Slashdot Mirror

The camera also has USB connectivity, and can function as a 8cm CD-RW drive (!) -- a beautiful feature I'd love to see adopted on the Philips MP3 player.

Q

I can understand the desire to keep things cheap, the article just didn't come across that way somehow.

A "professional" grade camera may very well use the same CCD chip as something like the Vesta.

Heh, no way. :) I have had a series of digital cameras of various prices and I know that that *none* of them would have been bettered by a $20 webcam. For reference, here are some pics from a $500 Canon digicam. Show me where to get that quality for $20 and I'll buy ten of them!

You can find additional info about OLED here and here. They said: OLED production is currently 20% more expensive than LCD (!). But if a "highly productive" fabrication can ramp up, it will cut the cost.

from an article at dpreview.com (examining a different OEL being produced by Sanyo and Kodak:)

The new 5.5-inch panel has a quarter-VGA resolution (240 x 320 pixels) with a brightness of 200 candela per square meter. It consumes 2 watts running at 10 volts. Yoneda claimed that the power consumption is lower than comparably-sized LCDs, which eat 2.5 W on average. The pixel transistors are optimized to maintain uniform brightness over the surface of the panel. The aperture ratio is about 50 percent, an improvement over the 30 percent ratio of the earlier 2.4-inch panel.

and this, from the University of Arizona's Optical Sciences Center (discussing Organic LEDs, full authors' credits on page:)

Recently, organic light emitting diodes (OLEDs) have attracted a lot of attention, mainly due to their simplicity of fabrication, low operating voltage and power consumption, large view angle, high brightness and efficiency, ultra-thin structure, mechanical flexibility, and light weight.1 Their potential use in display applications, such as ultra-thin flat panel, roll-up, and head-mounted displays is being seriously considered by numerous companies.

So to answer your question, it looks like the technology as it currently stands performs roughly as well as backlit LCDs, with perhaps even a slight advantage. This technology takes the middleman of backlighting out of the equation by using electroluminescent materials in the first place. Thus, the above claims make some sense, as you are only pumping power to the pixels themselves, and not the pixels and the backlight.

On a bit of a tangent, this looks to be similar to the LEP technology Slashdot reported about some time ago (see Cambridge Display's homepage for more info.)

First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.

That looks a little like the stuff Canon used to shave a few pounds off of it's 400mm lens. Wish I could buy (either!) now. (it's the "Multi-Layer Diffractive Optical Element" thatlooks a bit similar to some of the GLV...)

The higher-end cameras are coming out with some interesting features. Here is a review of the olympus E100RS digital camera. It captures at 15 frames per second, but the cool thing is that it features pre-capture. I guess it continuously takes pictures to a buffer, then dumps them when you press the shutter button. You can take photos backwards in time!

While I have no idea about an interferometer setup, it is quite possible to hook up a digital camera to a telescope and get some nice images of space. Check out this link (and the link referenced there) to see some.

That's really not a bad price - $2430 US! Considering especially if you already have an investment in EOS lenses.

But what I would rather see is some of the companies out there that make digital backs for the Hassies to expand into the 35mm market! Now THAT would be cool...

The artifacts are a result of heat on the CCDs introducing "hot pixels". Also, JPEG compression is also a factor in that. Admittedly, there are still some color fringing problems with high-contrast areas, although the D1 seems to have a good grasp of this problem in terms of fixing it...

As for interchangeable lenses, the Nikon D1 uses any of the Nikon AF lenses that are available. You will be able to use your N-60 lenses with the D1. Virtually ANY F-Mount lens ou can find, or so they say.

Canon has just release the EOS D-30 which is a digital SLR to compete with the Nikon D1

There are definitely a lot of things that can be improved with digital photography, but its getting there...

The artifacts are a result of heat on the CCDs introducing "hot pixels". Also, JPEG compression is also a factor in that. Admittedly, there are still some color fringing problems with high-contrast areas, although the D1 seems to have a good grasp of this problem in terms of fixing it...

As for interchangeable lenses, the Nikon D1 uses any of the Nikon AF lenses that are available. You will be able to use your N-60 lenses with the D1. Virtually ANY F-Mount lens ou can find, or so they say.

Canon has just release the EOS D-30 which is a digital SLR to compete with the Nikon D1

There are definitely a lot of things that can be improved with digital photography, but its getting there...

according to today's DP review, the Euro prices for the D30 are more like $2500 (I say, as I eye my checking account)... :)

That's why I'm waiting for the Canon D30. It's going to take the regular EF mount EOS lenses and flash. It's uses CMOS instead of CCD though so I'm going to wait for the reviews. (I'm also going to wait for the price to come down, it's going to start at $4000CDN.)

Check out a nice review at: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canond30/

.. I think I'd prefer a higher resolution, or something that could capture video clips, like this mini dvd camcorder -Something you can get a decent still out of (1280x960), capture video, and holds gigs of data..


--------------------------------------

Linus H. Torvalds on rollerblades! You know, there are uses for compactflashes other than stuffing Britney Spears on them! Goto dpreview.com or Steve's digicams and other and see why we need larger storage media. I have 48MB CF in my camera and I can fit 140 images on it. Maybe good for one day, but hardly for 2 week vacation. (Unless I get more flashes/portable storage/nearby cybercafé) And I have old 1280x760 camera, wait until I get my paws on one of those 2000x1600 cameras.. Btw, I want that Canon D30!
J.

Well, there may have been several reasons for this. First, almost all computers sold have CD-ROM drives in them. I haven't seen a single puter with a minidisc-rom (MD-ROM?) drive. Second, if there's no data spec for the MD's, and no real way to implement it--i.e. no "data type field"--then they shouldn't put data on there.

Of course, my main concern for these things is the CD-R's susceptibility to vibration, and latency for the bloody things. Digital Photography Review had a review of the latest Mavica, and they reported a latency of 15 seconds, per picture after the exposure for the bloody things, when using a flash card. Granted, it's much better while using a floppy, but still, a floppy drive or a CD-R drive aren't the fastest of media these days. That's fine and dandy for portraits and other stills, but for anything else, it makes it kind of obnoxious, if not downright useless, relegating it to the "toys" section.

Nah... who needs battery life?

Reminds me of an old joke about a Russian gentleman with a suitcase, talking to an American tourist. The gist of the joke was that though it was a nice watch, it needed a battery the size of a suitcase. A Lithium-Ion battery is probably a requirement for these beasties, and by the time you have a charger, why not make it a cradle?

After doing a fair amount of research (reading every review I could find on certain models of cameras) and changing my mind several times about which one would best suit my needs, I've decided on a Sony CyberShot DSC-D770. I selected this camera because the 35mm I use most often is an SLR, and after much deliberation I decided to stick with the SLR style. The Sony's resolution (1.5 megapixel) is a bit on the low side by today's standards, but that's the only real shortcoming of this camera. Still, I think 1344x1024 output will be sufficient for my purposes. What I particularly liked about this camera is the wealth of manual controls, especially the zoom and focusing rings.

Other cameras (less than $1000 street price) worth considering:

• SLR: Olympus C-2500L and Canon PowerShot Pro 70. Although the Sony was my favorite of the SLRs, for someone else's needs one of these might be a better bet.
• Versatility: Hands down, one of the Nikon Coolpix cameras. There's a wealth of lens attachments and other accessories available for these things. And while not the most compact, they're certainly less bulky than an SLR. And the new 990 is a 3.3 megapixel powerhouse.
• Bang for the buck: Casio QV-3000EX. For a little more than $900 you can get one of these 3.3 megapixel beasts in combination with IBM's 340MB MicroDrive. Unfortunately there's no external flash attachment, and the lens is not threaded to accept attachments, but someone will find a way around this limitation.
• Portability: Take your pick of Canon's PowerShot A5, A50, S10, or S20 (increasing in capability from sub-megapixel to 3.3 megapixel). These little jewels are about the size of Canon's Elph APS film cameras, which is hard to beat for a go-anywhere camera.

Regards,
Jeremy

(And if anyone's interested in how that Sony works out, I'll be receiving the camera this week. I'll be happy to share my own impressions of it once I've had a chance to play with it.)

at least as far as digital photography goes is digital photography review
They have tons of camera reviews, specs, samples, etc., tho they are tilted a bit towards the high-end side.

if that first link doesn't work, try
http://photo.askey.net/

I've just finished my first all-digital shoot and really like the results. When I compare my costs with those of my last analog shoot, it's no contest.

My last analog shoot had $ 15-20 in film costs, $35 in process and contact sheet costs, then $ 450.00 in 8x10 custom color and B&W prints ( ~ 20 ).

My latest studio session, all digital, is here. I was floored by the ability to review shots quickly on my laptop and discard the less-than-perfect ones.

These shots were taken in the Nikon 950's "Normal" mode and have been scaled down for the web. They wind up as 250-300K JPEGs. Nikon's "Fine" mode would produce images about 6-8 MB in size (TIFFs).
The Nikon CoolPix 9xx series offer a smokin' macro mode that biologists, naturalists and physicians have jumped on.

Essentially, it comes down to what you need. For family snapshots, get an easy-to-use cam like the Mavica or other point-and-shoot. If you're a serious amateur, get something that offers camera controls like: "shutter" speed, ISO, aperture, flash, manual focus, image quality, etc.

If you're a pro, get a Nikon D1 .

As others have mentioned, Digital Photography Review is a terrific resource if you're researching digicams. Lots of pros and serious amateurs post experiences, measured performance and images that'll assist in a decision about "which camera?".

Cheers,

shall

There are quite a few good websites analyzing and comparing various digital cameras. I wouldn't say one camera is hands-down the winner (although it would seem the great majority of digicam owners have a Nikon Coolpix 900, 950 and soon 990) but one should look at what he or she wants in a digital camera and choose the one that best fits their needs.

I personally find the Canon Powershot series to be quite attractive, and plan on buying one of the two models (s10 or s20) before the end of this year. People interested in controlling the camera's aperture size and the like won't enjoy this camera, however I like its simplicity and image quality. I'll just be taking pictures of my computer and LAN parties anyway (hehe).

Some people say that digital cameras can't replace film cameras. That is true, however for the average user it is truly more convenient, albeit more expensive at first but not necessarily in the longrun (remember, you never have to buy film and rechargeable NiMH batteries last a long time).

The sites you can check are:
Digital Photography Review (maintained by Phil Askey), and Steve's Digicams (maintained by Steve Sanders).

These 3 always come on top in all reviews regarding image quality and features. The yesteryear cameras are wery good, and now wery cheap (Olympus C2000Z, Nikon CP950, Canon A50, I own A50) They all have decent resolution (1280x960) crystal clear and sharp images (more important than pixel count, IMHO) and good colors. You really should check out sites like Phil Askey's dpreview.com or Steve's Digicams for all the information you want.
J.

I was about to buy the Nikon CoolPix 950, but the 990 came out, and it is far better (more resolution, USB connection and more).

That said, the 950 is a bargain these days with 100$US rebate (for those in the USA, here in Saudi Arabia, it just hit the shelf for 4,700 SR ~ 1,250$US for the older 950!).

The Sony DSC-F505 is also a super camera, with perhaps the best lens (Carl Zeiss) you can get for a ~ 1,000$ price range.

You can read extensive reviews of all the above at Phil Askey's wonderful Digital Photography Review web site. You will find a photo gallery of sample pictures for each camera.

Another way of doing it, if you also want a camcorder, is to get one of the new Digital Video camcorder (or Sony's Digital8 format) and a FireWire/IEEE1364 card. The quality is lower than the Nikon above, but still acceptable for most web publishing.

The new Coolpix 990 is great (but not cheap at about $900), judging from this in-depth review by Phil Askey of dpreview.com.