Barry B. Bean wrote:
> for
> instance, the editorial pointed out that there' no reason a
> digital camera needs a shutter, and made the argument that
> there was no reason a quality LCD couldn't give a better
> image than the mirrors we're used to in our SLRs.
I'm afraid I think that editor is talking absolute and utter codswallop.
Anything that gets between the eye and the subject is going to cause a
deterioration in the image. Mirrors, lenses, and prisms don't, at least,
alter the basic properties of the light; but digitalising it first and
then looking at a image at massively reduced quality is (to me) just
plain barmy.
Since when have our eyes ever seen things as 3,000 x 2,000 square
pixels? Or even 12,000 x 9,000 pixels? Never. Nor will they ever.
An LCD may be fine for picture framing, but that's as far is it goes.
Simon
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|