On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 06:13:59 -0800, William Sommerwerck <williams@xxxxxxxxxx>
jammed all night, and by sunrise was overheard remarking:
>> "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.
Yeah, I almost responded on this one, too. While it is a big concern with
digital cameras that the actual resolution of the imaging device (CCD or CMOS
sensor, these days) needs to be reasonably close to the "finished" format , or
you're basically being deceived. And in fact, some cameras out there do exactly
that, since most folks look at the output resolution, not the CCD resolution.
But the actual size of the imaging device doesn't matter in the least, unless
you're trying to retrofit lenses from a 35mm system or something. This may be
not be terribly obvious to photographers used to the "resolution = size" factor
you get with film, but the only thing that really matters is the true
resolution (color and pixels).
>> "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.
If you're into that kind of thing, the fairly monsterous Kodak/Canon
wonderbricks (DCS460, DCS560, EOS-DCS1), or some of the small production
Nikon conversions do this, if you have $5K-$15K to spend. Olympus isn't tempted
by this market, but I'm not very surprised, it's a very specialized market with
very low volume at this point. Even Nikon themselves hasn't gone to quite this
extreme yet (their digital SLR, the E3s, supports only conventional 1.4Mpix
resolution) -- perhaps something you'd get as a Nikon fan (I'd buy a similar OM
body in a heartbeat), but nothing all that exciting on its own.
> 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 super-high-end today, you're getting something in the 3000x2000 range,
which does absolutely approach the resolution of silver based media in the 35mm
format, at least. I'm not dazzled by it simply because it's not a magic trick,
it's simply pushing the existing envelop to its extreme, which you always pay
for. Really only useful for certain business needs (the Associated Press
originated this kind of camera, using Nikons, a few year ago; only of practical
nterest for certain kinds of well-funded news photography).
--
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 >
|