Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/16
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jeffrey Hausner wrote: > The question then becomes whether or > not digital equipment will be developed to the point that we can argue over > the subtle differences lying within the technology just as we argue over the > subtle differences between Leica lenses. i'm sure it will be developed relatively fast (much less than 50 years, to go back to a previous thread), to the point where Leica lenses will add value to the capture device, just like they add value to film today, because they will be able to let the device record the widest range of tones and the smallest details. And I'm also pretty sure we'll argue about the relative qualities of the various devices, their firmware and their software. We'll argue on compression technologies, on calibration issues, on ink performances, on battery management, etc. We will go on arguing on SLR v RF, on LCD screens v viewfinders, on build quality, on the QC bugs, on scalability, on upgradability and on the protection of investment. I'm sure some will argue that there are visible differences between files captured through Leica and files captured through Nikon, while others will argue that there are only marginal differences, and that the 0 and 1 sequences are the same in both cases... > It does seem that this group tends > to view digital technology in-- pardon me-- binary terms. "There is digital > technology, it is good." "There is digital technology, it is bad." In > forty years, will photographers wax nostalgic over the characteristics of > the long lost Digilux? Not more than anyone waxes nostalgic over the performances of the Brownie box or the Kodak Instamatic. The Digilux is even less of a milestone, it is extremely far from being the M3 of the digital age... Alan