Slashdot Mirror

Only a idiot photographer would be shooting a sports event in RAW. you need your camera to be able to shoot 4 frames a second and no pro camera, not even my new Canon 1DS can do that in raw.

There are many digital SLR cameras that can shoot 5fps for 2-3 seconds in RAW mode.

The Sony Alpha 900 can handle well over 2 seconds for 24MP RAW images. See this review for more details.

The latest incarnation of the Canon 1Ds can handle nearly 4 full seconds at 5fps for its 21MP RAW format: Canon 1Ds Mark III review.

Admittedly, all the cameras that can handle this kind of speed use compact flash and not SDHC, but all the best digital SLRs use CF.

Only a idiot photographer would be shooting a sports event in RAW. you need your camera to be able to shoot 4 frames a second and no pro camera, not even my new Canon 1DS can do that in raw.

There are many digital SLR cameras that can shoot 5fps for 2-3 seconds in RAW mode.

The Sony Alpha 900 can handle well over 2 seconds for 24MP RAW images. See this review for more details.

The latest incarnation of the Canon 1Ds can handle nearly 4 full seconds at 5fps for its 21MP RAW format: Canon 1Ds Mark III review.

Admittedly, all the cameras that can handle this kind of speed use compact flash and not SDHC, but all the best digital SLRs use CF.

Someone FINALLY decided to do a proper, twin lens stereo camera. Fuji announced a prototype at Photokina this year:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092209fujifilm3D.asp

I find it bizarre that no one did it before, because it is such an easy thing to do, to combine multiple inexpensive CCDs and a processor that manages the capture and recording of both, synced with a timing circuit.

I built my own digital stereo rig out of two old Sony U30s and used it for about a year until one of the cameras died.

It needs to be combined with a service where you send your pics in and get back stereo cards with a cardboard viewer. Those make great gifts and actually work very well. I would buy it in three seconds if it were on the market today. Lets hope this product gets made and sold.

--Mike

The sensor that was designed with a "fast" and "slow" pixel, analogous to film designs (by FujiFilm, Kodak, Konica, Agfa, etc) is exclusively FujiFilm. They've recently updated the design:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092210fujifilmexr.asp

The concept works, but leads to very large raw files. The wedding market likes this technology (white dresses, black tuxes, unpredictable light), but often shoots in-camera JPEG for file size reasons.

The FujiFilm concept in the link above is to take two photos simultaneously using interleaved pixels, and combine the result to get a high-dynamic-range image.

Oh, and of course, I was also thinking that the place to do this is on REAL CAMERAS, not crappy cell phone cameras. Have a touch screen on the back of your DSLR and write with a stylus. That would actually be useful. This is a complete and utter waste of the patent office's time and energy.

But that's already been done on real cameras, so you would have to be really sleazy to try to get a patent on that. Now, doing this on cell phone cameras, that's clearly a new invention.

Most digital SLR's cant take a photo 1 second from power on, and that's with it already in your hands.. (the fault of having to focus, etc...)

If your camera has a fixed focus, you could as well compare it to setting manual focus and a small aperture on a D-SLR beforehand. If you do that, most major brands of D-SLRs include models that allow image capture in less than one second:

• Nikon
• Canon
• Sony
• Olympus
• Pentax

Even with focusing, some SLRs with near-instant power on times coupled with fast focusing lenses should be able to get the first shot within one second of powering on given good conditions.

Most digital SLR's cant take a photo 1 second from power on, and that's with it already in your hands.. (the fault of having to focus, etc...)

If your camera has a fixed focus, you could as well compare it to setting manual focus and a small aperture on a D-SLR beforehand. If you do that, most major brands of D-SLRs include models that allow image capture in less than one second:

• Nikon
• Canon
• Sony
• Olympus
• Pentax

Even with focusing, some SLRs with near-instant power on times coupled with fast focusing lenses should be able to get the first shot within one second of powering on given good conditions.

Most digital SLR's cant take a photo 1 second from power on, and that's with it already in your hands.. (the fault of having to focus, etc...)

If your camera has a fixed focus, you could as well compare it to setting manual focus and a small aperture on a D-SLR beforehand. If you do that, most major brands of D-SLRs include models that allow image capture in less than one second:

• Nikon
• Canon
• Sony
• Olympus
• Pentax

Even with focusing, some SLRs with near-instant power on times coupled with fast focusing lenses should be able to get the first shot within one second of powering on given good conditions.

Most digital SLR's cant take a photo 1 second from power on, and that's with it already in your hands.. (the fault of having to focus, etc...)

If your camera has a fixed focus, you could as well compare it to setting manual focus and a small aperture on a D-SLR beforehand. If you do that, most major brands of D-SLRs include models that allow image capture in less than one second:

• Nikon
• Canon
• Sony
• Olympus
• Pentax

Even with focusing, some SLRs with near-instant power on times coupled with fast focusing lenses should be able to get the first shot within one second of powering on given good conditions.

Most digital SLR's cant take a photo 1 second from power on, and that's with it already in your hands.. (the fault of having to focus, etc...)

If your camera has a fixed focus, you could as well compare it to setting manual focus and a small aperture on a D-SLR beforehand. If you do that, most major brands of D-SLRs include models that allow image capture in less than one second:

• Nikon
• Canon
• Sony
• Olympus
• Pentax

Even with focusing, some SLRs with near-instant power on times coupled with fast focusing lenses should be able to get the first shot within one second of powering on given good conditions.

your stats are an order of magnitude off

Not really.

A camera with a wireless CF card. Let the cops have their fun smashing the camera but the photos or video have already escaped into the air.

We're all idiots/noobs in some fields!

This website : http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/ could answer your questions and some more.

The requirements are pretty though though:

You need a special camera version which contains firmware (hopefully tamperproof) which uses public key crypto to digitally sign each photo as it taken, making it possible to prove that the photo file hasn't been modified at all.

One example is the Fujifilm IS Pro which can be delivered in this form:

dpreview Fuji IS Pro review

Terje

On the one hand, we have a large fraction of the population who are happy with their laptop speakers and 128 kbit mp3s on their ipods with the earbuds that come with them. Let me be the first to say that in many situations that's just fine; I have a cheap pair of earbuds on my mp3/ogg player because I tend to listen to podcasts or music in environments with enough noise that I wouldn't tell the difference.

On the other hand, we have the audiophile crowd. People who spend insane amounts of money on wiring, power source "cleaners", etc. There are plenty of people who can tell and appreciate the difference between a cheap setup and a decent one, but most of us have budgets. As soon as you move beyond the standard offerings at your local Best Buy, you enter the realm of not knowing whether the reviews you're reading are from people with a clue or just "audiophiles" who think they hear a difference.

I know, I know, the best way to judge audio equipment is to listen to it yourself. Of course, you run the risk of falling into the trap of thinking you hear a difference when you couldn't if you were doing a blind test.

What I'd like to see is a reputable, audio-focused location which bases its comparisons on objective criteria. For example, I find that dpreview does a pretty decent job laying out the pros and cons of camera equipment. Cooks Illustrated takes a "test everything" approach to creating recipes and testing equipment. Are either perfect? No, but I trust their results more than reviews I see for audio equipment. Audio is subjective by nature, but so is taste; Cooks Illustrated handles this by having blind tasting panels; it'd be cool to see the same approach for audio equipment. Perhaps something like this already exists, but I haven't come across it.

Well take my example of Digital Cameras. http://www.dpreview.com/ is much more informed and not biased at all and very professional.

Wow. You accuse CR of having a conflict of interest because they sell advertising -- which is completely false -- and then your chosen example of an unbiased reviewer is one that has no less than four large ads on the front page, including direct ads by companies whose products are being reviewed.

If you find their reviews useful to you, and more so than CR's reviews of the same products, more power to you. But Consumer Report's reputation for non-bias is extremely well established and well deserved. They are funded entirely by subscriptions, and not only do they not sell ads or take freebies from companies, they go out of their way to purchase off-the-shelf products incognito at retail to avoid cherry picking of samples.

Specialized knowledge is great and all, no doubt about it, but nobody beats CR in terms of avoiding conflicts of interest. That's what they bring to the table, and it's a great asset.

How do you know it is not biased? They're being paid by the companies they are reviewing. So how do you know they don't nix the most critical reviews? Do they take donated cameras? Are those cameras the same as normal people buy, or cherry picked by the companies donating them?

There are several things useful for review sites. Expertise is one, and maybe one where CR is not top of their game. Another is credibility, where CR is at the top of their game. With other sites, you just don't know for the most part if they are honest or will remain that way. A third is testing methodology. Do they know how to acquire and test batches of goods for reliability?

Most individual publications are horribly biased either by intention or because of the realities of the industry. The only practical way around that is to move away from advertising as in income stream and move to subscriptions. Very few people want to pay a subscription for just reviews on one type of product, because it is inconvenient even if it is not too costly.

If they run ads or even take donated gear, I don't trust them. This opinion has proved to be the correct one again and again as magazine after magazine has been exposed as changing content to suit the people paying them, and that isn't the reader. For sites where consumers post reviews, the situation is just as bad. Reviews can be removed at the behest of advertisers. Reviews can be paid astroturfing. Reviews can be biased by consumers trying to justify their purchase or angry because they had a bad experience that may not be reflective of the general case. Seriously, paid subscriptions are the only model that does not have a huge probability of intentional or unintentional misinformation.

Well take my example of Digital Cameras. http://www.dpreview.com/ is much more informed and not biased at all and very professional.

The point is no one place reviews all these things because to do so is madness. Still individual publications out write CR in every field they cover. This is because they specialize which is a good thing.

1Ds Mark III has live view.

They are already doing that, e.g. encrypting the firmware in the 350D model.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=23803446

Here is a very interesting post from a Canadian writer/photographer living in China. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=27607226 Quote, and I think he touches the same point, " What I really love about China is the people who live here. Their experience as a people is different from the experience of my ancestors. Some things that seem impossible in my mind are held to be natural by Chinese. Some of the things I believe in are thought to be foolish by my Chinese friends. We're different, but we're also the same. We love our family; we yearn to understand. I love the qualities of the Chinese soul. But that's a hard thing to photograph. I see a trace of something that I recognize as that spiritual difference sometimes in the faces of children. However, I'm not focussed on showing the differences. In fact, I'd rather show the samenesses. Some people have complained here that my shots of China look like where they live. I shop at Tesco, (a British supermarket chain), I like to have a coffee in Starbucks, (a Seattle coffee franchise) and I eat out far too often in KFC, (in western Canada, we had KFC ten years before we had McDonalds). In the city where I live now, those places are usually pretty busy. People haven't got time to go and haggle in the open markets, or even time to cook. They have to eat out and eat fast. This is the China that I live in."

Case in point: I'd like to get my kids' pictures taken. No print ad campaigns or web advertisements, just pictures of my kids, maybe myself and my wife. In the past we've used a place that takes really nice pictures, but they insist that the only way you can get their prints is to purchase print packages from them. I understand they are trying to make back their money invested in the initial sitting, but I can't wrap my head around how they are trying to take an old business model (selling photographic prints) and apply it to this new, digital age. All of their cameras are digital, but they won't sell me the RAW digital files, not for any price. However, they also delete the copies after 90 days, so they take digital pictures, print me out copies, then (presumably) destroy the originals.

I think photographers in large part are touchy about copyright issues because it's so easy to use a photograph and pass it off as your own or sell forward, etc. Also, if they sold you the RAW, then you could print it off to a hundred relatives, whereas now you need to buy the prints from them. But only giving 90 days to order as many copies as you'd like is very poor service.

Full time professionals may not like to negotiate flexible deals, but people who are just starting out taking portraits or doing it as a hobby would probably agree on a deal where you can use the results for non-commercial purposes as you will . Of course, It doesn't take a lot of equipment to get good quality portraits, but if the skill is not there, you won't be wanting to hang the results on your walls :-)

Compact cameras still have quite a way to go to catch up with the image quality on offer by even the cheapest DSLR and a cheap prime lens IMHO.
This is mostly a result of the small sensor size and restrictions on the optic size which forces compromise on image quality that is possible for a compact camera.
Also be wary of maxing out on the megapixels and on the zoom range of the lens - as the negative effects of a small poor quality lens will be far more apparent the more megapixels you place behind it.
Small lenses will exhibit more image floors the more glass elements that are in them - so a big zoom range - whilst sounding appealing to the beginner - will lead to image issues - especially
at the extremes of the lens - both in range and in aperture. Which is why I recommend a fixed focal point lens if possible - as these typically offer the optimum in image quality and cost less...

That said there are some compacts that are beginning to offer SLR sized / quality sensors with restricted range zooms or even prime optics - the panasonic mentioned above
is one of these - and certainly looks very appealing. Sigma have also been working on placing their DSLR sensor in a compact body - with a fixed 16mm optic - that to me
could be the compact camera of choice for keen photographers - this camera has been delayed quite a bit - but looks to have been worth the wait - see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013108sigmadp1.asp
Then there is the canon G9 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ - this looks to be pretty capable at lower isos but dont expect too much over iso 400.

Then there's the Ricoh GRII which looks potentially interesting - but not enough info is out on this yet... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07103001ricohgrd2.asp

Personally I think currently the best travel camera is maybe one of the olympus DSLRs http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/ (they're a bit smaller than the other brands) - which offer great value for the camera and optics although still pretty pricey - The Nikon D40X / Canon Digital Rebel should not be overlooked either. Then combine this DSLR with a cheap wide angled prime - and the DSLR isn't as heavy as you might think...

Compact cameras still have quite a way to go to catch up with the image quality on offer by even the cheapest DSLR and a cheap prime lens IMHO.
This is mostly a result of the small sensor size and restrictions on the optic size which forces compromise on image quality that is possible for a compact camera.
Also be wary of maxing out on the megapixels and on the zoom range of the lens - as the negative effects of a small poor quality lens will be far more apparent the more megapixels you place behind it.
Small lenses will exhibit more image floors the more glass elements that are in them - so a big zoom range - whilst sounding appealing to the beginner - will lead to image issues - especially
at the extremes of the lens - both in range and in aperture. Which is why I recommend a fixed focal point lens if possible - as these typically offer the optimum in image quality and cost less...

That said there are some compacts that are beginning to offer SLR sized / quality sensors with restricted range zooms or even prime optics - the panasonic mentioned above
is one of these - and certainly looks very appealing. Sigma have also been working on placing their DSLR sensor in a compact body - with a fixed 16mm optic - that to me
could be the compact camera of choice for keen photographers - this camera has been delayed quite a bit - but looks to have been worth the wait - see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013108sigmadp1.asp
Then there is the canon G9 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ - this looks to be pretty capable at lower isos but dont expect too much over iso 400.

Then there's the Ricoh GRII which looks potentially interesting - but not enough info is out on this yet... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07103001ricohgrd2.asp

Personally I think currently the best travel camera is maybe one of the olympus DSLRs http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/ (they're a bit smaller than the other brands) - which offer great value for the camera and optics although still pretty pricey - The Nikon D40X / Canon Digital Rebel should not be overlooked either. Then combine this DSLR with a cheap wide angled prime - and the DSLR isn't as heavy as you might think...

Compact cameras still have quite a way to go to catch up with the image quality on offer by even the cheapest DSLR and a cheap prime lens IMHO.
This is mostly a result of the small sensor size and restrictions on the optic size which forces compromise on image quality that is possible for a compact camera.
Also be wary of maxing out on the megapixels and on the zoom range of the lens - as the negative effects of a small poor quality lens will be far more apparent the more megapixels you place behind it.
Small lenses will exhibit more image floors the more glass elements that are in them - so a big zoom range - whilst sounding appealing to the beginner - will lead to image issues - especially
at the extremes of the lens - both in range and in aperture. Which is why I recommend a fixed focal point lens if possible - as these typically offer the optimum in image quality and cost less...

That said there are some compacts that are beginning to offer SLR sized / quality sensors with restricted range zooms or even prime optics - the panasonic mentioned above
is one of these - and certainly looks very appealing. Sigma have also been working on placing their DSLR sensor in a compact body - with a fixed 16mm optic - that to me
could be the compact camera of choice for keen photographers - this camera has been delayed quite a bit - but looks to have been worth the wait - see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013108sigmadp1.asp
Then there is the canon G9 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ - this looks to be pretty capable at lower isos but dont expect too much over iso 400.

Then there's the Ricoh GRII which looks potentially interesting - but not enough info is out on this yet... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07103001ricohgrd2.asp

Personally I think currently the best travel camera is maybe one of the olympus DSLRs http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/ (they're a bit smaller than the other brands) - which offer great value for the camera and optics although still pretty pricey - The Nikon D40X / Canon Digital Rebel should not be overlooked either. Then combine this DSLR with a cheap wide angled prime - and the DSLR isn't as heavy as you might think...

Compact cameras still have quite a way to go to catch up with the image quality on offer by even the cheapest DSLR and a cheap prime lens IMHO.
This is mostly a result of the small sensor size and restrictions on the optic size which forces compromise on image quality that is possible for a compact camera.
Also be wary of maxing out on the megapixels and on the zoom range of the lens - as the negative effects of a small poor quality lens will be far more apparent the more megapixels you place behind it.
Small lenses will exhibit more image floors the more glass elements that are in them - so a big zoom range - whilst sounding appealing to the beginner - will lead to image issues - especially
at the extremes of the lens - both in range and in aperture. Which is why I recommend a fixed focal point lens if possible - as these typically offer the optimum in image quality and cost less...

That said there are some compacts that are beginning to offer SLR sized / quality sensors with restricted range zooms or even prime optics - the panasonic mentioned above
is one of these - and certainly looks very appealing. Sigma have also been working on placing their DSLR sensor in a compact body - with a fixed 16mm optic - that to me
could be the compact camera of choice for keen photographers - this camera has been delayed quite a bit - but looks to have been worth the wait - see http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013108sigmadp1.asp
Then there is the canon G9 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong9/ - this looks to be pretty capable at lower isos but dont expect too much over iso 400.

Then there's the Ricoh GRII which looks potentially interesting - but not enough info is out on this yet... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07103001ricohgrd2.asp

Personally I think currently the best travel camera is maybe one of the olympus DSLRs http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympuse3/ (they're a bit smaller than the other brands) - which offer great value for the camera and optics although still pretty pricey - The Nikon D40X / Canon Digital Rebel should not be overlooked either. Then combine this DSLR with a cheap wide angled prime - and the DSLR isn't as heavy as you might think...

• Digital is an easy choice - just from the point of view of durability of media and ease of acquiring lots of pictures
• 4-5 megapixels is the minimum to take a full 1:1 picture of a page and be able to read indices in formulas (this was you can use your camera instead of Xerox).
• Anything with more than 5 megapixels needs digital image stabilization - otherwise your extra resolution will be smeared out by natural shaking of your hands (or even your tripod - but this takes effect later).
• Similarly large "tele" zoom is useless - if you zoomed in 10x closer to your subject you have 10 times the effect of shaking (and thus need a good tripod or very short exposure time).
• Good wideangle on the other hand is great - not only you can get more of the scene in a small room but it also reduces the effect of shaking.

Thus you want a camera with digital image stabilization, as good wideangle as possible and at least 5 megapixels. Last time I did the round up (a few months ago) there were surprisingly few cameras that met these conditions - mostly because most of what is on the shelves in "Best Buy" (not best for at least several years) does not have any wideangle whatsoever.

My purchase was Panasonic Lumix LX-2 which, at the time, was not available in any store in Boston so I had to order it from Vahns. I was not disappointed and even found the movie mode to be useful - it has a higher resolution than my camcorder (which is NTSC like) and, best of all, the movie files are mpeg4 encoded and play readily on my Kubuntu systems.

One place this may really help is cameras. The shutter lag is still bad, and this might help.

If it's shutter lag that bothers you, get a decent camera. Today. Flash RAM isn't the problem here. ANY DSLR made in the past five years has quite acceptable shutter lag for most people. The higher end models have shutter latencies better than any "normal" camera ever made. There are even a couple of point & shoots with reasonable speeds. Check out the reviews on DP Reviews.

Happy snapping.

I just remembered to check the images for exif data and found that the camera is a Canon EOS 20D. I guess he used a tripod, as some of the pictures have slow shutter speeds, like 1/5... Or is image stabilization that good?

1. I know the speaker has a limited top end, but when the incoming signal is weak, I'd like to be able to boost it so I can hear it. I don't want more volume; I want control over the volume so I can hear weak calls.

2. Maybe figure out how I can fix it? If the problem is "confused by multipath problems", I know I can go to the other side of the building and fix it. If the problem is "I'm trying to use this TMobile tower with crappy signal rather than the Cingular tower with good signal", then I can change that. If the problem is "weak signal, period" I know to go closer to town and get away from hills.

Again, think about iwconfig. Useful, isn't it, even if you can't go jam a crowbar in the router, you still can figure out what the problem is.

3. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1033 . (Panasonic digital cameras). There are very few "This camera is a piece of shit!" posts, and a lot of "Oh shit, I dropped my camera onto concrete... wait, it still works? Cool!" To date I remember exactly one story of one of the things breaking with no good reason.

Come back when you have a better idea of what you're talking about.

The actual, real world, demonstrated sensitivity of modern cameras is around 8-9EV (see http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page20.asp).

Yes, the DIGITAL OUTPUT from CCD/CMOS sensors might be 10/12/14 bits nowadays, but it pains me to have to explain that reading a 14 bit digital signal from an analogue device with ~9 bits worth of useful information doesn't actually provide any more dynamic range. Finer graduations yes (but since our eyes are more sensitive to variations in brightness than colour, isn't going to help a lot).

If you want single-exposure HDR, you need sensor site with varying light sensitivity on the same chip (IE the Fuji Super CCD SR). Foveon just doesn't do that.

Too late. It's already happened. Same location on chip, so the same sensor size, essentially three sensors at three different depths. Sigma SD14, for instance. Price is right in the prosumer zone.

Were they in flight? That's what we're talking about. Pictures of stationary dragonflies are pretty easy, as you noticed, since you've got all the time in the world to compose the picture and wait on autofocus. I've taken some too: see http://picasaweb.google.com/entropius/RandomPicturesOfStuff/photo#5077785492647280562 (with a 7MP $250 camera). This was a lucky situation -- the wind was high enough that the poor little fellow was hanging on to his plant for dear life, and let me stick a camera right in his face. In better conditions (for the insect) it's harder, but can still be done.

And, just since you apparently want to have a "who knows what they're talking about" fight (please don't flame people for being clueless on the internet until you confirm that they actually are; sometimes they're not):

The insects in your picture are damselflies, not dragonflies. They're in the same order (Odonata), so you get half credit for that one. They seem to be the same as these guys (with an old 3MP camera), and are doing the same thing.

Dragonflies (or mythical dragonfly-like spy robots with tinfoil hats and mind control beams, or whatever the article is about) in *flight* are another matter entirely. The only good picture of one that I know about is here, the photographer had to do the prefocus tricks I mentioned earlier, and everybody agrees that getting that picture took a lot of skill and luck.

HTH.

Photoshop lists for about $699 USD. A base DSLR is at least a hundred or two hundred more than that brand new.

I'd suggest you check the forums at http://www.dpreview.com/ for any questions in astrophotography, or photography in general.

Personally, if I had the kind of space you had, with no light pollution, and if I had the budget you mentioned: I would buy a high quality digital SLR camera. Obviously, if you're looking to photograph things that you need a telescope to see, this wouldn't be a good use of money for you. But, if you're looking to take shots of constellations and the moon and such, then a high-quality digital SLR with a tripod will work beautifully.

To stay within budget and get good exposures of the night sky, stars and planets, it's better to get a 35 mm film camera. Then get a mount along with the telescope, using the mount the camera can be attached to the telescope. Someone at Astronomy.com asks for advise on getting a camera and mount for $500. Here's an adapter and mounts for different cameras for less than $100. If there is already a camera then several hundred dollars is available for the telescope. However if a camera is needed as well, one can be bought for $300 leaving $600 for the telescope. Oh, and a high quality dslr won't fit in that budget, for astrophotography and high quality a fullframe DSLR is where it's at. And the cheapest fullframe DSLR I know of is the Canon EOS 5D which retails for about $3000.

Though I haven't spent much tyme researching it, I have done some because I'm interested in astrophotography myself. I've got the 35mm and have been looking at telescopes, unfortunately I live in a brightly lit city and know of no place where I can go to shoot the stars.

My Fuji camera with Super CCD may be better for this task:- http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03012202fujisupe rccdsr.asp I have found that my Fuji S5 seems to be surprisingly sensitive to UV. I am going to give Fuji a call tomorrow and see if the camera can see into the infraRed range too. There is a special version of the Fuji S5, designed for forensic use, FinePix IS Pro See here:- http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07071304fujifilm ispro.asp which would be hand for some kinds of astro and nature photography. I will give Nikon a call too to see if I can do something similar with my D200. Stephen Walters G7VFY 07956-544202

My Fuji camera with Super CCD may be better for this task:- http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/03012202fujisupe rccdsr.asp I have found that my Fuji S5 seems to be surprisingly sensitive to UV. I am going to give Fuji a call tomorrow and see if the camera can see into the infraRed range too. There is a special version of the Fuji S5, designed for forensic use, FinePix IS Pro See here:- http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07071304fujifilm ispro.asp which would be hand for some kinds of astro and nature photography. I will give Nikon a call too to see if I can do something similar with my D200. Stephen Walters G7VFY 07956-544202

DAVE sounds awefully like a Digital Wallet which I had several years ago. It had a PCMCIA interface for you to plug cards into, but it was incredibly useful. It used Firewire for connection to the PC so was very fast too (faster than DAVE, probably). It was only 6GB though.

I guess that was ahead of it's time. It worked wonderfully for me.

IIRC, it was produced by a company called "Minds At Work" - which seems to be http://www.mindsatwork.net/, but it isn't loading for me (I'm in China, so it's not unusual) :| Is it still around?

Ah, here's DPReview's page on it : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/digitalwallet/

It's a shame when good products don't make it, only to be successful later for some other company :(

Don't buy stuff like this or this. Or your money will be going to Japan. I know it's hard to resist and many won't be able to when these are available in November and there'll be a long waiting list for them. I already have a D70 and a D200 but man, I just gotta get my hands on these new babies that were announced today. They'll be available only on November but my money is already starting to burn a hole in my pocket.

Don't buy stuff like this or this. Or your money will be going to Japan. I know it's hard to resist and many won't be able to when these are available in November and there'll be a long waiting list for them. I already have a D70 and a D200 but man, I just gotta get my hands on these new babies that were announced today. They'll be available only on November but my money is already starting to burn a hole in my pocket.

I have no problem with this in principle, except for the fact that the blogs aren't often much of a source of original media output. For the most part, they are part of the digestive process, and so much of what we get through blogs comes through them from the original media in the first place, so as the original media degrades, so will the value of what comes through those blogs. This will give more strength to those blogs that do provide original research (e.g., http://dpreview.com/ a halfway point between blog and tech media), but as good reporting and good analysis is expensive, they will have to avoid suffering the same problems as the original tech media they are supplanting as they work their way down the food chain (here I think of blogs as being "higher" on the food chain in that they consume the text media and we consume them. They are essentially sitting between us and the tech media, which is sitting between us and the tech industry).

I've only ever seen a previous version get the newer features once.

It happened w/ the Nikon D70 when the D70s came out. Nikon released a firmware upgrade that brought the D70 up to par w/ the D70s, aside from the obviously larger screen the D70s had.

Source: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042002nikon70f irmware.asp

OK, I am one of those, though I would hesitate to call myself a fanboy. (Pentax hasn't done everything I wish, or as well as I would like.)

SLR photography (film or digital) tends to encourage brand loyalty, because of the modular nature of the system. You're not just buying a camera body, you're also buying lenses and other accessories with a longer lifecycle. Even when a shiny new camera body comes out, people are loath to change brands, which would mean selling all their lenses too.

Pentax were slow to the digital SLR market, and did things a little differently to their main competitors (Canon & Nikon);

• they did not try to compete with Canon in the press/action area, sticking to the amateur/artistic market;
• they lagged in the "megapixel race"*, sticking with 6 megapixels until late 2006, when the K10D was released;
• they used less sharpening on JPEG images, compared to the others, so they were labeled "soft" on default settings;
• they have made lens compatibility a priority, so you can attach a K-mount lens from the 1970s to the new K10D, as long as you learn to focus manually.

On photography sites such as DPReview (a new Amazon acquisition), the DSLR market is generally considered to be a two-horse race, with Canon's & Nikon's huge marketing budgets meaning they could send reviewers on press junkets, and get cameras into reviewer hands more quickly. Other makers are treated with lower priority, which leads to some well-documented irritation.

The result, on forums, is a classic Clash of the Fanboys: Canon users like the high frame rates (on some models) and the highly-sharpened and saturated JPEGs. Pentax users had a lot to be fanboys about when the K10D was released, thanks to price, ergonomics, lens compatibility and weatherproof construction. Canon sell far more than Pentax, of course, and Pentax is in some corporate difficulty, leading to deliberately-antagonistic "Pentax is dying" statements. Meanwhile, Pentax users are as mad as hell at the preponderance of C&N gear in camera stores, and the fact that some reviewers just ignore the whole brand, regardless of a camera's merits. Each side uses "Fanboy" as an insult, while Nikon users generally stay out of the battles if they can (or so it seems to me).

Fanboys, eh? 8)

* megapixel race: the marketing-led drive to squeeze more megapixels on to a digital camera sensor - ignoring the fact that the size of individual pixels has a huge impact on image quality esp. noise performance, and the defining role played by the lens in image quality. The result is a range of 10 megapixel compact cameras that produce poor quality images in good lighting conditions, never mind in low light e.g. indoors. The pictures are fine for the web, if you shrink them to a small fraction of their original size...

Try photographing something that is in the range of more than one color and heavily saturated (like a yellowish-orangish sunset). The matrixing algorithm that is used to reconstruct the original color from the sensor tries its best, but cannot really match a normal Bayer-based dSLR at the moment (either Canon or Nikon).

That isn't what these third-party test results and these images, and this one, and these, and these, and these indicate. Plenty of good yellows and oranges, including saturated ones, in those examples. Sorry, I just don't think you're up to date on what they're doing with this technology.

Try photographing something that is in the range of more than one color and heavily saturated (like a yellowish-orangish sunset). The matrixing algorithm that is used to reconstruct the original color from the sensor tries its best, but cannot really match a normal Bayer-based dSLR at the moment (either Canon or Nikon).

That isn't what these third-party test results and these images, and this one, and these, and these, and these indicate. Plenty of good yellows and oranges, including saturated ones, in those examples. Sorry, I just don't think you're up to date on what they're doing with this technology.

Try photographing something that is in the range of more than one color and heavily saturated (like a yellowish-orangish sunset). The matrixing algorithm that is used to reconstruct the original color from the sensor tries its best, but cannot really match a normal Bayer-based dSLR at the moment (either Canon or Nikon).

That isn't what these third-party test results and these images, and this one, and these, and these, and these indicate. Plenty of good yellows and oranges, including saturated ones, in those examples. Sorry, I just don't think you're up to date on what they're doing with this technology.

Try photographing something that is in the range of more than one color and heavily saturated (like a yellowish-orangish sunset). The matrixing algorithm that is used to reconstruct the original color from the sensor tries its best, but cannot really match a normal Bayer-based dSLR at the moment (either Canon or Nikon).

That isn't what these third-party test results and these images, and this one, and these, and these, and these indicate. Plenty of good yellows and oranges, including saturated ones, in those examples. Sorry, I just don't think you're up to date on what they're doing with this technology.

Try photographing something that is in the range of more than one color and heavily saturated (like a yellowish-orangish sunset). The matrixing algorithm that is used to reconstruct the original color from the sensor tries its best, but cannot really match a normal Bayer-based dSLR at the moment (either Canon or Nikon).

That isn't what these third-party test results and these images, and this one, and these, and these, and these indicate. Plenty of good yellows and oranges, including saturated ones, in those examples. Sorry, I just don't think you're up to date on what they're doing with this technology.

What Fuji has also made is a SuperCCD with two different sized photosensors, with the large normal-sensitivity ones interspersed with small low-sensitivity cells. This is designed to allow one to get much greater dynamic range, with real detail in the highlights that would be blown-out in normal cameras. You can see some examples of this here at the incomparable dpreview.com site. Fuji sells a camera today with a similar sensor with 12 Megapixels, 6 low-sensitivity and 6 hi.

Sadly, this appears to be another true advance in technology that hasn't caught on with the general public.

Thad Beier