I've been stewing about something for a long time now. Maybe two
or three seconds...
Why is it that the smaller the imaging "sensor" the larger the
camera? For example, the DSLRs have been HUGE! Or back up to
the EOS-1n and the Nikon F5. These cameras are massive. Yet,
an average medium format camera weighs less and is smaller.
Think that Pentax 67 is big? Not when parked next to an F5.
Then, along comes the digicams. Wait a second. The LARGEST
sensor (other than in the EOS-1Ds) is no bigger than APS film
format.
Lenses for 35mm have never NEEDED to be big. Zuikos and Pentax
lenses have always been 50% the size/weight of Nikons and
Canon's EOS line has always been pretty respectable.
My point is that it doesn't matter the size of the sensor.
Lenses are really a minor point in the size/weight of a camera
system. Today's DSLRs, including the E-1, have a minimum size
and weight thanks to several factors:
-Batteries
-Storage medium
-Display screen
-Viewfinder
-Built-in grip (not present on our beloved OMs)
-Places to have 35 control buttons/wheels/mice.
The ONLY real benefit to smaller sensor size is manufacturing
costs. Real-estate is expensive.
In digging back through some old Popular Photography magazines
(late '70s/early '80s) it was quite clear what was deemed to be
important in an SLR. Size, weight, shutter lag, accuracy of the
meter, lens sharpness and the viewfinder. Today, none of these
factors are really considered, but instead we overlook the
obvious flaws in size, weight, shutter lag, accuracy of the
meter, lens sharpness and viewfinder.
Size-doesn't matter.
Weight-you can only afford one DSLR anyway. Pitty the poor soul
who would carry two.
Shutter Lag-If you preset everything it's almost respectable,
but besides, that's what "motor-drive" mode is for.
Meter Accuracy-If you don't like what you see on the screen,
shoot again, or correct it in Photoshop.
Lens Sharpness-Unsharp Mask. Duh!
Viewfinder-With autofocus, all you are doing is framing anyway.
What am I missing here? I realize that I'm kinda a stick in the
mud when it comes to camera technology, but for crying out loud,
I don't want to go backwards when I "upgrade" to new technology.
On a side note:
I've been doing a lot of experimenting lately with my scanner
and it is quite interesting how I can get the "digital look" if
I seriously dumb down the image. Scan the image at maximum
scanner resolution, and then downsize the image to about the
equivelent of a 5-MP camera. Throw some USM on it and, presto,
digital camera image. You can then scale this image upward just
like you can with any digicam file. Sure, there is some nits to
pick and some grain noise, but I'm rather impressed with what I
see. My biggest complaint is tonal gradients. I wish that
scanned files possessed the tonal seperations that analog has.
AG-retrogrouch-Schnozz
ps. I grind my own special blend of Irony and Sarcasm--mixed
with a tad of bitterness and then pressed into the espresso
maker which when steamed will make one mean brew guaranteed to
keep you up at night. Keep the TUMS handy.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree
< 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 >
|