Slashdot Mirror

My wife (emphoto.com) is a pro-photographer, so we follow all of this very closely. She's using Canon 10D and D60 bodies, but the EOS Rebel looks like a great camera, especially for the price.

I run a photo sharing site that quite a lot of pro photographers use, and they've taken a lot of test shots with them already:

Garden
Test shots
Botanical Center
Botanical Center #2
Sunset
Night Shots
A Wedding
Westminster City Park

dpreview also has a great review, as always.

Don

I've been using a pair of Nikon SLR cameras since I took a photography class in college and got to use my parent's circa 1970 Nikkormat cameras. The "new" one was built at a point when auto-shutter speed was a novelty, but you still had to set the aperture yourself; the other one is fully manual. Learning photography on equipment like this really made me come to enjoy the balance among shutter speed, focal length, etc, and even if I'm just poking around I'd rather work with something like than any modern point & shoot.

On the other hand, I've got a little digital camera now, and the convenience of it does have a lot of appeal. I took this camera to take pictures of a Man or Astroman concert a few years ago, and it was very educational to be able to "shoot from the hip", get instant feedback on what was & wasn't working (hint: at a rock concert, there's plenty of light, so don't bother with the flash, and have fun with any camera shake you end up with). The picture quality might not be as great as film, but the flexibility is a gift in itself.

That has led me to start looking around for a new pair of SLRs, one film, one digital. Ideally, I'd like to be able to have the same set of lenses that could be mounted on both a film & a digital camera body, and since I've been happy with Nikon, I'd like to get their gear. But damn it's expensive -- the "low end" D100 lists from $1400 to 1700, and the high end ones -- which in some areas seem to have lower specs than the D100 -- can be more than double that price. Yow!

I've been told that Nikon compatible kit is sold under a variety of labels, including Fuji, but I don't know enough about the compatibles to have made any decisions yet -- and from what I've seen, they're just as expensive as Nikon anyway. Does it make sense to go with someone like Fuji, or is the quality any better with "genuine" Nikon? (I'm a few decades behind on this stuff....)

I think the thing that scares me off so far is the durability, not just in terms of how rugged or useful the equipment will be in the future, but in the value. For example, the Nikon D1, from 1999, could do roughly 2.6 megapixels, as does the current D1H -- but that's barely a third of what the D100 can do, and the price is double the D100. Why that is isn't entirely clear to me, but it is clear that 2.6 mpix isn't a particularly big number anymore, where 5 mpix or 6 mpix point & shoot cameras are available for just a few hundred bucks.

++++

So there's the thing, in a nutshell: should it be assumed that the long term valuation of digital cameras, including digital SLRs, will have a trend like computers, in that you can always get a lot more capability for a lot less money than was available a year before? Or will these digital SLRs retain their value & utility better, the way the 30 year old traditional SLRs I'm using are still useful instruments today? I'm ready to get some of this new equipment, but the depreciation seems like it's going to be so steep that it still seems worth it to wait for at least a couple more years.

++++

At this point my hunch is that whenever Nikon upgrades the D100, I'll end up getting either the replacement model, or I'll try to find a closeout or second hand D100 hoping for a decent discount on it.

</rambling>

I've been using a pair of Nikon SLR cameras since I took a photography class in college and got to use my parent's circa 1970 Nikkormat cameras. The "new" one was built at a point when auto-shutter speed was a novelty, but you still had to set the aperture yourself; the other one is fully manual. Learning photography on equipment like this really made me come to enjoy the balance among shutter speed, focal length, etc, and even if I'm just poking around I'd rather work with something like than any modern point & shoot.

On the other hand, I've got a little digital camera now, and the convenience of it does have a lot of appeal. I took this camera to take pictures of a Man or Astroman concert a few years ago, and it was very educational to be able to "shoot from the hip", get instant feedback on what was & wasn't working (hint: at a rock concert, there's plenty of light, so don't bother with the flash, and have fun with any camera shake you end up with). The picture quality might not be as great as film, but the flexibility is a gift in itself.

That has led me to start looking around for a new pair of SLRs, one film, one digital. Ideally, I'd like to be able to have the same set of lenses that could be mounted on both a film & a digital camera body, and since I've been happy with Nikon, I'd like to get their gear. But damn it's expensive -- the "low end" D100 lists from $1400 to 1700, and the high end ones -- which in some areas seem to have lower specs than the D100 -- can be more than double that price. Yow!

I've been told that Nikon compatible kit is sold under a variety of labels, including Fuji, but I don't know enough about the compatibles to have made any decisions yet -- and from what I've seen, they're just as expensive as Nikon anyway. Does it make sense to go with someone like Fuji, or is the quality any better with "genuine" Nikon? (I'm a few decades behind on this stuff....)

I think the thing that scares me off so far is the durability, not just in terms of how rugged or useful the equipment will be in the future, but in the value. For example, the Nikon D1, from 1999, could do roughly 2.6 megapixels, as does the current D1H -- but that's barely a third of what the D100 can do, and the price is double the D100. Why that is isn't entirely clear to me, but it is clear that 2.6 mpix isn't a particularly big number anymore, where 5 mpix or 6 mpix point & shoot cameras are available for just a few hundred bucks.

++++

So there's the thing, in a nutshell: should it be assumed that the long term valuation of digital cameras, including digital SLRs, will have a trend like computers, in that you can always get a lot more capability for a lot less money than was available a year before? Or will these digital SLRs retain their value & utility better, the way the 30 year old traditional SLRs I'm using are still useful instruments today? I'm ready to get some of this new equipment, but the depreciation seems like it's going to be so steep that it still seems worth it to wait for at least a couple more years.

++++

At this point my hunch is that whenever Nikon upgrades the D100, I'll end up getting either the replacement model, or I'll try to find a closeout or second hand D100 hoping for a decent discount on it.

</rambling>

I've been using a pair of Nikon SLR cameras since I took a photography class in college and got to use my parent's circa 1970 Nikkormat cameras. The "new" one was built at a point when auto-shutter speed was a novelty, but you still had to set the aperture yourself; the other one is fully manual. Learning photography on equipment like this really made me come to enjoy the balance among shutter speed, focal length, etc, and even if I'm just poking around I'd rather work with something like than any modern point & shoot.

On the other hand, I've got a little digital camera now, and the convenience of it does have a lot of appeal. I took this camera to take pictures of a Man or Astroman concert a few years ago, and it was very educational to be able to "shoot from the hip", get instant feedback on what was & wasn't working (hint: at a rock concert, there's plenty of light, so don't bother with the flash, and have fun with any camera shake you end up with). The picture quality might not be as great as film, but the flexibility is a gift in itself.

That has led me to start looking around for a new pair of SLRs, one film, one digital. Ideally, I'd like to be able to have the same set of lenses that could be mounted on both a film & a digital camera body, and since I've been happy with Nikon, I'd like to get their gear. But damn it's expensive -- the "low end" D100 lists from $1400 to 1700, and the high end ones -- which in some areas seem to have lower specs than the D100 -- can be more than double that price. Yow!

I've been told that Nikon compatible kit is sold under a variety of labels, including Fuji, but I don't know enough about the compatibles to have made any decisions yet -- and from what I've seen, they're just as expensive as Nikon anyway. Does it make sense to go with someone like Fuji, or is the quality any better with "genuine" Nikon? (I'm a few decades behind on this stuff....)

I think the thing that scares me off so far is the durability, not just in terms of how rugged or useful the equipment will be in the future, but in the value. For example, the Nikon D1, from 1999, could do roughly 2.6 megapixels, as does the current D1H -- but that's barely a third of what the D100 can do, and the price is double the D100. Why that is isn't entirely clear to me, but it is clear that 2.6 mpix isn't a particularly big number anymore, where 5 mpix or 6 mpix point & shoot cameras are available for just a few hundred bucks.

++++

So there's the thing, in a nutshell: should it be assumed that the long term valuation of digital cameras, including digital SLRs, will have a trend like computers, in that you can always get a lot more capability for a lot less money than was available a year before? Or will these digital SLRs retain their value & utility better, the way the 30 year old traditional SLRs I'm using are still useful instruments today? I'm ready to get some of this new equipment, but the depreciation seems like it's going to be so steep that it still seems worth it to wait for at least a couple more years.

++++

At this point my hunch is that whenever Nikon upgrades the D100, I'll end up getting either the replacement model, or I'll try to find a closeout or second hand D100 hoping for a decent discount on it.

</rambling>

I've been using a pair of Nikon SLR cameras since I took a photography class in college and got to use my parent's circa 1970 Nikkormat cameras. The "new" one was built at a point when auto-shutter speed was a novelty, but you still had to set the aperture yourself; the other one is fully manual. Learning photography on equipment like this really made me come to enjoy the balance among shutter speed, focal length, etc, and even if I'm just poking around I'd rather work with something like than any modern point & shoot.

On the other hand, I've got a little digital camera now, and the convenience of it does have a lot of appeal. I took this camera to take pictures of a Man or Astroman concert a few years ago, and it was very educational to be able to "shoot from the hip", get instant feedback on what was & wasn't working (hint: at a rock concert, there's plenty of light, so don't bother with the flash, and have fun with any camera shake you end up with). The picture quality might not be as great as film, but the flexibility is a gift in itself.

That has led me to start looking around for a new pair of SLRs, one film, one digital. Ideally, I'd like to be able to have the same set of lenses that could be mounted on both a film & a digital camera body, and since I've been happy with Nikon, I'd like to get their gear. But damn it's expensive -- the "low end" D100 lists from $1400 to 1700, and the high end ones -- which in some areas seem to have lower specs than the D100 -- can be more than double that price. Yow!

I've been told that Nikon compatible kit is sold under a variety of labels, including Fuji, but I don't know enough about the compatibles to have made any decisions yet -- and from what I've seen, they're just as expensive as Nikon anyway. Does it make sense to go with someone like Fuji, or is the quality any better with "genuine" Nikon? (I'm a few decades behind on this stuff....)

I think the thing that scares me off so far is the durability, not just in terms of how rugged or useful the equipment will be in the future, but in the value. For example, the Nikon D1, from 1999, could do roughly 2.6 megapixels, as does the current D1H -- but that's barely a third of what the D100 can do, and the price is double the D100. Why that is isn't entirely clear to me, but it is clear that 2.6 mpix isn't a particularly big number anymore, where 5 mpix or 6 mpix point & shoot cameras are available for just a few hundred bucks.

++++

So there's the thing, in a nutshell: should it be assumed that the long term valuation of digital cameras, including digital SLRs, will have a trend like computers, in that you can always get a lot more capability for a lot less money than was available a year before? Or will these digital SLRs retain their value & utility better, the way the 30 year old traditional SLRs I'm using are still useful instruments today? I'm ready to get some of this new equipment, but the depreciation seems like it's going to be so steep that it still seems worth it to wait for at least a couple more years.

++++

At this point my hunch is that whenever Nikon upgrades the D100, I'll end up getting either the replacement model, or I'll try to find a closeout or second hand D100 hoping for a decent discount on it.

</rambling>

Now: Should you buy a digital SLR? That depends, I think, on how much you will shoot and what you will shoot. The two biggest advantages of a DSLR over a film SLR are immediacy and cost. The disadvantages are a focal length multiplier (in the case of the Canon EOS-300D/10D) and a high initial cost.

As with all digicams, you can see your results instantly, allowing you to check the shot and retry it if needed (and possible). One note though: a DSLR is a true SLR (single-lens reflex) so unlike a regular digicam you can't shoot using the LCD -- you'll have to use the viewfinder just like the rest of us. It's better for framing a shot anyway, trust me.

The focal length multiplier (1.6x in the Canon case) comes in handy if you're shooting through a 200mm lens -- it becomes equivalent to a 320mm lens. It's a bitch if you want to shoot wide-angle, though, as a 28mm lens becomes a 45mm equivalent.

The initial cost of a DSLR is high -- you've got a much higher cost to buy the body, and you've got to buy a memory card. However, the more you shoot, the more cost-efficient it becomes. Excepting the cost of lenses, which is the same for both film and digital SLRs, the cost after buying is 0. Film development isn't cheap, particularly not if you shoot thousands of shots a year.

So, if you're seriously interested in photography, it's worth it. If you're just shooting the occasional vacation or family event, it's not worth it. My D30 and 10D (had to buy it after I broke the D30 on vacation, but I wanted it anyway :) have served me well over the last 2 1/2 years, and I haven't looked back.

One final caveat: many people upgrade their photography hardware and expect things to magically become better. Pros do not have access to magical make-photos-good-now equipment that us mere mortals lack (though perhaps there's a Photoshop filter I'm missing?). To take photos like Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell takes talent, practice, and loads of patience. Good equipment can help make the task easier, but there is no magic pill.

Also, do you mean to say, "I highly recommend the 10D" rather than D60?

Last note...as far as dynamic range, Fuji is working on the isue with its Super CCD SR. Each pixel is captured by two photosites: One large one for greater sensitivity to low light, and one small one to capture bright light. So far, that's only offer on a point-and-shoot camera.

Not exactly. The 18-55m lens that comes as part of the camera kit (can get just the body, though) fits only this camera. EF lenses fit it, however. The mount is just slightly different (EF-S, I think it's called). See this extensive review of this camera. I've seen it demonstrated and played with it a bit at a local camera store. I own a Canon A2, and I'm a bit unsettled with how light the Digital Rebel/EOS 300 feels, especially with that little 18-55mm lens. After taking a few shots with it, however, I got used to its lightness, which would be appreciated by my neck after a few hours of wear, I'm sure. If I'm good, Santa will bring me one with any luck!

Try this.

I was nearly ready to buy the Canon 300D, but I don't have any Canon lenses (what lenses I do have are for an Olympus OM-2). After talking to friends, I decided that for what I need, a 'pro-sumer' would probably be a better fit. The Minolta A1 is probably the best availiable at the moment, but I plan to hold out and see how the Panasonic FZ-10 turns out (released in Japan today, US mid November). It'll be a 35-420mm 35mm equivalent, with a F2.8 Leica lens all the way through the range. Also has image stabilization, which should allow shooting at maximum zoom without a tripod. It is only a 4MP camera, but with a MSRP of $599, it is very tmepting.

With the 300D, I'd need to carry 2-3 lenses (need a range of 18mm-300mm for the Canon to get the equivalent range), and to get them at F2.8 with image-stabilization, that's easily $2k in lenses (and probably quite a bit more). For the money, the 300D is probably the best DSLR on the market, but the question is whether it is what you want.

I'll wait till the reviews come out for the FZ10 before I decide, but for the price, this is probably a better camera for me.

Info on the FZ10 (what is availiable so far at least) can be found here

There's not one camera for everyone, but you should think about what you need it for, decide what you are willing to spend, and decide how much paraphanelia you are willing to lug around before choosing to part with your $$$ (It probably helps if you have a load of Canon lenses already though).

In case anyone was wondering how cheap is cheap, this site lists it at $899. Thats still to expensive for me.

As the proud owner of a Fuji S2-Pro, I can say I love the DSLR concept. When I got my first SLR almost 10 years ago, I lamented the lack of a digital SLR and since then had been searching around for a good D-SLR. Last year, they finally came within reach, but I had to save up for awhile to be able to afford the $2000+ pricetag.

I can honestly say that i went from taking 60 photos per month with my old 35mm SLR to taking 100+ per week, all without any processing costs.

The most important things to consider are:
1) battery life - Your photo shooting is usually limited by the battery life of your camera unless you shoot in super-high resolution or RAW modes.
2) memory size - Buy as big a memory card as youcan afford. Size does matter. I LOVE to take advantage of the RAW shooting modes, but the photos are dozens of MB each.
3) memory speed - when shooting bigger files, you will notice the speed of your writable media. You can fill up the buffer of modern DSLR cameras fairly quickly in rapid-shoot mode (unless you have a Nikon D2 with the 40-shot buffer).

But overall, I prefer Nikon lenses (Nikkor is really nice), but Cannon is quite nice too. And for the price you can't beat this new DSLR.

Stewey

As the proud owner of a Fuji S2-Pro, I can say I love the DSLR concept. When I got my first SLR almost 10 years ago, I lamented the lack of a digital SLR and since then had been searching around for a good D-SLR. Last year, they finally came within reach, but I had to save up for awhile to be able to afford the $2000+ pricetag. I can honestly say that i went from taking 60 photos per month with my old 35mm SLR to taking 100+ per week, all without any processing costs. The most important things to consider are: 1) battery life - Your photo shooting is usually limited by the battery life of your camera unless you shoot in super-high resolution or RAW modes. 2) memory size - Buy as big a memory card as youcan afford. Size does matter. I LOVE to take advantage of the RAW shooting modes, but the photos are dozens of MB each. 3) memory speed - when shooting bigger files, you will notice the speed of your writable media. You can fill up the buffer of modern DSLR cameras fairly quickly in rapid-shoot mode (unless you have a Nikon D2 with the 40-shot buffer). But overall, I prefer Nikon lenses (Nikkor is really nice), but Cannon is quite nice too. And for the price you can't beat this new DSLR. Stewey

"What's the EOS 300D's weakness? Feature set. Canon are caught in a dilemma, they had to have a camera with a reduced feature set otherwise nobody would consider the EOS 10D (or any camera which replaces it). Almost laughably the majority of the EOS 300D's limitations are 'programmed in', that is they are simply software features which have been disabled."

If that's the case, call me when it's been hacked to enable everything.

Review of the pre-production model

... instead of the people who would really know.

As a fellow 10D owner, I wish I had mod points right now. :) I do wish I still had my old G1 - I carried it around everywhere. Since I moved into digital SLRs, I don't carry a camera around anywhere, unless I'm being paid. :-\ Now if I could just get one of those Cardbus CF readers, I'd be set. Oh, and another G1.

the articles and particularly the forums at http://www.dpreview.com

Digital Photos are certainly now one of the top ten uses for family PCs.

I highly recommend using some Digiphoto Organization software, it's just leaps and bounds over storing photos as files in folders.

These packages help organize, view, and browse your digiphoto collection, then actually do something with the photos: format them for email, printing, web galleries, calendars, greeting cards, etc.

There are plenty of choices in Windows, but I don't know of any usable packages for Linux. Of course, for OSX there's iPhoto (free!)

I've been using Photoshop Album since it was released in February, and I've been very happy with it. Version 2 was released on Monday, and there's now a free Starter Edition - so there's no excuse not to try it!

Some other digital photo management software:

• ACD Systems ACDSee
• Jasc Photo Album
• Lifescape Picasa
• Ulead Photo Explorer

Just check out Digital Preview's digital film comparison

I respectfully submit the Nikon D2H dSLR. This thing is a beast - a pro level digicam, with a built-in WiFi and FTP - as you shoot the stills it FTP's them back to base via WiFi.

Now, someone reaffirm my faith in the OSS community by writing a webDAV implementation for this beast - FTP is so yesterday.

ACey

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_ eos1ds.asp

Toss in a load of nice prime L-series lenses and you've got more money spent than a brand new H2!

Courtesy of Digital Photography Review. They go into all the new features that apply to digital photography, and have samples of how they work with real-world photos.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/adobephotoshopcs/

Naysayers, read the dpreview.com review and then post. Clearly, this upgrade has more new stuff than meets the eye. As a Photoshop 7 user and digital photographer, it looks like I will definitely be upgrading.

The end result is each pixel on the Sony is only 1/8 the area of the pixel on one of the $1500 advanced amateur digital cameras (Canon EOS 10D, Nikon D100, Fuji S2, Pentax *ist D).

This means each pixel will receive very little light (and thus a low signal to noise ratio) and have images with a lot of electronic noise even at ISO 100. Noise manifests itself as colored dots that pepper smooth areas like skies.

If this camera had used one of the ICX413AQ 6MP APS-size sensors Sony sells Nikon and Pentax rather than the ICX456 used on this camera, it could have been a winner.

The end result is each pixel on the Sony is only 1/8 the area of the pixel on one of the $1500 advanced amateur digital cameras (Canon EOS 10D, Nikon D100, Fuji S2, Pentax *ist D).

This means each pixel will receive very little light (and thus a low signal to noise ratio) and have images with a lot of electronic noise even at ISO 100. Noise manifests itself as colored dots that pepper smooth areas like skies.

If this camera had used one of the ICX413AQ 6MP APS-size sensors Sony sells Nikon and Pentax rather than the ICX456 used on this camera, it could have been a winner.

Read a review

Foveon's technology looks really good, although there is only one camera using it at the moment. Price is about the same, but doesn't include the lens.

Hopefully someone will introduce a Foveon "consumer" model in the $500 range before too long.

The only product with the Foveon chip is the Sigma SD9. Although it is an interesting product from some points of view, it does have some limitations. From a review of SD9:

That's not to say this "first of a kind" isn't without its problems. Sensitivity is limited and image sharpness and color response seem to drop off at higher ISO's. More serious is the tendency to clip color in a highlight, something I've described as "color clipping" and "gray halos". At this stage it's unclear if this is a sensor issue, a Photo Pro processing issue or a combination of the two. We're hoping Sigma/Foveon will be able to issue some kind of fix on this issue. For the time being shooting carefully so as to avoid overexposure is the key.

All the more important considering that you can get a 10 megasensor Sigma-based Digital SLR for around $1000 nowadays... See the DPReview site to compare this with other 6 Megapixel sensor.

By the way, the photocamera is aimed towards professionals, not us point and shoot idiots.

Actually, it's aimed at the hobbyist in-between (thus the category "pro-sumer") - it doesn't even offer removable lenses. For a real professional camera, you'd be wanting the $6000, 6 megapixel Nikon D1x or better yet, the mother of all digitals right now, the $7000, 11 megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds.

As for the image size, you have to remember that these cameras use 4 pixels (a 2x2 square) to create what we typically think of as one pixel, so the storage requirements are significantly smaller. Plus, when stored as jpegs (instead of the raw bits coming off the sensor), they're smaller yet. For example, the 11 meg monster above produces photos that are 4 MB at level of compression suitable for professional work.

-BbT

By the way, the photocamera is aimed towards professionals, not us point and shoot idiots.

Actually, it's aimed at the hobbyist in-between (thus the category "pro-sumer") - it doesn't even offer removable lenses. For a real professional camera, you'd be wanting the $6000, 6 megapixel Nikon D1x or better yet, the mother of all digitals right now, the $7000, 11 megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds.

As for the image size, you have to remember that these cameras use 4 pixels (a 2x2 square) to create what we typically think of as one pixel, so the storage requirements are significantly smaller. Plus, when stored as jpegs (instead of the raw bits coming off the sensor), they're smaller yet. For example, the 11 meg monster above produces photos that are 4 MB at level of compression suitable for professional work.

-BbT

By the way, the photocamera is aimed towards professionals, not us point and shoot idiots.

Actually, it's aimed at the hobbyist in-between (thus the category "pro-sumer") - it doesn't even offer removable lenses. For a real professional camera, you'd be wanting the $6000, 6 megapixel Nikon D1x or better yet, the mother of all digitals right now, the $7000, 11 megapixel Canon EOS-1Ds.

As for the image size, you have to remember that these cameras use 4 pixels (a 2x2 square) to create what we typically think of as one pixel, so the storage requirements are significantly smaller. Plus, when stored as jpegs (instead of the raw bits coming off the sensor), they're smaller yet. For example, the 11 meg monster above produces photos that are 4 MB at level of compression suitable for professional work.

-BbT

Thanks for the edit. I did use preview this time.

Here is the link to Nikon 995. This features C-M-G-Y filter array. Even older one is Nikon 900 (truly ancient as far as digital photography goes) and it also has CMGY.

Also worth noting that Sony named this color emerald, probably some patent is protecting the cyan (maybe Nikon)?

Thanks for the edit. I did use preview this time.

Here is the link to Nikon 995. This features C-M-G-Y filter array. Even older one is Nikon 900 (truly ancient as far as digital photography goes) and it also has CMGY.

Also worth noting that Sony named this color emerald, probably some patent is protecting the cyan (maybe Nikon)?

It has only one CCD, but instead of having the regular RGB pattern on it, it has a four color pattern.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03071601sonyrgbe ccd.asp

I personally love my Canon EOS 10D. Pictures from it require the use of profanity to describe their amazing clarity, i.e., fucking great. It uses the EOS lens system and is a true SLR. However, if I had the money, I would get a Canon EOS 1D.(DROOL) It has a full size 35mm sensor where the 10D is about 80% the size of a 35mm sensor.

I personally love my Canon EOS 10D. Pictures from it require the use of profanity to describe their amazing clarity, i.e., fucking great. It uses the EOS lens system and is a true SLR. However, if I had the money, I would get a Canon EOS 1D.(DROOL) It has a full size 35mm sensor where the 10D is about 80% the size of a 35mm sensor.

I agree with everyone else here that, as this product stands right now, it's pretty stupid. Get an iPod, or if you want something really small and light with no storage capacity, go with any of the many nearly identical products out there.

But while iPods really blow these things away right now, I still contend that these many keychain-sized things are the real future for portable audio, not ipod-like devices.

Persistent State RAM, like most computer-related products, is progressing on a price/capacity curve in line with Moore's Law. In fact, at 30 GB, iPod's are already almost arbitrarily large for most consumer's music storage. I bet only a tiny percentage of the market will ever want more music storage space than that.

Lexar is already making 4 GB flash cards. Soon, these keychain players will have capacities like that. In a few years, if the options are a smaller, cheaper, 4GB keychain player, or a larger, more expensive 200GB iPod-like device, who wins then?

And what of the iPod? To steal ideas seen on Slashdot before-
the iSite is a high-quality, tiny, light, video camera with a good lens. It runs entirely off a firewire cord. The iPod has a firewire port. With the addition of a fold-out OLED screen on the next generation of iPods, you may be able to clip your iSite onto your iPod for the tiniest DV camcorder ever- recording strait to a firewire hard drive. Suddenly, 30GB doesn't seem so huge anymore...

DPReview did a comprehensive review of a bunch of flash cards here but it's rather out of date now. Time to bug them to update it, I think...

"Let's face it how often do you use your camera?" I use my cameras (Sony DSC-U20, Olympus E20 (sample), Sony DSC-U60 underwater camera, Canon S100 a lot (4,000+ photos) but then again you're probably going to like the swimsuit photos best ;-)

That's because it's been interpolated from a RGBG (or whatever) matrix of original colour-filtered pixel values. Only Foveon have made a true per-pixel RGB single-chip sensor, and it's only available in one rather weird camera so far; every other current single-sensor camera uses filtered pixels, which is why their RAW format output is different from their TIFF format. RAW preserves the original pixel values, without interpolating the colour from surrounding pixels.

That said, the filtered pixels do not give you a cleanly arithmetically reduced resolution. They give reduced chrominance resolution, and some reduction in luminance resolution as well that's determined by the image and the filter colours and pattern. If you're shooting an all-red or all-blue scene with an RGBG-filtered camera, you'll get one-quarter resolution. If you're shooting an all-green scene, you'll get half resolution. If you're shooting a normal scene, you'll get something approaching the resolution you'd expect from the raw pixel number.

The subject matter and photographic situation may make it impossible to capture a full resolution image anyway, mind you. My slightly old EOS D60 review here has more to say about effective resolutions and what they mean.

I'm going to try it out... I have the good fortune to live near Dallas, one of the test markets (info thanks to this link from another poster).

That is, if I can get through the cloud of Clueless Salespeople.

Despite their positioning as photography experts, I haven't had the best of luck at Wolf Camera (part of the Ritz family). We took some film to them one time, in the hopes that they would push-process the low-light pictures, and got no better results than we would have had at Wal-Mart. Having to explain push-processing to the clerk should have been our first tip-off. :P

So this time, I called the big store in the industrial section of town (Harry Hines Blvd store). They sounded knowledgeable, but said they didn't stock them. I was referred to the suburban Irving location.

The clerk in Irving... didn't know what I was talking about. He said I'd have to hold for the "camera person"... hello, I thought the store was called [Wolf|Ritz] Camera, shouldn't they all be camera people? While waiting, I asked the non-camera person where he was located... he mumbled a bit and gave me a location several miles south of where I really, really thought the store was. Asked him for the store's address... boy, that really threw him for a loop! He found it, finally, and it was right where I thought it would be.

But when I talked to the "camera person", it turned out I didn't need to make the trip. At first, he said "Yeah, we have plenty of digital cameras." Explained the concept of "single use" to him. "Yeah, we have Fuji and Kodak, but we only develop the Kodak". Now, he was talking about the disposable film-based cameras that come with "free" developing to CD. It took a while to explain to him about this new product, big buzz on the 'net... so he gave me the number of another store. That's 15 minutes of my life I won't get back.

So I called location #3. This guy seemed very clueful, and assured me that yes, they have it... yes, they develop it... no, it's not the film-based version, it's the real single-use digital camera.

I'll head over there after work... details will be posted here! Hope my wife doesn't get upset about my new toy...

The Dakota Digital Single-Use Camera will be available beginning July 28th at Ritz Camera and Wolf Camera locations in more than 14 cities, including Washington, Baltimore, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Dallas.

What it says. looks like a fairly small camera, flash, plastic, "Dakota" brand?

No LCD and no zoom, either.

For the price, I'd also expect that it completely lacks manual controls, and perhaps even programmed modes... in other words, a truly cheapy bottom-of-the-barrel camera. Hell, do we even know if that's a genuine 2MP sensor, or whether it's some smaller mess that's upsampled?

Doesn't anyone else think this is overkill? I know that wireless is good for lots of other things, but do people really want this technology?

actually GPS in camera is available, the big guys offer add-ons, and Ricoh is one manufacturer that seems obsessed with the concept, here's one of their cameras.

Full-frame digital SLRs exist now and are well under $10k.

Kodak DCS-14n lists @ US$5k, 14 megapixels

Canon EOS-1Ds lists @ US$8k, 11 megapixels

These two (and the economy) are keeping me away from APS-sized sensor SLRs like the Canon EOS-10D at US$1.5K, 6 megapixels. Instead I'm going to get an Elan and start building a lens collection for when the full-frame cameras are less than $3k.

I was interested by the 4/3 system (I thought making a still camera using C-mount video camera lenses would be cool), but 1) it's too expensive and 2) 35mm is a great imager size for lens design. The depth of focus at a given aperture is better than medium format but it's possible to get it short if you want. The weeny 6mm lenses on consumer digicams keep the background in focus even at f/2.0, so they aren't great for portraiture.

When the full-frame sensors get cheaper, I hope Cosina makes a Leica screw-mount "digital rangefinder" for nice wide-angle digital without the compromise of a mirror box between the lens and sensor. Maybe they'll use our chip in it.

Full-frame digital SLRs exist now and are well under $10k.

Kodak DCS-14n lists @ US$5k, 14 megapixels

Canon EOS-1Ds lists @ US$8k, 11 megapixels

These two (and the economy) are keeping me away from APS-sized sensor SLRs like the Canon EOS-10D at US$1.5K, 6 megapixels. Instead I'm going to get an Elan and start building a lens collection for when the full-frame cameras are less than $3k.

I was interested by the 4/3 system (I thought making a still camera using C-mount video camera lenses would be cool), but 1) it's too expensive and 2) 35mm is a great imager size for lens design. The depth of focus at a given aperture is better than medium format but it's possible to get it short if you want. The weeny 6mm lenses on consumer digicams keep the background in focus even at f/2.0, so they aren't great for portraiture.

When the full-frame sensors get cheaper, I hope Cosina makes a Leica screw-mount "digital rangefinder" for nice wide-angle digital without the compromise of a mirror box between the lens and sensor. Maybe they'll use our chip in it.