On Sunday, September 29, 2002, at 01:41 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Rob, > > A funny thought just crossed my mind. In the past we have been very > accustomed to thinking that the camera body doesn't matter that much > as long as the shutter speeds are accurate. The optics are after all, > what really makes the picture quality. But with DSLR's, that changes > to some degree. Optics are important, but the body is far more > important than in the past. With the electronics and software built > into the body, a camera body can have as much or more impact on > picture quality than the lens. It would be entirely possible for > Pentax to create a DSLR with poor software that would negate the > quality gained from the optics. Not a comforting thought for me. I > have always thought that as long as my glass was good, any body would > work in a pinch. > I, too, like Pentax glass the best. But I could stand to use Nikon > glass and bodies if necessary. > > Bruce See, this is one of the things that strikes me as being the worst about d-slr. With film, you can change your film any time you want, and you are going to have a new look with each film. With digital, it's like you are stuck with the brand of film that was in the camera when you bought it. The argument against this, of course, is you can change it anyway you want in Photoshop or the equivalent. But that also applies to film, so digital, to me, comes out the loser in that comparison. Add the not being able to use the film you want to not being able to use the lenses you want, and digital loses two out of the big three, winning only in speed of gratification. If I'm going to switch, I want better, not just quicker. And I've got more reservations than those, but I think I've used up all my brain time today. Dan Scott
