And I wouldn't like to be the one driving my little Honda in front of you!
Hi Don, Larz again,
We may not like the idea that the DC we buy today will be obsolete in 12-18 months, but it will be outmoded in design by then. It will still take the same pics it took when it was new, but later models will offer better image quality, more features...
It's partly lust, and it's partly because DC’s continue to improve at a rapid pace. I skipped the 3 MP rangefinder generation DC's and have been waiting for something that was truly different and better suite my needs. I hoped it would be the D7, but it may be the F707. Actually, the technology I want exists today, if I could combine the best features of the D7 and F707. I've pretty much decided on the F707, but since it falls short of what I want, I'll probably upgrade again within 12-18 months. I expect this trend will continue until DC’s catch up to film, which is a ways off.
¬ > )You are most welcome, Lynda. These sites are all the better because besides coming from journeymen in the field there is no ax to grind and no religion to preach.
More features? Possibly. Better image quality? That depends ENTIRELY on application. Many people are only watching pixel count. But most people aren't taking into account that the overwhelming majority of prints being made today are uncropped 4x6 inch prints. At 4x6 inches, one is going to be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 2.1MP image and a 5 MP image. So to speak about image quality without refering to print size is misleading. If the typical point and shooter simply wants to replace his film camera with a digital camera, anything over 2 MP is going to cost him more trouble than his application calls for.
Hi sam, that is so true. I found a picture taken September 2000 with a EOS5/Sigma HSM EX 70-200, had it scanned and tried to replicate it last week using a Fuji 6900. My first reaction at seeing both 10 x 8 inkjets was that the 6900 had the edge. It looked cleaner until viewed under my desk magnifyer. Both had the same inkjet dots but the EOS5 shot had additional black dots of grain, hence the 'cleaner' digital image. And when it came to detail, the digital image gave a suggestion of detail (as in a painting) whereas the film image carried actual detail. This applied to ballast chippings and surrounding foliage, whereas the man-made object (train) looked better on digital because as I said earlier it looked cleaner. At the moment I think film and digital complement each. There is no doubt the former is now idea for illustrating hardware catalogues, and film wins on landscapes.
