MATTHEW- Thank you for the precise information. It is funny that old gremlins of film photography such as excessive grain and moire patterns again rear their ugly heads in the digital world and originating in different parts or places in the system- I thought theses are all issues of the past. Grain is now NOISE and
moire patterns and
Newton rings were defects related to the use of glass negative carriers and cover glasses in slide mounts. The preventative method of choice in those days was to incorporate ANTI-newton glass which was sandblasted enough to create a light frosting or irregularity on the surface of the glass and some photographers used a light coating, on the glass, of talcum powder. I wonder if there is any correlation to the ANTI-aliasing filter.
JON- There is nothing wrong with obsolesce when a new and better methodology or technology arises out of engineering which make for better quality and more efficient performance in all sorts of photographic gear. This is a natural progression in progressive thinking where the old gives way to and is left behind by the new. The negative aspect that I was alluding to is when obsolesce is engineered into a product whereby an expensive piece of gear will unceremoniously drop dead beyond repair after a certain period or cycle of usage. We have cardboard cameras for that not DSLRs costing many thousands of dollars.
As professionals, we must keep up with the times and the technologies that enable us to remain competitive. This impitus oftentimes requires judicious investments in the latest gear. Photo enthusiasts and hobbyists can perhaps make do with their equipment for longer periods and can go in for improvements at their option. In all cases, there is nobody holding a gun to anyone's head that forces one to jump on the bandwagon and buy everything as it is introduced.
It is a known fact that professionals photographers are not the best customer for new equipment. In the old school of though, pros purchased equipment to last for an entire career and film camera and analog equipment has taken a lickin' and keeps on tickin'- just as anyone who owns a Hasselblad, Rollei, an F series Nikon, a Linhoff or a Lica can attest to. Just ask Kodak (as if they will tell you the truth) why over the years the have shifted their advertising ands their equipment and supply lines toward the consumer market. The consumer market buys more and responds better to their advertising.
Cameras are now marketed like home electronics were marketed in the past; "If you don't have the latest and greatest, you are behind the times". Many consumers believe that a more powerful sound systems will yield better reproduction because the don't fully understand that the acoustical and electrical set up of their speaker systems are more than half the battle for realistic and authentic reproduction. It's the same with cameras; so many photographers think that an upgrade in their camera system will automatically improve their photography and we all know that ain't necessarily so!
There is no doubt that progress in digital imaging will continue at a rapid pace regardless of anyone's reactionary or radical thoughts. Like everything else, good things and good technology cost money and people who insist on state of the art equipment have to bite the bullet and write the checks. If one can't afford that, they are certainly not left out of the craft of photography, they just have to make do with what the have, improvise, innovate and apply their talent. To me, talent and artistry count far more than mega pixels.
Ed
