Most film-based photographers are quite negative about digital camera's
until they get one. Digital photography is getting better and better. A good
2.1 or 3.3 Mpix cam is the way to go for 'normal' photography (normal
situations, computer- or internet-use or prints up to 8x10), and I bought an
Olympus c2040z (*good* 40-120 zoom, 2.1 Mpix, virtually everything is
manually adjustable, multispot) recently. It's really nice to make pictures
without thinking about the costs, because a digital picture costs almost
nothing, until you actually choose to get it printed. After a week I decided
to sell my C*n*n EOS100 and changed it for an Olympus OM2 with some lenses.
The only drawback of digital imaging is that it's slow. You can't catch a
moment. The light-metering, the autofocus, and the whitebalancing all
happens with the same photo-optimized ccd, and the lag between the
shutter-release and the real picture can be up to a second.
My digital camera brought my hobby to life again, 'cause now I can decide
how much a photo will cost, and I can make >100 photo's in an afternoon, and
when I'm home I can learn from the mistakes at the same day I made the
pictures, and that helps quite a lot.
I'm quite sure that digital is going to be the future....
Bart
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2002 12:22 PM
Subject: [OM] The digital challenge
> Hi Zuiks,
>
> A person in Thailand I am getting to know recently sent me a photo of
> himself and his two kids.
>
> I was amazed at the quality of what he sent, and mentally pictured me
trying
> to do the job with my OM gear.
>
> I asked him what camera he used for it and he said his lab has just got a
> digital camera for research purposes and he is using it as much as
possible
> to get to know it. I'm pretty sure he doesn't use any software to modify
the
> image. So what you see is what the camera took.
>
> The shot can be seen at the link below. Be warned; it is a 275kb download
> about.
>
> http://homepages.caverock.net.nz/~bj/images/TB-family.jpg
>
> Ignoring for the moment that there is no modelling sidelight etc; it's all
front-
> on lighting, the things that stand out to my mind are
>
> 1) fine detail (in Opera browser I can set the screen magnification to
2000r
> 300% and it still looks pretty good)
> 2) good colour
> 3) no extra tweaking required
> 4) very good depth of field.
> 5) Probably very quick.
>
> When you consider the problems *everybody* seems to have with scanning -
> I'm a lurker in the ScanWit group, and the pain that I see people there go
> through to get a decent scan - to get the darned scanner to work even, is
> quite unreasonable.
>
> Here he gets a pretty good result with NONE of that BS.
>
> Consider also how important electronic transmission and display of images
> has already become and can only get more so. So trouble-free
digitalisation
> of images becomes very important.
>
> Regarding the photo above, many of us would struggle mightily to get the
> same detail, DOF and colour in a scan of this subject with a film camera.
> Many / most would not get there, I suggest. Me included.
>
> I've noticed too the DOF and good colour of many of the better advertising
> shots on eBay, and once or twice I have asked the vendor what they used.
> Invariably, digital.
>
> I'm not sure where this train of thought is leading; it's only half
developed. I
> guess my subject title says it all.
>
> Brian
>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|
