Me either. My guess is that Canon is trying to broaden the appeal and market with these features. Although I have used direct print a couple of times, it was for sheer novelty.Indeed. Nonetheless, some very jekyll and hyde features are
included - direct print being a somewhat odd feature in a DSLR, and
a fair chunk of functionality has been implemented for that one -
Certainly wouldn't be a feature I'd miss
You are generally accurate about the relative improvement in sharpness due to the smaller size, but there are many other factors as well. Michael Reichman has a nice discussion on print sharpness ( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml ). Also, Norman Koren has a tutorial which addresses measured sharpness ( http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF3.html )
Finally, I would refer you to information about PIM ( http://www.printimagematching.com/faq.php )
You are accurate in that the technology hasn't reached the level of expectations. Recognize that most of the time we are dealing with sensors smaller than 35mm film, enlarging them way beyond anticipated size, and using equipment (lenses) which were designed for a different medium.I think it is an issue of conservatism, that does not account for
differing output mediums. Onscreen sharpness should be the
ultimate target. The current state of the art isn't quite there
yet at this level, even if consumer expectations are
Actually, I have embraced the technology head on. Display sharpness is important and no one will negate that. However, the state of the art just isn't quite there. Most users (myself included) are still producing/selling traditional prints. Thus, the relative sharpness requirements are a bit less. In an odd way, this discussion reminds me of the comparison between slide/print films and their display properties.Actually, I believe your comments reflect a common reluctance to
adapt to a new technology
important, more so than in print because of the inherent sharpness
gain in moving to a print process. If it's sharp onscreen, it will
be sharp in print. It doesn't necessarily follow in the reverse
scenario though. Personally, I print barely a few % of images
that I shoot digitally. In fact that's the primary reason I shoot
digitally, so that I DON'T have to print everything out. Thus
onscreen sharpness, for me, and for many other users is important.
The fact that the camera might struggle to meet those expectations
doesn't negate the requirement.
Out of interest, on what basis of knowledge are you making the
assumption that I've yet to start taking pictures? These kind of
comments, particularly seen on this forum strike me as arrogant,
though I doubt that was your inherent intention, and I may just be
reading your response in a way that you never intended. FWIW I've
been taking pictures for 25 years+
About the comment "start taking pictures..." was not directed specifically at you and I apologize if you thought so. I am a bit dismayed over the number of threads claiming that 10D images are horribly soft, it front focuses, it back focuses, etc. What are the comparative benchmarks? Did your Elan front/rear focus by a cm? How many people actually tested their film bodies (I did, but then again I am a bit compulsive) taking pictures of rulers, targets, etc?. In the final analysis, photography is about many things; enjoyment, telling a story, an art, a business, or even a hobby. Sitting in a room obsessively measuring a ruler is IMHO a collosal waste of time.
