Ken Norton wrote:
> Granted, IMAGEK's solution isn't perfect, but it does meet my 80/20 rule.
> Is a digital body better than a film insert? In a perfect world, yes.
> However, that would mean carrying an extra body everywhere I go; making
an
> investment in another system line (you don't think Olympus will make a
> OM-5Digital, do you?); and giving up all the advantages of the system
I've
> already built.
>
> Do any of the affordable digital cameras (<$10000) work with my 35/shift,
> 200/2.8, macro equipment, OTF flash equipment (or how about external
flashes
> of any kind????), and take a silver-geletin analog film insert?
> We pioneers (Imagek's first customers) will be taking arrows for sure and
> the technology will quickly become obsolete, but I can't afford to wait
much
> longer for an ideal digital camera system. We have to jump on the train
at
> some point. However, my needs are for professional use--not necessarily
for
> hobby use, so I can justify the expense.
>
> Ken N.
The insert solution is definitely the most elegant
solution, but it does have some fundamental problems
that will need to be overcome before it is a reality.
For example, it won't be as thin as film.
How do you focus the image 0.5mm in
front of the film plane?
duncan
< 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 >
|