"Alexandre A. P. Suaide" wrote:
>
> You "really" don't need to have a body who talks to the digital
> back. Does your camera bodies talk to the film???? Someone can
> make a digital back that works the same way as film. You set
> shutter speed and aperture in the camera, click, the curtain
> opens, the CCD gets some light because of the curtain, it is
> triggered by the light level and it send the digital information
> to a memory stick. Don't need to much to go to digital.... But,
> if you want a LCD display to see the picture, do gamma correction,
> crop the image, and send it by e-mail to you address list that is
> saved hundred miles away from you.... That is a different point....
Well, if you want it to behave almost exactly like film, why not
just use film, and be done with it? Digital for the sake of digital
doesn't seem worthwhile. And why on earth would you want to restrict
the maximum flash synchronization speed to what you can achieve with
a moving mechanical shutter? Fill flash at fast shutter speeds is
a really nice feature, and one where digital sensors excel today.
The only way you can get this with a traditional film-based camera
with a focal-plane shutter is to pulse a flash several times. This
only works if all your flashes have this capability.
Another point - it will be quite some time before a full-frame sensor
is available at a price point that makes sense for the mass market.
So the digital sensors won't be full frame. This means you will have
to show framing lines in the viewfinder somehow. At least the PZ-1p
has interchangeable screens, so there is some way to do this.
And if you start using digital to it's full abilities, those extra
features come in handy. An LCD display to show me *exactly* 100% of
what I will get in the frame is nice. So, too, would be the ability
to zoom in to a small area of the frame for critical focus adjustments.
A digital back *could* have these features, but only in an external
LCD screen which is susceptible to scratches, and hard to see in
bright daylight. And, again, if you add those features, that will
increase the cost, making the putative price advantage much smaller.
The ability to preview a histogram of the scene, before pressing the
shutter, is a lot better than using the typical metering abilities.
It's not quite as good as taking multiple spot-meter readings, but
it's getting pretty close.
Digital image capture technology offers a lot of potential features.
A digital camera that manages to turn these into powerful tools for
the photographer will have a good chance of selling quite well. I
don't think there's enough of a market for a pure 'digital film'
product - most of the people who might buy it will be better served
by a simple digital camera that has no compromises made for film.
And those who stick with film because of the advantages *it* offers
are the one who are likely to demand more of their system as a whole,
and least likely to be satisfied by the constraints of a hybrid.
Your opinion, obviously, differs. But while you might be satisfied
with the limitations such a system would enforce, I don't think you
are representative of the typical consumer. Pentax (and the other
manufacturers) will sell more cameras by ignoring you and putting
their research and marketing dollars somewhere else.
Don't feel too bad - they are ignoring me, too. I'd rather have
a PZ-2p than an MZ-S, and I'd rather have a $2000 digital camera
with a partial-frame sensor that a $7000 MZ-D.
As for in-camera cropping, and email - those are your strawmen. But,
since you mention them, I'm sure some folks would pay extra for those
capabilities.
--
John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silicon Graphics, Inc.
(650)933-8295 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. MS 43U-991
(650)932-0828 (Fax) Mountain View, CA 94043-1389
Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your father. Prepare to die.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
