> I'd still like the full-frame but without all those extra pixels. Of
> course, that ain't gonna happen... unless the pixels can be ganged
> together somehow for better noise control.
Canon did that with the 5DMk2. Not necessarily for noise control, but for
file-size control. It is quite intruiging that most users can't tell the
difference between images from the two file sizes.
I'll gladly take the extra pixels, even with the file-handling issues. No
different, really, than my film-scans. Except for quantity of images. Just
as with the film scans, I'm getting my best print results when I take the
scan and reduce to about the equivalent of a 10mp camera. Then I can treat
the image identically to that of a digital camera file.
Moose dressed me down about essentially committing myself to a technology
and effectively becoming expert at it. His premise had to do specifically
with digital cameras. I believe that I've done pretty much that with film
scans and am able to squeeze quite a bit out of the old medium. Had people
like Michael Richtmann learned how to do things like I just mentioned, his
saying that a EOS D30 image being superior to film would have been not just
laughable (like it was), but easily disproved. Once you see how the digital
cameras are doing their in-camera processing (as well as in RAW conversion)
on the image, it isn't a real stretch to apply those same or similar
techniques to film scans.
But I'll give MR a pass on this one. Unlike the typical Olympus user, he's
not of an engineering mindset.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|