On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 20:37:14 -0800, Gary Schloss <schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> jammed
all night, and by sunrise was overheard remarking:
> Denton Taylor wrote:
> >So, today I visited the NYC PhotoPlus show
> >This year, Oly had a huge display. [...] they see digital as the way to
> >come back and wrest leadership again from the N&C crowd.
> A dangerous strategy, IMHO. Should today's photographers move from film
> to digital, they may choose to stay loyal to their Ni/Mi/Ca origins, esp.
> if some system compatibility between analog and digital is built in (e.g.
> lens mount, flash, etc.)
This is at least part true, and at least part happening, at least in the
price-is-no-object world. Canon has several pro-level digital cameras
for the EF line of lenses, with imaging ranging from 2-6 million pixels
(the 6-million range is where you start to get resolution that's
credibly in the same category as 35mm film). Kodak's "professional"
series are versions of this line, apparently pretty much the same as the
Canon models).
Nikon makes an F-mount lens SLR, the E3/E3s, with 1.3 million pixel
capacity, and a few other companies also offer F-mount cameras (Fuji
seems to offer their own versins of the E3/E3s, while the Associated
Press has a different one, though I haven't found any details).
Minolta has two digital SLRs as well, with three CCD sensing (separate
CCDs for RGB, like the best video cameras) and 1.75M-2.75M pixel capture,
which use the Minolta A (35mm) or V (APS line) series lenses, depending
on the model.
Oddly enough, all three "major" SLR companies already have a presence in
the digital camera market. None seem to be targeting the ZLR-type market
Olympus has shot for (whatever the ZLR market actually is), but they do
shoot from consumer to professional.
> OTOH, if a whole new generation of users with
> no roots in traditional photography is attracted to digital, then who's
> to say that digital photography won't become a mere sub-component of the
> emerging digital video, where btw only C*non currently has any presence
> to speak of (other major players are not in photography)?
And, in fact, Canon makes a mini DV camera that looks sorta like an SLR
and offers single-frame images using a progressive-scan CCD. Sure, it's
a first-generation effort; the results aren't even close to what you get
with a good digital (or chemical) SLR, the lens isn't interchangable. Though
in fact, at the high end, Canon (in the video business for quite some
time) does make interchangable lens video cameras in other formats. In
fact, their EF line is the only supported on 35mm, APS, digital, and
video.
I think Olympus would be out of their league competing against these
guys at the high end. But I'm not about to plunk down $5K+ for a new
camera anytime soon, either. On the other hand, if I could get a
quasi-normal OM-mount body with digital features, for, say, under $1K, I
would be there in a heartbeat. It's hard to imagine digital as a total
replacement for film anytime soon. I'm certainly not going to lug a
Canon XL1 around like I would an SLR, and anything videotape based is
inherently unstable versus film or solid-state storage. I think there
certainly is a window of evolution here in the middle range, right where
most of us are. Things like the DL-620 are basically just digital
versions of the IS series ZLRs. While I don't need a ZLR, this shows
that a pretty good digital systems can fit in the same basic space, with
many of the same features, as an OM body.
Will they do it? Who knows. Should they? Sure as hell. It's really the
next logical step after the digital ZLRs.
--
Dave Haynie | V.P. Technology, Met@box Infonet, AG | http://www.metabox.de
Be Dev #2024 | NB851 Powered! | Amiga 2000, 3000, 4000, PIOS One
< 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 >
|