I am just wondering here. What would happen if someone made a digital camera that just pocessed raw images to the sensor and forgot about all the one thousand other programs the camera had. I mean Simple like taking the picture at full resolution without all the fine better and best modes. A must is things like exsposure composition,ISO settings,white balance, shutter speeds and aperature settings. My point is why do we need all the stuff they put in these cameras. Do you all use it? After all is the image processed in photoshop more so then it is on the cameras? I just think a simple digital with basics would be nice. I know digital cameras have many capabilities, but haven't some of you wished there was a basic camera that just took great pictures? Monte Johnson.
Sometimes I think they do it because they can; nothing more, nothing less. But there are imes when images are meant for a particular use, such as for the web only and it makes sense to do as much in camera as possible w/o resorting to darkroom work.
I agree 100% that the sharpness, saturation and contrast controls are something to be avoided. My reasoning behind this is to give me the most flexibility with the imge at printing time. I prefer to not be locked into say a Velvia look, when I have an older portrait sitter who needs a softer, less contrasty look to hide crow's feet.
just like film cameras, digital offers many features that are features w/o much benefit, at least most of the time.
I have always felt that leaving the leader in /out after finishing a roll was a cure for whih there was no known disease. The possibility of double exposure being greater than the need to change films mid roll in a hurry and not taking the time to properly mark the roll being more likely.
it really is not as daunting as it may seem (been there). Just leave the useless, to me and maybe you controls at "0" in the menu and you can continue to use the digital slr just as you would a film unit.
The really nice things: unlimited ability to change iso and white balance for the situation and the ability to KNOW that you have a keeper make it worthwhile.
It just so happens a camera I mentioned to you is very much like what you have just described. It is the Sigma SD-10 with the Foveon chip. It only records in Raw format, which you then have to convert using the Sigma software. With the software you have a choice to simply output a 16-bit raw .tiff file which you can then color correct, adjust and edit with software of your choosing.
The camera does have some controls, but not a lot of confusing bells and whistles. As a digital SLR, it is just about the simplest and most like using a film 35mm SLR. Image file captures are also just about the best digital image quality for the money as well.
>>I agree 100% that the sharpness, saturation and contrast controls are something to be avoided. My reasoning behind this is to give me the most flexibility with the imge at printing time.<<
Some of the earliest digital cameras I tested and wrote about in the early 90's usually included in the instructions provided with the camera, the clear advice that if the saved files were to be processed and edited with a computer the camera adjustments should all be set to zero. I notice in the documentation that comes with contemporary cameras the manufacturers neglect to include that very good advice.?
Thanks for bringing up the Stigma D-10. I had forgot about that one. At one time I did read some on it and it seemed like a interesting camera. I wonder thoough how the quality of the camera is itself. I have held the 35mm Stigma and it seems to be not made too well. Are the lens pretty good? This brings up another question. Will Photoshop Elements 3.0 work to convert the raw files?. I am not opposed to having one to use along side my Fuji. Monte Johnson.
The Sigma SD-10 uses the basic Sigma 35mm SLR body, which has a good track record for reliability. It is not as slick and sophisticated as the top name brands however, and the SD-10 modifications have been minimal. You still see the entire 35mm frame area in the viewfinder with the area that is not within the chip sensor frame slightly darkened, which I found actually to be an advantage shooting.
I've used quite a few Sigma lenses over the years, particularly some long Apo telephotos that were about as good as any. Those made for the SD-10 and also sold with mounts for Canon, Nikon and others were very good in my tests, and have obtained positive responses in the feedback I get from users.
I don't think any software other than the Sigma will convert the images made by the Foveon chip. It is quite unique in design, but also that is its attraction, it reproduces exceptional color quality. The design of the foveon chip produces actually 3 separate images, one for each RGB channel, that are actually added together spatially to achieve the high 10.2 megapixel size.
But the Sigma software is very straightforward and makes it easy to convert the Raw files to high-bit .TIFF format. Then you can finsish the color correction and editing in Elements 3.0.
The Sigma 9 can be picked up cheaper. Is there a lot of difference between the two cameras. The Sigma SD-10 is harder to find used and new the price is up there. Monte Johnson.
To be honest it was over a year ago I did the Sigma SD-10 so I don't recall all of the detail specs, but I generally recall some differences in improvements in the chip for the SD-10, as well as some minor camera feature differences.
Possibly the Sigma web site may have specs for both, or if not try DPReview's archives.
Monte, the SD7 and 9 are FILM cameras, hence the cheaper cost.
There was an SD9 digital. Your right there is a Sigma 9 film camera. Monte Johnson.