On Thursday, Jul 31, 2003, at 10:27 Europe/London, Barry Murphy wrote:
At the moment I think there would be too many occasions where the imacon would be impractical
Apart from underwater, sports & press I don't see where, after all you can put it on a DigiflexII and some Nikon prime lenses and away you go, full wide-angle et al.
I'm in Manchester. I'm underwater practically every time I shoot on location.
,but the fringing reported on the 1Ds has me a little concerned, although I have seen it well corrected using (I think) one of the Panorama Tools.
Do you really want to increase your workload that much ?
Certainly not. But if it is an occasional problem only there is a solution and the difference in price between the cameras will pay for quite a bit of my time. If it is a constant and serious problem then the camera is far less useful than others have said.
I have not heard of resolution being an issue, was it the lens or the camera?
Definitely the camera, no question about it, probably due to the anti-aliasing filter more than anything else. The Canon's filter does an exceptional job at virtually eliminating moire and other artifacts but at the expense of 'distant' detail ( for want of a better term !).
So Kodak got it right with the 14n! then again........
Interesting stuff. I will have another look at the digiflex but I remember thinking it seemed a bit like a great idea in development. I really should try not to be put off by its looks. I'm pathetic I know. Metering would be nice.
Kind Regards
Jonathan Keenan
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
