Hi, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really > >> ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might > distribute > >> the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film > more. I > >> mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of > >> their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy > shopping > > >around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a > DSLR. > > >An area that certainly needs improvement. I would be _very_ unhappy to > >have bought a camera that showed the problem that has been highlighted > >on this list in the last few days. > > So would I be. > > However, I don't think anyone who has already bought a *istD, or a 300D or a > 60 or 30D is stupid. I think they just have more photographic discretionary > spending money than I do. I want to make that non-stupid part clear. > Me neither. What I think they have done is buy something that they have no way of knowing will fulfill the functions they require. Rather like I had to enter into a contract with my ISP _before_ they would answer any technical questions. No choice. Doesn't make me any happier with the outcome of my situation and I think there will be listers who are unhappy with the outcome of theirs. > >> 3. Greater latitude. Again ignorant. But I've been thinking maybe software > > >could ape film types more as well. I am used to shooting slides now, so > the lack > > >of latitude may not bother me -- much. But for those who formerly shot > > >negative film, it may be a bit of a shock. Maybe this could not be done by > software, > >> maybe it has to be firmware, but I think it might be doable. Very doable. > >> Settings to change latitude. > > >As above. Both of these areas show what I call a "consumer development" > >approach to product design. You make something that doesn't work quite > >as well as its predecessor and sell it. If the consumer complains, then > >it's an area to work on. If they don't..... Anyone remember stainless > >steel disc brakes? People probably died from that little fiasco, yet it > >took years before manufacturers reverted to cast iron. > > I don't think it's deliberate. I think it's what happens with an emerging > technology. They release something and find out later where the real problems > are. There is only so much development time they can give something. Things also > evolve and get better. But I certainly wouldn't call it planned in any sense, > say of deliberately releasing less than they can do at that point in time. > > I think it *is* what they can do at that point in time. I think it _is_ deliberate. It is also, to some extent, understandable. Otherwise you get to the stage where you never release a product because you know you can just go one step further towards improving it. Rather like an ex-lister and his book 8-) With something like software, which is probably more complex than all the rest of the item put together, it is more understandable that less-than-perfection is released as the manufacturer knows that it is relatively easy to correct. However this may also lead to an attitude of relative complacency. > >> 5. Full frame sensor? Nope, don't think that is important to me. > > >Why? It would lessen some of the problems you have highlighted above. > >It would also significantly reduce someone's profits..... > > Well, if full frame would solve problems, then that would be good. > > I don't particularly *want* it, because I like shooting wildlife and I like > the way long glass is "magnified." > It is a relatively small attraction of present DSLRs for me, too. > Except, I think, possibly, that I am more optimistic than you. > > I see these things as solvable. And I think they will be solved. So I am very > serious about this question... (addressed to others now) Was it something I said? 8-) I am optimistic that the present "difficulties" will be dealt with. I am not sure they will be dealt with in a manner beneficial (both financially and photographically) to me. mike
