unsharp mask algorithm.
This reinforces a host of reasons I haven't jumped on the "digital bandwagon."
Gratuitous OM content:
I ain't selling any of mine!
-- John
< 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 >
|