Slashdot Mirror

The improvements from the Rebel to the Rebel XT (300 to 350) are definitely non-trivial, and that site doesn't do it justice really. dpreview has a better list. The DIGIC II is a huge upgrade, Canon unlocked a number of "custom functions" like mirror lockup (even if it was more a negative in the Rebel instead of an improvement in the XT), the faster operation is a huge advantage, etc.

The changes between the Rebel and XT seem a lot more defined and important than the improvements from the XT to the new XTi.

As some other comments have already touched upon this listing of the top 10 isn't that useful by itself. Its just a measure of what's 'popular' on one photo site, and nothing more. Perhaps if you could use this list to browse shots taken by those cameras it would be useful... which brings me to http://www.pbase.com/. PBase lets you search by camera model and then view all the photos stored on that site taken by the camera model you have chosen. This is incredibly useful in evaluating the quality of the output of cameras you may be considering.

Additionally if one is looking for a 'better' way to narrow down digital cameras during their research process you would be better served relying on a high quality review site. Here are the two best review sites I know of for digital cameras.
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.dcresource.com/

well why don't we look at what this list potentially says.

A great deal of the users on flickr are amateur photographers, I have recently become interested myself. From my experience of flickr the people on their know their kit. So if a great many flickr users are using entry level canons then that is enough to at least recommend them to me.

From there I go to a place like dpreview.com, check out their review of the canon eos 350D and see that it is both a good camera and reasonably priced (within my budget).

So, to recap:

* a great many people on flickr use the canon eos 350D
* websites that give extensive useful reviews like the eos 350D
* the price is within my budget as an amateur photographer, to get me started with my first digital SLR

does that answer your question?

I don't think current digital cameras use CCDs, they are largely CMOS-based. That's still in a great many camcorders though.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/

Dunno if it is the same generation SuperCCD, but the one I saw just has a hexaconical pixel array with 2 different pixel sizes. The smaller pixels are between the grid of normal size pixels and as they are smaller, they get less light. So the SuperCCD basicly sees the image with 2 different exposures and the camera then processes this information and uses small pixels for information in areas of over exposure and bigger pixels for other areas. So basicly it gives more dynamic range from where to pick the image with "correct" exposure. See http://www.dpreview.com/news/0301/fujisuperccd/sli de1.jpg for image or just do image search with google using keyword "superccd".

Yes, it looks like I'm wrong. ASMP page (Am. Society of Media Photographers) says it's okay (with a small reservation if there's a painting or something on the building), and here is another analysis by probably a non-lawyer, but he does seem to know what he's talking about.

I currently have two CFcards for my camera, a cheapie that came free with the camera & a SanDisk Ultra II. The SanDisk Ultra II was about twice the price of the cheapie memory, but it'll also write about twice as fast. The Extreme III, however, is what SanDisk are currently pushing as their fastest highest-tech card for your camera, and loads of people buy it. Check the table, however, and you'll see it's only a couple of percent faster in my camera... and at twice the price, of course.

So this is why the Rob Galbraith tables are more useful than some 19-page review full of ads - you can just glance down the page & easily compare the brands that your supplier offers for a real-world comparison and see if they're worth the price.

Stroller.

Far be it from me to point out flaws in other peoples tests but these guys are using card readers which are simply slow. Getting 2.2 MB/sec write speed out of a Lexar Pro 133x CF card is pathetic, see more realistic results here (as well as tests on real cameras):

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06011701lexar133 xcards.asp

Sandisk just announced their Extreme IV cards a couple days ago. They're going to be a little pricey for a while though... http://www.dpreview.com/news/0607/06071906sandiske xtremeiv.asp

This is finally starting to change.

The relatively new Canon SLR XT has a USB 2.0 High Speed interface.

"I would be much more excited about a CCD or CMOS sensor that can capture 11 stops of light or some other type of technology that would get around the problem of high contrast scenes, than more megapixels."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05121201new_chip s.asp

The next advance in cameras is becoming a reality at the University of Rochester. ...

The new designs use as few as three transistors per pixel, reserving nearly half of the pixel area for light collection. First tests on the chip show that at video rates of 30 frames per second it uses just 0.88 nanowatts per pixel--50 times less than the industry's previous best. It also trounces conventional chips in dynamic range, which is the difference between the dimmest and brightest light it can record. Existing CMOS sensors can record light 1,000 times brighter than their dimmest detectable light, a dynamic range of 1:1,000, while the Rochester technology already demonstrates a dynamic range of 1:100,000. ....

What makes Bocko and Ignjatovic's method work so elegantly is its feedback design. Traditional CMOS image detectors apply a voltage to charge up a photodiode, and incoming light triggers a release of some of that charge. An amplifying transistor then checks the remaining voltage on the diode, and the diode is recharged again. Bocko and Ignjatovic's design also begins with a charged photodiode that discharges when light reaches it, but the discharge is then measured against a one/zero threshold and the resulting bit is delivered off the chip. If the result of a measurement is a one, then a packet of charge is fed back to the diode, effectively recharging it. The design also uses significantly less power than existing sensor designs, which is especially important in smaller devices like cell phones and digital cameras where battery size is restricted.

The second advance has taken many researchers by surprise. Called "Focal Plane Image Compression," Bocko and Ignjatovic have figured out a way to arrange photodiodes on an imaging chip so that compressing the resulting image demands as little as 1 percent of the computing power usually needed. .... [Pixels arranged non-uniformly at cosine peaks allows discrete cosine transform compression without any multiplication, cutting power required by 80% and reducing circuitry.]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06060501sonydslr a100.asp Yeah, they've even released a "new" DSLR under the Sony name.

Yeah, some images i enjoy doing a lot of post. Others, i just apply a curve and saturation adjustment. Another thing i like about RAW is that since it's 12 bits per pixel, i sometimes to digital bracketing, to overcome the problems with high contrast images. Sometimes, especially when i do stuff liek surfing shots, you simply can't do normal braketing.

qualia 016?... but, going along with zlogic, a cell phone would be much easier to hide in plain site.

In other words, WW007D?

I want a Minox B. No, I don't want to pay for an *actual* Minox; don't have enough banks robbed yet. Also, tiny film cassettes, finicky jewel-like mechanisms, etc.

What I want is a modern, digital, Minox-alike that is:

a) The size of a fat thumb or however you'd describe one of these: http://www.kameramuseum.de/1minox/minox-b.html

b) Not notably ugly and lo-res like this: http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/1/prweb195 316.htm

(The size of that thing is OK, though, but it's ugly in colors and shape; I could overlook those things, or cover all the but lens with a paper bag, if the resolution wasn't so poor.)

c) more brick-like than some of Sony's smallest, which otherwise are quite nice; I don't like the roundedness of some of the U-Series, but the the U50 (swivel and all) is close to a digital Minox. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_ds cu50.asp I like that it uses AAA batteries, too; a single AA would be even better than 2 AAAs, but life isn't perfect. Maybe I'll find a good deal from eBay on a U50 ...

timothy

I was going to post the same thing. However, there is at least one digital SLR that has a real-time LCD viewfinder, that is the Olympus E330 E-volt. Now why you would buy a digital SLR only to use it like a cheapie point-and-shoot is a question to ponder.

I have a Konika-Minolta Maxxum 5D with the 18-70mm kit lens.

In general, kit lens = low cost, low performance. Kit lenses may produce good results in favorable conditions, but they tend to be poor in low light.

I hesitate to be changing lenses since that would introduce dust. (the downside of digital: no film advance to get rid of the dust)

The dust issue isn't as bad as some people make it sound. Unless you frequently change lenses in extreme conditions or frequently use small apertures (around f/22 or so), basic routine maintenance will keep most dust under control.

Messing with the camera is also a good way to lose the opportunity to take the picture.

Without the right equipment, you risk not being able to get the picture at all. If you select the equipment you need beforehand and make changes as the situation changes, this shouldn't be a problem.

As I said, I hate flash photos. I never use the flash. The whole point of buying a camera with a big sensor was to get decent low-light performance so I wouldn't depend on a flash.

I think you misunderstand what the larger sensor does for you. With a larger sensor, you can expect to get an additional two to three stops of useable ISO. This allows you to get pictures of moving subjects in low light when used with the proper lenses. If anyone told you that you could use the kit lens at full telephoto in low light, you were lied to.

In addition to all the image-related problems I mentioned, flashes greatly annoy the subject and ruin the mood.

In extreme conditions, flash is your only option. The autofocus illuminator on a decent flash will also greatly improve focusing in low light. If you automatically dismiss a tool, you'll miss out on opportunities.

I usually use ISO800 and f/5.6 at 70mm (105mm equivalent).

f/5.6 won't cut it for low light; f/2.8 is even debatable. Based on the shutter speeds you're getting, it looks like you need another two or three stops, which would mean f/2.0-2.8. It doesn't look like there are many fast primes for the Minolta mount; either the KM 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.4 might work for you, but the 85mm is a bit expensive and availability of both appears to be very limited. A fast zoom might be easier to get; Tamron makes a 28-75mm f/2.8 that gets fairly good reviews, a 28-105mm f/2.8, and has a 17-50mm f/2.8 due out soon. KM also has a 28-75mm f/2.8. Sigma also makes a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens for the Minolta mount, so that might be a better option if you could use some extra reach. You might want to check out the DPReview Konica Minolta SLR Forum for more information.

Existing CMOS sensors can record light 1,000 times brighter than their dimmest detectable light, a dynamic range of 1:1,000, while the Rochester technology already demonstrates a dynamic range of 1:100,000.

I am not an expert, but...

I think low megapixel CMOS chips are quite cheap (to produce and/or run), so are fitted to cheap mobile phone and no name cameras. CMOS chips can suffer from problems with noise and so without compensation will produce poorer results.

However, this seems to have been achieved, and high quality ones are also fitted to more expensive cameras, for example this Sony.

This article says it a lot better than I ever could do :) :Shutterbug article.

However, you are probably still be right, there are hundreds of thousands of cheapo CMOS cameras about, so the majority are probably junk. Be aware that there are also great, expensive ones for pros, too

Google on "digital photography cmos chips" found this nice article http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05121201new_chip s.asp which explains the benefits and seems to answer some of your questions, althouth I'd suggest salt-to-taste.

There are new Lithium Batteries that use nanotechnology to increase the surface area between chemicals which increases the charge time from several hours (0.5C) to several minutes (20C) http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05032903tosh1min batt.asp . 1C (measured in A) and is the current drawn to discharge the battery from full in 1 hour. A 2400mAh li-ion battery that can be dis-charged at 2C and charged at 0.5C can be safely discharged in about 30 minutes at 4.8A safely and safely charged in about 3 hours ( the first 1.75 hours at full 0.5C (1.2A) to get it up to about 80%charge, then the last hour and a bit the current is constantly decreased to top it off) .

No.

That's pretty much how a Plenoptic camera works:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05112206refocusc amera.asp

I think this could be rather cool... a screen with a 2mp resolution could probably give a good multi-level-focus image in vga (good enough for video conferencing).

You have to give up lifetime for range or vice versa with current technology. Deep discharges are damaging but if you stick to shallow discharges you don't go as far.

I get different estimates running the arithmetic differently. If the range on "a charge" is 300 miles, then 100 cycles is 30,000 miles. There's some Toshiba vaporware which is supposedly good for a thousand cycles. That would mean 300,000 miles, during which you'd be exempt from replacing the head gasket, the alternator, the starter, the catalytic converter, the electronic ignition, the fuel injectors, the valves, and all the bits of pollution control system.

If you're doing color sensitive design of any kind, you're killing yourself if you do not have a good hardware ICC color calibration device for both your monitor, color management in photoshop, and color management for print.

I reccomend ColorVision products, you can find reviews out there.

There's a lot that goes with color management, even ambient light is very important, if you expect fine results, but that might not be very important if all you're doing is web design, because the color gamut of sRGB is lacking, and the gamut of available colors via html is horrid--but in a way that's a good thing.

It seems like there are a lot of things that PDA's should do but they don't. I have a Palm Tungsten E, and I keep thinking it should be more useful. For instance, the other day I needed some information I had on my USB flash drive, but I had nothing handy it could interface with; shouldn't this be the job of my PDA? Doesn't anyone who designs these things have this kind of inspiration?

Incidentally, I have an uninformative story about this product. A friend of mine had one in his Treo, which he dropped in the parking lot. The SD card popped out and shot off somewhere under a car; he didn't notice it until he got home. The next day, he spent a half-hour looking for it in the lot, and just as he was about to give up, he found it (quite a ways away -- apparently, the Treo can function as a small cannon). It had gotten wet from the rain during the night, but he dried it off, put it back in the Treo, and it worked. Ah, the wonders of solid-state technology!

--- SER

Cutting edge is not 2 mega pixel, it at least 3. Check out the SonyEricsson K790a, it has a 3.2 MP camera and is actually branded as a CyberShot digital camera. And phone. If you don't know it, CyberShot is Sony's digital camera brand. CyberShot cameras are generally good, but admittedly I haven't tried the new phone. Of course to review the cameras you have to do a thorough job.
I'd wait until someone like Philip Askey of dpreview.com or Steve's Digicams made a favorable review. At least if it's a camera you need ;)

I've seen better pictures come out of a four megapixel (MP) camera with better lenses than those that come out of a seven MP camera with poorer quality optics.

I had an older Kodak 5MP camera that was replaced (by gift) in September with a 7.2 MP camera. While the Kodak was older, clunkier, and didn't have as many megapixels, it still took better photos than the new camera which had a great review on the Digital Photography Review. I've seriously thought about going back to the older camera :(

As far as phone cameras go, mine has quality that sucks, but I still take a ton of photos with it for my site (I think I'm at 3900 since 10/2004). It's not the quality that matters to me (I'm not looking for device consolidation really) it's just the fact that I can take a photo and immediately upload it to my gallery. It was especially useful while sitting on the beach in Maui and uploading photos of our honeymoon for those back home to check out.

They are smaller, they are lighter, energy density is pretty good, and the devices they are meant to power (predominantly cameras & cell phones) tend to be replaced every two to four years by consumers anyway when Newer! Faster! Better! appears on the scene for about what was paid in the first place. My DSC-U30 takes NiMH AAA batteries and I'm thrilled with it. My DSC-F707 takes a proprietary Li-Ion but I found a newly manufactured copy on eBay for like sixteen bucks shipped to replace the 4-year-old used thing that I purchased it with, so I'm happy. More fun battery rant info can be found here.

They are smaller, they are lighter, energy density is pretty good, and the devices they are meant to power (predominantly cameras & cell phones) tend to be replaced every two to four years by consumers anyway when Newer! Faster! Better! appears on the scene for about what was paid in the first place. My DSC-U30 takes NiMH AAA batteries and I'm thrilled with it. My DSC-F707 takes a proprietary Li-Ion but I found a newly manufactured copy on eBay for like sixteen bucks shipped to replace the 4-year-old used thing that I purchased it with, so I'm happy. More fun battery rant info can be found here.

The skew correction function. Through an original algorithm, which automatically detects trapezoids in images and corrects them to rectangles, images of such things as blackboards, documents, or time schedules shot at any angle can be corrected so that the image looks as though it were shot from the front. The camera is most effective in business environments where blackboards, overhead projector, OHPs, time schedules; signs, etc. cannot be shot from the front.

NO DRM, cheap music, quality encodings (you get to pick!).

yes, the artist gets paid. probably as much as the ipod people get (ie, very little; its all just talk on the execs' part).

I will NEVER buy drm music. never.

I tried an ipod recently. I had non DRM files that I wanted copied to it. fine. then I wanted to move them from the nano to the shuffle. no go. not with apple tools. these are MY files. I could have recorded them myself and apple would STILL refuse to let files copy between devices. they insist it goes only 1 way.

no politics in my music. at least not my music FORMAT, please!

(fwiw, I just bought a new mp3/drive/photo device. I wrote up a small article on upgrading its drive. its called the 'wolverine' and its a great sounding (and NO DRM!) player. here's the link (remove any embedded spaces in the URL to visit):

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/ readflat.asp?forum=1023 &thread=17204039

(I'm the linux-works guy in that forum).

apple or other drm: you have to run 'import' programs to copy files.
non-drm players: you mount the drive and copy files using dos, windows, linux, freebsd, etc.

the choice is obvious, I think.

Astronomers have also been doing this with digital SLRs. Modifying the firmware to allow longer exposures, removing the IR dichroic filter... One camera manufacturer seems to have noticed this and made a specialized version: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20d a.asp No, I don't work for Canon, I just wish Sony (and others) would either open up their firmware or provide more flexible options for semi-pro cameras such as the DSC-V3.

For a more modern discussion of the Foveon chip, please view this currently active thread on DPReview:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1 000&message=17047342

Another point brought up I had forgot about is the Foveon's chip inherant advantage of collecting a lot more photons than Bayer cameras get to see.

According to the reviews I've seen, the G6 doesn't have an especially large sensor or especially low noise. It's less noisy than the G3 and G5 were, but it's right in line with other new compact designs.

It's the really big sensors in the DSLRs and especially the expensive "full frame" DSLRs that have really low noise, and are actually often better than film in that respect.

According to the reviews I've seen, the G6 doesn't have an especially large sensor or especially low noise. It's less noisy than the G3 and G5 were, but it's right in line with other new compact designs.

It's the really big sensors in the DSLRs and especially the expensive "full frame" DSLRs that have really low noise, and are actually often better than film in that respect.

Large aperture increases depth of field
Larger apertures (i.e. f/2.8) have a shorter DOF than small apertures (i.e. f/22).

DOF info

Thanks for that! I am going to check this camera out ASAP. Some review links for others:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx1/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/ lx1.shtml

Check out the Canon DSLRs (like the digital rebel) - these have much lower noise than any of the Powershots and are usable up to around 800-1600 iso.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/page2 6.asp

Are you positive you're not thinking of exposure bracketing vs. parent post wanting focus bracketing?

In terms of LCD framing - it has been done - check out the Olympus E330 - they're marketting it as the World's first digital SLR with continuous live view:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06012606olympuse 330evolt.asp
Personally I prefer to use the viewfinder everytime - but put that down to what I'm used to. I'll bet Olympus will sell alot of these cameras to those like you upgrading from a digital compact who demand the lcd viewpoint. The real sales point for this particular DSLR though is the ultrasonic CCD dust cleaner - I'm really hoping Olympus licences this technology out to other manufacturers... cleaning the CCD every couple of months with a swab and alcohol is something I'd like to lay rest to history - and something that most DSLR manufacturers choose to keep quiet about when selling their cameras...

Pretty much all of the panasonic cameras have optical image stabilization. check it out. Canon actualy kind of sucks. My SD450 blows compared to my old sony DSC-V1. Yeah, the lense is smaller, but it's also lacking basic options like a manual (stepwise) focus, and a manual shutter setting for less then one second.

Want to save an image losslessly? Digital SLRs (and some point in shoots) let you save in RAW. Not only is the image saved losslessly, but you can adjust white balance, exposure (within reason), sharpness, and more all after taking the photo!

Want decent optical zooms? SLR lenseshave been available for decades now that range from 8mm to a whopping 1200mm. That's over 100x for you guys used to talking about lenses in terms of "how much zoom" they have. Canon's lens selection.

Want 13MP? The Canon 5D does 12.8. The Canon 1Ds Mark II does 16.8.

Want storage? You can get CF/SD cards as large as 8 gb, and portable hard drives such as the Epson P-2000 made for offloading photos out in the field.

Want to wirelessly transmit photos? The 1Ds Mark II can do it with the WFT-E1A.

Current batteries can let you shoot 2500 shots on a single charge. Spare batteries are cheap and keeping spares in your bag is no big deal.

The thing is that all this technology is already available, but be prepared to spend thousands of dollars for it. If you're looking for all this technology crammed into an everyday point & shoot, give it a few more years.

Instead of more MP, how about better high ISO capabilities? No shutter lag from when you press the button to when the camera takes the picture? How about taking photos at 8fps? Instant-on when you power up your camera? Quicker autofocus? These features are very important, but these too are available on DSLRs, and for a price. Considering how little money you're spending on a point & shoot, they do quite a bit as it is and they'll only get better. The technology is already there and it will eventually find its way down to lower end cameras.

I really wish Canon had put IS into it's S80. That's the key feature missing from it that the PowerShot S2 IS has. I can live without the massive 12x optical zoom because I want a compact size, which is what the S80 has instead. The S80 is the first Canon to add the iPod-like jog dial with four buttons underneath, making manual control a whole lot easier in the same amount of space.

I really wish Canon had put IS into it's S80. That's the key feature missing from it that the PowerShot S2 IS has. I can live without the massive 12x optical zoom because I want a compact size, which is what the S80 has instead. The S80 is the first Canon to add the iPod-like jog dial with four buttons underneath, making manual control a whole lot easier in the same amount of space.

1. Lense Quality
2. Size of the CCD/CMOS

1. Lense Quality
2. Size of the CCD/CMOS

1. Lense Quality
2. Size of the CCD/CMOS

1. Lense Quality
2. Size of the CCD/CMOS

Firtly, quick recharge for batteries: SOLVED (though not for sale yet as far as I know)

toshiba quick recharge batteries

next range: well even a crappy home made conversion of a normal car to lead acid powered electric gets roughly 100kms range, using second hand old motors , existing drive train etc.

now assuming we use the mentioned lithiums instead of lead acid (or the nimh they tend to use today) we get ~4 times the range, then factor in a new more efficient motor, and car designed from the ground up for electric use, and 600 - 1200 kms range on a charge seems entirely feasable, with the nice 2 mins recharge. (let alone using lithium sulphur batteries if/when they are available, double to triple the capacity again, or fuel cells...)

add some nice decent efficiency solar cells giving maybe 1 or 2 Kw (assuming ~3-5m^2 area at ~25-35% efficiency) on a nice sunny day, boosting the day range up a lot (especially for short trips, where recharging might not be necessary at all)

the main reasons we dont have any decent production electric cars now is because car companies dont want a car to turn into a chasis, some electric motors and batteries and electronics (too easy for cheap chinese knockoffs) after investing so much in petrol engines, so wont do the reasearch necessary to make it a reality, oil companies dont want to lose their market, and almost everyone else believes the lie that electric cars are unfeasable.

next to the comment that we always need oil, i have no doubt at all that if there was no geological oil available, we would have as many of these operating thermal conversion of almost any organic garbage to oil as is necessary to supply us with the required oil(actually these are supposed to be efficient enough to supply the entire US oil needs just using US agricultural waste, solving two problems at once, let alone other waste. no need to dig any more out of the ground at all)

so as you can see, oil production for plastics etc is not theoretical problem only a political one i guess, even without geological oil, and electric cars CAN work fine :)

A few months after I bought my Z5, Canon effectively leapfrogged it with their own new IS model, also using AAs which was a selling point for me. Maybe Konica Minolta drove that new model some, so they had their positive competitive effect on the market, but they didn't have a clear winner in my book for more than a few months, and I'm someone who actually bought their product.

They had their own way of doing things, though. The design of the Z5 is one of those ones you immediately recognize as having some thought to it, even if you don't like it in use (which I did). You hate to see another independent voice vanish.