In Gary Schloss's review of the PMA show, he mentions a number of things that
can be done with digital processing that previously required specialized optics
or hardware. It is also possible to use digital processing to improve
conventional photographs.
Several years ago I read an article (I forget where) that showed what could be
done. One print showed a grainy, badly-focused image from a pocket instamatic or
disc (I forget which) camera. The second print showed what happened after
digital processing -- a more-than-acceptable picture.
It's not far-fetched to believe that we will someday be able to photograph
special targets with our favorite lenses and films, to generate a 2-D transfer
function that can be applied to our conventional negatives to greatly improve
their quality, without side-effects or obvious artifacts. This is actually
possible right now, but when and whether it will become readily available, "no
man can say."
"IMHO, the C-2000Z is "much ado about very little". Yes, it has more pixels, but
on a smaller CCD than the D-600/620, so the resolution gain is insignificant."
Is that what you meant to write? More pixels usually provide higher resolution
regardless of the chip size.
"With all its push into the digital domain, and with a plethora of very
respectable consumer-grade products, Olympus is yet to dazzle the world with a
truly high-end, professional "flagship" digital SLR. I'm starting to have my
doubts if they ever will, or have the capability to do so."
In fairness to Olympus, I have yet to see a "dazzling" pro SLR from _any_
company. As long as the resolution of such products doesn't even remotely
approach that of silver-based media, I refuse to be "dazzled." At the moment,
_no_ company has the capability of producing such a camera -- except perhaps as
a one-off demo unit.
< 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 >
|