On Fri, 13 Sep 2002 12:00:05 +0800
"C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Tal Lancaster wrote:
>
> > I have to disagree. For me, 8x10 are my proof size (for which I use
> > my Epson 785EPX). My regular printing is more like 11x14, 16x24 and
^^^^^
Oops meant 16x20
> > 20x30.
> > The larger sizes just look so much better to me.
> >
>
> Besides slide projection, I only have two prints in 16x20 and all the
> rest are small prints for albumn and some 8x10 that is free of charge
> with D&P.
>
>
> > (To be honest I haven't tried this latest batch of digital cameras
> > so maybe these are being addressed) Here are some deficiencies that
> > I feel digital cameras have that I don't think I have seen anybody
> > mention yet.
> >
> > 1. exposure range
> > If slides have 5 fstops and negatives have 7 fstops, it has
> > been my
> > observation that digital cameras feel like they only have 3-4
> > fstops. It is extremely easy to blow out the exposures. When
> > shooting slides, I find it very difficult to expose to prevent
> > getting settings too over exposed. Under digital it is almost
> > impossible.
>
> In my experience DC has similar exposure range. Even you can't manage
> slide, with a DC you can use extensive bracketing. It is a challenge
> and fun to pay with slides, if you missed it you miss too much in
> photography.
>
> >
> > For example some list member posted some random pictures from
> > his
> > digital camera, earlier this week. There were a lot of areas that
> > were blown out that I don't think I would have seen if they were
> > slides.
> >
>
> Why don't you pick some better one as examples? Actually you will see
> it if the slide is badly exposed.
>
Yeah, I have seen some nice digital pictures. It was just that with DC
(at least the older models) I have found it almost impossible to expose
without clipping (without bracketing).
> > 2. With the larger image size:
> > A. Comes the need to transfer large amounts of data fast in a
> > reasonable time frame. Currently (not counting burst mode) the time
> > frame between a shots is more like 15 seconds. An eternity when
> > trying to capture the right moment.
> > With my OM, I can easily snap off in under 5 seconds even with
> > the
> > winder off and a cable release.
> >
>
> The professional model can capture 3-5 frames a second up to 15. The
> E-10 can capture can 3fps up to 4. Time lag is same as OM4 and faster
> than OM2sp, good enough? No? there is always newer and better one
> coming.
>
Isn't this only in burst mode? (Holding down the shutter continuously)
What is the delay from pressing and releasing the shutter to the next
time you can press the shutter and take another image? This is what I
was referring to.
> > B. comes the need for very large data storage at a reasonable
> > price.
> > If talking about a camera capable of storing 80-100M files, a 256M
> > or 512M data card isn't going to really cut it. The 1Gs just came
> > out recently, but still very pricey and it still will only hold
> > about 10 images.
> >
>
> Low compression JPEG has very good quality, a 4-5MB file of a 5Mpixel
> DC is good for 11x14 print. The 1G microdrive has been there for over
> two years and it works very well, price is around $220, it can hold
> 200pcs good quality images and it is reusable.
I tend to shoot RAW so as to not have an opportunity for any JPEG
artifacts showing up.
Yeah, the microdrives have always made me nervous as they are mechanical
and suspect to the same problems as their bigger brothers. Also there
is a slight lag for them to spin up.
--
Tal Lancaster (talrmr@xxxxxxxxxxx)
The RenderMan Repository http://www.renderman.org/RMR/
< 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 >
|