[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I've been thinking about what improvements I'd like to see in DSLRs -- in the >> immature c**p technology -- before I am happy or happier. And, thus, more >> willing to spend bucko bucks on a DSLR.
>It's not crap technology, it's very expensive, cutting-edge technology. Of course it is. > >Trouble is, I am rather ignorant. But I think I'd like to see: > > >1. Canon solve it's exposure problems. (Not totally sure this is the problem, > >but it seems that is the problem, or maybe it's auto focus in low light, > >which is supposedly a problem with some of their film cameras as well.) >Not interested. I find Canon cameras unpleasant to use and will not be buying one in the forseeable future. Except if Canon fixes its exposure problem it means the whole front on digital technology moves forward. These companies R&D departments don't operate all that independently from each other. IE. An advance with one company usually means an advance with other companies as they "copy" each others' advancements. >> 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really >> ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might distribute >> the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film more. I >> mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of >> their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy shopping > >around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a DSLR. >An area that certainly needs improvement. I would be _very_ unhappy to >have bought a camera that showed the problem that has been highlighted >on this list in the last few days. So would I be. However, I don't think anyone who has already bought a *istD, or a 300D or a 60 or 30D is stupid. I think they just have more photographic discretionary spending money than I do. I want to make that non-stupid part clear. >> 3. Greater latitude. Again ignorant. But I've been thinking maybe software > >could ape film types more as well. I am used to shooting slides now, so the lack > >of latitude may not bother me -- much. But for those who formerly shot > >negative film, it may be a bit of a shock. Maybe this could not be done by software, >> maybe it has to be firmware, but I think it might be doable. Very doable. >> Settings to change latitude. >As above. Both of these areas show what I call a "consumer development" >approach to product design. You make something that doesn't work quite >as well as its predecessor and sell it. If the consumer complains, then >it's an area to work on. If they don't..... Anyone remember stainless >steel disc brakes? People probably died from that little fiasco, yet it >took years before manufacturers reverted to cast iron. I don't think it's deliberate. I think it's what happens with an emerging technology. They release something and find out later where the real problems are. There is only so much development time they can give something. Things also evolve and get better. But I certainly wouldn't call it planned in any sense, say of deliberately releasing less than they can do at that point in time. I think it *is* what they can do at that point in time. >> 4. Less artifacting. Well, most 6 mps seems to not artifact too much, but >> there seem to be some cases where they do. I am still sort of examining this one. As above. >> 5. Full frame sensor? Nope, don't think that is important to me. >Why? It would lessen some of the problems you have highlighted above. >It would also significantly reduce someone's profits..... Well, if full frame would solve problems, then that would be good. I don't particularly *want* it, because I like shooting wildlife and I like the way long glass is "magnified." But mainly it's not something I think they will do soon, for lower end DSLRs (under $2,000-3,000) anyway. There is no compelling reason for them to do so. So it is not on my wish list. >> 6. Being able to use older lenses on a Pentax DSLR. The more and more that I >> have read this list, the more and more I think that would be a great idea. The >> main reason is that there are tons of cheaper manual lenses out there. More >> people would hop on the Pentax bandwagon (newbies) if they could pick up >> cheaper lenses for their new DSLR. However, I am not sure if the firmware would > >support it -- because the aperture is set from the camera and the right contacts >> are missing from the lens mount (this is what I have gathered from reading the >> list). Is an adapter ring down the line at all possible? >Agreed. It is the major thing that would persuade me to buy a DSLR. >Yes, I would pay significantly more for it. Yes, I will wait for it to >happen. Yes, I will stick with film (maybe even moving to LF) for now. >If I need digital, I will buy a p&s. I am not sure if it can be done technology-wise, but it certainly would be a selling point. > Anyway, these are my ignorant ramblings. >Odd, they are mine too. >mike Except, I think, possibly, that I am more optimistic than you. I see these things as solvable. And I think they will be solved. So I am very serious about this question... (addressed to others now) What improvements would you like to see? Marnie aka Doe
