I remember vividly the conversations
that went on prior to the launch of the
*ist D. At the time I decided that
digital was not for me. That's changed
because I now have a need for lots and
lots of images and can no longer spare
the time for processing film.
I've been taking very respectable
pictures with a web cam believe it or
not. At high magnifications 1280 x 960
is quite enough to show 250 nanometre
spacings on biological structures. But
at low resolutions the pixels obscure
the details completely and at *least* 6
megapixels is needed.
Don
--
Dr E D F Williams
_______________________________
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
See feature: The Cement Company from Hell
Updated: Photomicro Link -- 18 05 2005
Dario Bonazza wrote:
Pål Jensen wote:
Dario wrote:
Today, digital FF is more than enough for at least 99% of the pro
market.
For that reason I think of digital MF as a niche.
But these kind of arguments are absurd!
Not quite, read further.
It they made any kind of sense we would still be driving Ford model T's.
I never said to buy a Ford T after a Ford T, and I never said to buy a
*istD after an *istD. Where do you get such an idea from?
Kodachrome was good enough for 99% of all 35mm outdoor shooters but
still virtually all of them switched to Velvia because it was "better".
I'd say "overall better", since someone (not me) could well prefer some
aspects of the 'chrome.
In any case, Velvia proved to offer comparable quality, lower price and,
most important, it is more practical/quicker to manage.
I think a 16MP DSLR in a 35mm size (body and lenses) can offer more or
less the same advantages when compared to a 18MP 645 system, both being
a good step over current 6MP DSLR's.
The fact is that people will buy the best there is as long as it is
within reasonable cost/hassle constraints. Whats good enough doesn't
enter the equation.
So everyone is driving Ferrari and Porsche cas over there? No one is
still buying current Fords, Volkswagens and Toyotas? Despite being just
100Kms far from Maranello, I don't see Ferraris all the time.
If a "well more than enough" EOS 5D will be barely affordable by your
money at 3,000$ and another "well more than enough" 645D will be even
beyond your cash at say 9,000$, which one will you buy?
Then, having bought the 5D in 2006, which camera will you buy when an
even better 30MP camera (for instance a EOS 3D, not just another Ford T)
will be available in 2008 at say 3,000$? I'd bet another Canon.
I only wish in 2006 I could buy a 15MP Pentax K-mount body instead of
the EOS 5D.
Dario
