*ist DS announced

In article ,
"Malcolm Stewart" writes:

(FWIW I can't find what you're referring to).

It's under the Press Release section
"Major Features
1 Compact, go-anywhere design"
snipped
"high-rigidity stainless-steel chassis, multi-layered electronic circuit
boards and high-density"


Hmm, as opposed to the other manufactuers who have been adding
RSJs to their cameras to make them less portable.





--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In article ,
"Malcolm Stewart" writes:

(FWIW I can't find what you're referring to).

It's under the Press Release section
"Major Features
1 Compact, go-anywhere design"
snipped
"high-rigidity stainless-steel chassis, multi-layered electronic circuit
boards and high-density"


Hmm, as opposed to the other manufactuers who have been adding
RSJs to their cameras to make them less portable.





--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In article ,
"Malcolm Stewart" writes:

(FWIW I can't find what you're referring to).

It's under the Press Release section
"Major Features
1 Compact, go-anywhere design"
snipped
"high-rigidity stainless-steel chassis, multi-layered electronic circuit
boards and high-density"


Hmm, as opposed to the other manufactuers who have been adding
RSJs to their cameras to make them less portable.





--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In article ,
Alan Browne writes:
... and I note that they make a feature of using multi-layer boards. Does
this indicate that other digicams don't use them?


It also claims to have a viewfinder... by your logic perhaps the
others don't?

Hmm, reminds me of when certain high street chains were advertising
cheap sterios (I avoid the term Hi-Fi) equipment which had 'Automatic
Frequency Control' (or 'AFC') not mentioning that this had been a standard component
of even the cheapest radio for the past 40 odd years.

--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In article ,
Alan Browne writes:
... and I note that they make a feature of using multi-layer boards. Does
this indicate that other digicams don't use them?


It also claims to have a viewfinder... by your logic perhaps the
others don't?

Hmm, reminds me of when certain high street chains were advertising
cheap sterios (I avoid the term Hi-Fi) equipment which had 'Automatic
Frequency Control' (or 'AFC') not mentioning that this had been a standard component
of even the cheapest radio for the past 40 odd years.

--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In article ,
Alan Browne writes:
... and I note that they make a feature of using multi-layer boards. Does
this indicate that other digicams don't use them?


It also claims to have a viewfinder... by your logic perhaps the
others don't?

Hmm, reminds me of when certain high street chains were advertising
cheap sterios (I avoid the term Hi-Fi) equipment which had 'Automatic
Frequency Control' (or 'AFC') not mentioning that this had been a standard component
of even the cheapest radio for the past 40 odd years.

--

http://www.petezilla.co.uk

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Though once the market wants mostly digital, obviously I'll need to
switch.

I have rented some high end digital because some clients thought it would
be better. Those were mostly medium format digital backs, which one
could assume to be the highest quality in direct digital. Comparing some
final scanned film images, the few clients whom have requested this type
of
work, thought the scanned 35 mm was slightly better. With the scanned
medium format, they were then convinced that the scanned medium format
film was the ultimate. I have never had a repeat client that requested
direct
digital imaging more than once. At the end of any assignment, they get a
CD-R of images, so largely it really does not matter to them how the
images were captured.

Interesting - perhaps the reaction I would expect, but interesting
nonetheless.


I'm thinking about a digital back for my MF SLR within the next year or
so, just don't like the prices - but that currently would only be for a
few
markets, and most of the time I'd be shooting on film and then using the
digital back to take a digital capture as well.

You might be surprised that some of the earlier Medium Format digital
backs are going for near $2000 on EBAY. There are not many of them,
but they are starting to appear more often. The colour quality and lower
noise are benefits, even with slightly older technology. Most are the 37 mm
by 37 mm square chips, so quite a crop from the full film frame size.


I had seen one or two - still too many dinero per pixel for now, but I can
see the time to pick up a used one is going to come within the next eighteen
months or so - if only to be able to service the ocassional rush job.

Most of my 'digital customers' currently want big files that are better
produced by scanning film anyway.


Funny you mention film sizes. That is what has developed from discussions
with clients. When they find out that I can give them files so big that
only
three or four fit on a CD-R, they often realize that scanned film is still
high
quality. I think the basic idea is that they do not want to give up any
possible quality advantage, which was the point of them hiring a
professional photographer.


Absolutely!



But that said, I'll probably be buying one, just not "switching" in
the
sense of using it instead of film. It'll be a great teaching tool,
and
good for images for the web. Not to mention all the pictures Sharon
always wants me to take of her with this group of friends, with that
group of friends, with the dogs, with...

Yes. Digital is great for things you want to take a bazillion
pictures
of, but don't really want to pay the developing on.

Yeah, I can see quite a lot of non-work photography being digital. But
then, anytime I take a landscape that others would take for pleasure,
for
me it is (at least potentially) work, but these are the types of shot I
would
still prefer film for even if I was an amateur.

Also that there is no real equivalent for panorama images from an Xpan,
612, or 617 camera, in the world of digital. I would be surprised if any
company ever makes a true (not cropped) panorama digital that is not a
scanning (rotating?) camera.

That would be a seriously expensive chip - especially given that anything
more than Xpan size would need a wafer that is way bigger than current
production sizes. I wish I could afford a Fuji GX617, but do make good use
of my Xpan. Wondering about getting a 612 back for the 4x5 though, despite
the inconvenience of working that way.


The other huge issue is that an RGB sensor just cannot capture all
possible
colours. While films cannot capture all of them either, there are ways to
choose a bias in one direction or another. Also, there are colours
approaching some green, pure red, pure yellow, or especially cyan, that
can be captured on film, but all Bayer pattern digital chips struggle to
capture. Compounding this problem, is that most of these colour ranges
don't display accurately, or at all, on a computer monitor. Having that
piece of film with the proper colour really helps get the final printed
item
looking like it should.


One of the points about digital that is so often overlooked in the crazed
pursuit of resolution - which I suppose is no less stupid than those people
that think sharpness is the only thing that matters in a lens. It's a bit
like the silicone augmentation industry: never mind the brains, look at the
size...

And there is 'something' about a big slide on a lightbox.



Peter

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Though once the market wants mostly digital, obviously I'll need to
switch.

I have rented some high end digital because some clients thought it would
be better. Those were mostly medium format digital backs, which one
could assume to be the highest quality in direct digital. Comparing some
final scanned film images, the few clients whom have requested this type
of
work, thought the scanned 35 mm was slightly better. With the scanned
medium format, they were then convinced that the scanned medium format
film was the ultimate. I have never had a repeat client that requested
direct
digital imaging more than once. At the end of any assignment, they get a
CD-R of images, so largely it really does not matter to them how the
images were captured.

Interesting - perhaps the reaction I would expect, but interesting
nonetheless.


I'm thinking about a digital back for my MF SLR within the next year or
so, just don't like the prices - but that currently would only be for a
few
markets, and most of the time I'd be shooting on film and then using the
digital back to take a digital capture as well.

You might be surprised that some of the earlier Medium Format digital
backs are going for near $2000 on EBAY. There are not many of them,
but they are starting to appear more often. The colour quality and lower
noise are benefits, even with slightly older technology. Most are the 37 mm
by 37 mm square chips, so quite a crop from the full film frame size.


I had seen one or two - still too many dinero per pixel for now, but I can
see the time to pick up a used one is going to come within the next eighteen
months or so - if only to be able to service the ocassional rush job.

Most of my 'digital customers' currently want big files that are better
produced by scanning film anyway.


Funny you mention film sizes. That is what has developed from discussions
with clients. When they find out that I can give them files so big that
only
three or four fit on a CD-R, they often realize that scanned film is still
high
quality. I think the basic idea is that they do not want to give up any
possible quality advantage, which was the point of them hiring a
professional photographer.


Absolutely!



But that said, I'll probably be buying one, just not "switching" in
the
sense of using it instead of film. It'll be a great teaching tool,
and
good for images for the web. Not to mention all the pictures Sharon
always wants me to take of her with this group of friends, with that
group of friends, with the dogs, with...

Yes. Digital is great for things you want to take a bazillion
pictures
of, but don't really want to pay the developing on.

Yeah, I can see quite a lot of non-work photography being digital. But
then, anytime I take a landscape that others would take for pleasure,
for
me it is (at least potentially) work, but these are the types of shot I
would
still prefer film for even if I was an amateur.

Also that there is no real equivalent for panorama images from an Xpan,
612, or 617 camera, in the world of digital. I would be surprised if any
company ever makes a true (not cropped) panorama digital that is not a
scanning (rotating?) camera.

That would be a seriously expensive chip - especially given that anything
more than Xpan size would need a wafer that is way bigger than current
production sizes. I wish I could afford a Fuji GX617, but do make good use
of my Xpan. Wondering about getting a 612 back for the 4x5 though, despite
the inconvenience of working that way.


The other huge issue is that an RGB sensor just cannot capture all
possible
colours. While films cannot capture all of them either, there are ways to
choose a bias in one direction or another. Also, there are colours
approaching some green, pure red, pure yellow, or especially cyan, that
can be captured on film, but all Bayer pattern digital chips struggle to
capture. Compounding this problem, is that most of these colour ranges
don't display accurately, or at all, on a computer monitor. Having that
piece of film with the proper colour really helps get the final printed
item
looking like it should.


One of the points about digital that is so often overlooked in the crazed
pursuit of resolution - which I suppose is no less stupid than those people
that think sharpness is the only thing that matters in a lens. It's a bit
like the silicone augmentation industry: never mind the brains, look at the
size...

And there is 'something' about a big slide on a lightbox.



Peter

I will. Gotta show up first... g

keith whaley

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...entaxistds.asp


Snazzy. 2" LCD is nice. How many of you Pentax users will actually
consider making the switch at $800-$900 instead of $1500?

I will. Gotta show up first... g

keith whaley

Brian C. Baird wrote:

In article ,
says...


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04...entaxistds.asp


Snazzy. 2" LCD is nice. How many of you Pentax users will actually
consider making the switch at $800-$900 instead of $1500?