I think that this is not just trendicating. No more than Moore's law is
just trendicating. Face it, digital is the future. Already, digital
imaging is superior to film-based photography in some respects (cost per
exposure, speed of processing, automatic gamma correction). Certainly,
getting past the other difficulties is not a physical impossibility, only an
engineering problem. Now, as far as size is concerned, I think you will
agree that the Oly c-2020 is actually smaller than an OM with the 40mm f2.
Digital imaging will not only match film imaging but will far surpass the
capabilities of film. CCDs have incredible sensitivity and exposure
latitude. Use of high-line CCD devices have revolutionized amateur
astronomy. Likewise, it will revolutionize photography by allowing image
creation under incredibly difficult lighting conditions.
This is not to say that our beloved OMs are dead yet. For now, we should be
just content to burn through as much film as possible and use up all those
shutter cycles before tossing whatever we have left into Oly's forthcoming
professional digital imaging system.
-j
> From: owner-olympus-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (olympus-digest)
> Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 01:02:05 -0800
> To: olympus-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: olympus-digest V2 #1548
>
> With all due respect to Ono-san, I've been hearing this kind of talk for
> almost twenty years, ever since the early days of high-resolution CCD cameras
> on orbital military platforms. They've all based their predictions on
> "trendicating" (which, as a professional statistician for many years, I'm
> *extremely* leery of). In order to "beat" film, you have to beat its form
> factor, resolution, and light-sensitivity. That's going to be difficult to
> do, considering that the development of a single silver halide molecule
> amplifies light on the close order of a factor of at least one million times,
> without the necessary involvement of any form of electronics whatsoever.
>
> Hell, I know die-hard tech enthusiasts who are switching back to paper-based
> daytimers from their electronic versions. The reason? "Paper-based daytimers
> never need batteries and don't get their memories scragged or wiped clean when
> you walk through an active airport scanner..."
>
> Garth
>
>
>
> "A bad day doing photography is better
> than a good day doing just about
> anything else."
< 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 >
|