Upload & Sell: Off
| p.3 #6 · Are the D4, D800 and D600 the same camera with different casing? |
Avi B wrote:
You know what's ironic? He is a really smart guy, technically. Has a MS in EE. I think he just got fed up of working "for real" and figured out that he could make more coin and have an easier lifestyle by doing what he does now. Sold out, sort of.
I think M635_Guy has hit the nail on the head. Neither 'shock jock' are making false statements. They simply constrain the parameters of their argument very tightly, so it's not false inside the world they construct. However, in the real world it usually doesn't make much sense. It's something akin to the economists assumption 'ceteris paribus,' meaning 'all else held equal.' Only trouble with that assumption is that it is very seldom true.
Regarding potential half truths from KR, I have a question that maybe some of you can help to answer. He makes these claims about the only true or real raw image is shot on film (he has even trademarked some of the terms using real and raw). Within his constraints, the argument makes some sense. He notes that film is always 'readable.' Clearly reading a digital raw file may be a problem in the distant future (I know about Adobe's DNG format as a potential solution, at least it's compatible with Adobe software). He also states that resolution may be changed as scanners improve over time. So this is my question, with cameras like the D800, have we reached a level of resolution that is equal to or greater than film? There is grain in film, especially at higher ISOs, are the pixels of a 36Meg sensor on that scale? Maybe this is a dumb question, since the crystals on the film may be at a molecular scale, but I don't know the answer. And I don't trust KR to answer it.