Digital BW, The Print

sinar001 wrote:
> Very interesting how still photographers can get sucked into "dissing"
> what's been added to the camera as a "bonus" not an added cost.
>   
What makes you think I've been "sucked into 'dissing?'" In fact I just 
know what I want and I have no interest in video. Why would you assume 
otherwise? And why would you assume that there's no added cost? You 
think Canon does this work for free? Gives the higher speed hardware 
away for nothing? You must be joking. Oh, wait -- I've already made that 
mistake once today. *Are* you joking?
> What's really going to be distressing for all the still photogs will
> be how long it takes before they can get one. There will be a lot of
> video guys lining up to buy the camera! It offers them a cheap
> "second" camera with very unusual video capabilities--shallow depth of
> field, and excellent high ISO qualities not matched by any pro video
> gear at this time. 
>   
That's almost certainly true.
> Another interesting thing, while Nikon introduced the HD capability
> two weeks earlier, their offering seems to be a second rate product
> (video quality wise) compared to Canon's. And both are "testing the
> water" when it comes to this combined function in a dslr. Everything
> will evolve in the next generation products. 
>
> Another thing that will be evolving will be the elimination of the
> optical dslr. I would be surprised if the "mirror box" would not be
> eliminated within 5-years. Then we could have much quieter cameras.
>
> John Nollendorfs
>
>   
Now getting rid of the pentaprism and the mirror is a feature I would 
certainly pay for, as long as it translates into a smaller and lighter 
box. There's no reason why the view finder can't be fed directly from 
the sensor giving us a 100% view. And... taking out the mirror would 
give us a faster "motor drive" mode! There ya go -- full circle.
--
Bruce Watson