On 12 September 2011 09:55, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > > So why was this reference to film brought up at all? Films have not > changed substantively since 1996 or so. >
Now, now, Godfrey, you're not trying to mess with my mind are you? You brought up the subject of comparison with film, even after I'd stated that using digital cameras WASN'T like using film, On 12 September 2011 00:20, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:31 AM, Anthony Farr <[email protected]> wrote: >> .... It's not like the >> "good ole days" when we could throw a faster film into a camera >> on spec, if a digital camera doesn't have good high sensitivity >> performance out of the box it never will have. > > There were never any 35mm films with ISO 800 or above that were as > grainless as most people obsessed with ultra high ISO sensitivity seem > to want to see these days. Nearly any DSLR class sensor camera made > since 2004 outperforms all ISO 800 35mm films on sensitivity and > noise. > There's the smoking gun, directly above, and it's in your hand. > > Discontinued as of October 2011, wow, three quarters of a year ago. > Ancient history, eh? > Huh? Would you like to run those dates by me again? Next month? Nine months ago? My brain hurts. > > Whether distributors in other geographies have > out of date websites is irrelevant. > The rest of the world may be irrelevant to you, but it's relevant to the rest of the world. Hell, you're in the rest of the world from where I stand. The websites aren't out of date, they're showing what's still in the catalogue country by country, and being sold as new product. > > You can't say a four year old sensor is obsolete then say that a known > discontinued product is current without contradicting yourself. > No contradiction has come from me. Where did I say it was obsolete? I did infer that it should be. It's not obsolete while Olympus, on its global website, still lists cameras using it as current in major markets, and I don't mean Turkmenistan, Mali and the Principality of Hutt River. However, in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, the Middle East, South Africa, Mexico, Singapore, "Other Countries" of Asia/Oceania which apparently includes the Philippines, in all these countries and more Olympus will gladly and proudly sell you an E-4xx or E-5xx as a new model, not a discontinued model. Perhaps the success of the Pen series means they're not too desperate to cash in their back-catalogue, but they're not doing their reputation any favour at all. Did you know that in Mexico and Latin America an E-420 is a "Profesionales SLR Digital"? That's a generous description, I'd say. > >> No, I'm aware of their history in the segment. And I'm aware that >> they sourced the core of these cameras, chassis, reflex assemblies, >> shutters, viewfinders &s. from Olympus. They put on the outer shells, >> installed their own processors and image engines, and fitted their own >> lenses. > > Not quite, but splitting hairs is a waste of time. > So you're suggesting that Olympus made the lot, then? (evil grin.) I've read that Olympus built the underlying cameras, you've read different. We won't agree. > > The L10 was under development and hit the market while the G1 and GH1 > were reaching first working prototype stages, likely with the older > sensor in them. Olympus has their own development schedules, etc. > That's SOP, but doesn't say much. Companies always have future models in planning, but they can't sell prototypes in shops. The clever companies are planning several model generations ahead. If that planning is so far advanced that substructures of it aren't available they just get along with whatever they have at hand. One department can't stop work and wait while another catches up, after all. But that is a sideshow to this discussion. The simple truth, proven by history, is that Panasonic used the 10MP sensor once and once only , then let it go. Olympus kept churning out cameras that it's still trying to sell around the world, for the most part in denial that it's yesterday's technology and should be presented as such. >> >> Both of those cameras are considerably more expensive in Australia. >> Our dollar may have surpassed the greenback, but our buying power is >> still much lower than U.S.A.'s. > > I can't help that. Buy them from New York then. > No thanks, no reason for me to contribute to the demise of bricks and mortar stores and send retail profits offshore. I like to see and feel what I'm buying. > > I don't know about you, but I never bought ASA 800 film because I > thought it would be grainless. I bought it so I could make photographs > in low light. > Ditto for me. Apparently you think I abhor grain/noise, and that I hold the view that visible high ISO noise defines a camera as crap. Not so, my grievance is with an uncontrolled defect, shadow banding, that just happens to go hand in hand with high ISOs. Here is what I wrote about grain/noise, "I have an Olympus E-410 that has the 10MP sensor. It seems passable at iso800, and I don't mind graininess/noise, but at 1600 it's not only very noisy but showing shadow banding". All along I been returning to this point (except when I been answering your points), because it's the issue that I am addressing. > > Go ahead, judge all you want. I'll express my opinions too. > That's why we're here, isn't it? The irony of it is that I share most of your views, anyway. We've ended up arguing across each other in a battle to set the agenda. All along you have steered the discussion towards your grievance, which I gather is about the overemphasis being placed on having the most megapixels, the highest ISO and the least noise/graininess all in the one camera. Intelligent people like us know that's a classic case of the triangle of wants, out of which you can only attain two of the desired items/attributes.... .... and yet a few cameras seem to have gained all three. Damn! > >>> "... Equipment often gets in the way of Photography. ..." >> >> I've seen very few photographs taken without equipment. >> On second thought, make that none. > > That doesn't mean it doesn't often get in the way. Hmm. ... I guess > you've never seen or made a photogram. > I thought your expression was about photographs. Photograms aren't photographs. Yes, Yes, I know your next reponse, which would be to deconstruct the word "photograph" Photo = light Graph = write ... therefore... Photograph = write with light. Gotcha, what is a photogram if it isn't writing with light, blah, blah, blah..... But a photogram is not what "photograph" refers to in common usage. regards, Anthony "Of what use is lens and light to those who lack in mind and sight" (Anon) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
