|
Stephen,
As a Minolta user, I bought the camera when it came
out in September as a relatively inexpensive way of entering the DSLR
market, since much of my Minolta lenses and equipment could fit
on the Sony A100. Considering the speed at which technology changes, it
seemed that this was a good strategy. I would buy the camera, play around
with it for a couple of years until it became obsolete. If I was
sufficiently impressed with digital image capture, then I would jump
to a top camera.
So far so good. I have not fully yet used all
the capabilities of the camera, but on balance the results are OK.
BUT... I still can't say that I am sold on
digital image capture as opposed to film image capture! However I go about
it, I find that there is something lacking in the digital file by way of
sharpness or crispness of the image. Is this me? Is this the
camera? Is this the intrinsic to the digital image capture
process. But, when it comes to making large size prints (16x20 and above),
I find that the combination of film negative and my DeVere 504
enlarger provide me with infinitely superior results compared to
anything I have been able to do with my digital camera.
At the same time, I find DSLR cameras tremendously
effective because they allow you to check the image on the spot and reshoot as
appropriate 'til you have captured what it is that you intended to
capture.
It's probable that I can improve on my digital
image capture habits and get great large size prints. In the meantime, I
tend to consider the DSLR only as a great convenience but not my prefered
camera.
A rather odd statement, I suppose, on the part
of someone who is primarily a pinhole (read fuzzy) photographer...
Regards,
Guy
|
