I am going to try to be impartial, discerning, and scientific today. I intend to uphold the finest tradition of technical enquiry and investigative journalism. Honest to a fault, I shall fearlessly scale the heights and then go off and find strong drink. Well, that’s what journalists do – I’ve seen one in our family at work on a bottle.
The subject is a new camera by one of my favourite firms. I have three other cameras from this same manufacturer that all record images on a similarly sized sensor, and I can equip them with the same lens and then produce a large JPEG file with the same settings. If there is no other fiddling indulged in, it should show me the relative difference in resolving power , contrast, and colouration between bodies.
They span a 5-year period of development. As digital camera design and technical development grows fast than mould in Darwin, there should be a real improvement on the screen from early to late…but I cannot say whether that improvement will be so large as to excuse the price of a new camera. There may be other criteria that have also been improved, but my time is addressed to small-scale studio work and I think it is the only subject I am qualified to judge.
But what if the results do not show a vast improvement? What if the extra processor power and more finely divided screen do not make it look better? As I am going to write the review for a commercial weblog column as well as this personal one, what should I say? Well, I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it, but remember that Soviet tanks cross rivers by driving underneath them with snorkels, so maybe bridges are unnecessary
We shall see.