Quality issues

Started Jan 13, 2005 | Discussions thread
thebardteacher
Regular MemberPosts: 337
Like?
Re: Quality issues
In reply to Dirk Rieke-Zapp, Jan 14, 2005

Dirk,

Your statements are really unbelievable. The opposite of what you state most of your post is actually true. Comparing similar sensor/film sizes, the digital revolution has improved the sharpness, tonality and color saturation, while allowing large prints to be made at a fraction of the cost. Lens technology has improved greatly and today's lenses can do more, are faster, lighter, more distortion free, many have image stabilization, and are cheaper than comparative lenses 20-30 years ago. The great competition amongst the camera manufacturers is giving us camera technology that is improving at a rate comparable to Moore's Law in computers.

Far from being stupid, the camera companies were smart to allow their current SLR users to retain their same lenses, without sacrificing quality. The new 4/3 design set forth by Olympus is qualitatively inferior (mostly in the noise arena) to the APS size and the full frame size sensors, especially considering the improvements in CMOS technology relative to CCD technology. I don't blame Olympus for attempting to garner its share of the market by coming up with something inovative, but the size of their chip is just smaller and about eighteen months to two years behind in development.

We are living in a Golden Age of photography. Your post makes it sound like we are regressing or something. However the results and the amount of pros who are getting better than ever performance from their equipment differ sharply with your assumption.

Ciao,

Don

Dirk Rieke-Zapp wrote:

I am wondering for a long time why consumers are still happy with
the decline in image quality especially in digital cameras. 30
years ago the majority of people switched from rangefinder to SLR
cameras. We gained more flexibility for the price of large
distortion due to retrofocus wide angle lenses and ended up with
bigger more expensive cameras. APS format died before it really
started and now the mid range Digital SLR cameras are pushing
through a APS format sensor as STANDARD- my DCS 1 had a sensor that
size long long ago, no improvement here in 10 years. Even worse we
are putting super retrofocus constructions infront of a camera that
has a APS size chip, but use the mirror and light path of a 35mm
camera - THIS IS STUPID. The earth starts curving in your images
for no better reason but inferior optics or huge lens distorion.
Olympus is right now the only camera system besides Kodak that
sells full frame cameras only. The review about the E300 is wrong
to state a 2x conversion factor, this camera gives 1:1 wide angle -
still parallel light rays mean a retrofocus construction, but at
least Olympus is honest. It apperas impossible for many people to
think in any other standrad then 35mm, because they own 35mm
equipment. The same group of people makes up the majority of
camera buyers and since most of them own 35mm gear already it makes
sense to keep the mount, but hey there is more than 35mm format...
Anyone rememebr the old Olympus Pen series, these guys like small
formats.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
CostNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow