tv wrote:
> I'm with Cotty on this one, mostly. However, I need 2 things from
> digital that I don't think it quite has yet: low light sensitivity, and
> a good b+w output option. So far I've ony seen decent prints at EI 100,
> and the comments regarding b+w prints just from this list haven't been
> encouraging.
>
> When those two problems are solved, I'm in.
I think the b&w part is already here, but it's a fairly esoteric sidelight
to the whole digital bandwagon that requires some commitment to learn about.
I haven't really been following it, but from the photographic community I'm
already hearing about--and seeing--b&w prints that are at least as good as
what's possible optically. Tina Manley has been making all her b&w prints
digitally for at least three years now, for example.
I agree with you that sensitivity is an issue that hasn't really been
adequately raised yet. The easy-to-grasp specification is the number of
pixels, so the makers are locked into that battle--"my 3 beats your 2" "oh
yeah? My 4 beats your 3!" "Oh YEAH? I've got a 4 too!" "Hey, I've got a 5,
so stuff you guys!"
It doesn't make the most sense, to me. There's a limit to how many pixels
are needed, and to who needs them. There's the issue of whether stuffing too
many pixels on a CCD actually lowers image quality because it becomes harder
to make the thing work right (so far, actual users of 4- and 5-megapixel
consumer digicams aren't just raving about quality). And then there's the
storage issue. The greater the pixel count, the more stoarge is needed and
the fewer shots can be taken and the larger the file size in the computer,
etc.
In a way, there's an almost arbitrary quality to what captures the public's
fancy as measures of "goodness." The fact that EVERYBODY is talking about
pixel count and NOBODY is talking about sensitivity is a great example of
this. I made the point in print once that we're extremely lucky that the
longevity of early digital prints was so POOR--because it brought it to the
buying public's attention and thus FORCED the manufacturers to deal with the
problem. It's become a selling point, and, because it's a selling point,
it's being addressed. Sensitivity isn't being addressed. I hope it will be
sometime soon. I'd rather have a 3-megapixel camera with a true noiseless
ISO 800 equivalent potential than a 6-mp camera that has to be used at an
ISO 80 equivalent.
--Mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
