Slashdot Mirror

This just isn't true. I've switched to digital as well, but the resolution of 35mm film is roughly 24 megapixels. This is still 3x the resolution of the best consumer digicams.

First of all, we're talking about DSLRs, not digicams. Canon's 1Ds MkII is over 16MP, and it's over a year old.

Second, most calculations of 35mm film's resolution, like that one you quote, are purely theoretical. Lots of assumptions have to be made when comparing the grain on film to the sensor sites on a chip, but what really matters is how the final image looks. And for several years now, DSLRs have surpassed 35mm film in image quality and resolution. For example, see this Luminous Landscape article comparing the original Canon 1Ds to the Canon 1V and Pentax 645. The DSLR yields an obviously superior image to film, regardless of the theoretical extra information the film may contain.

Note that the 1Ds is several years old, and has since been surpassed by the second-generation 1Ds-MkII. Even my own camera, the 5D, is pretty far beyond the reach of a 35mm film camera in terms of image quality. (Note: I use Canon equipment so that's all I've referenced, but similarly Nikon's D2X outperforms 35mm film cameras).

This just isn't true. I've switched to digital as well, but the resolution of 35mm film is roughly 24 megapixels. This is still 3x the resolution of the best consumer digicams.

First of all, we're talking about DSLRs, not digicams. Canon's 1Ds MkII is over 16MP, and it's over a year old.

Second, most calculations of 35mm film's resolution, like that one you quote, are purely theoretical. Lots of assumptions have to be made when comparing the grain on film to the sensor sites on a chip, but what really matters is how the final image looks. And for several years now, DSLRs have surpassed 35mm film in image quality and resolution. For example, see this Luminous Landscape article comparing the original Canon 1Ds to the Canon 1V and Pentax 645. The DSLR yields an obviously superior image to film, regardless of the theoretical extra information the film may contain.

Note that the 1Ds is several years old, and has since been surpassed by the second-generation 1Ds-MkII. Even my own camera, the 5D, is pretty far beyond the reach of a 35mm film camera in terms of image quality. (Note: I use Canon equipment so that's all I've referenced, but similarly Nikon's D2X outperforms 35mm film cameras).

This just isn't true. I've switched to digital as well, but the resolution of 35mm film is roughly 24 megapixels. This is still 3x the resolution of the best consumer digicams.

First of all, we're talking about DSLRs, not digicams. Canon's 1Ds MkII is over 16MP, and it's over a year old.

Second, most calculations of 35mm film's resolution, like that one you quote, are purely theoretical. Lots of assumptions have to be made when comparing the grain on film to the sensor sites on a chip, but what really matters is how the final image looks. And for several years now, DSLRs have surpassed 35mm film in image quality and resolution. For example, see this Luminous Landscape article comparing the original Canon 1Ds to the Canon 1V and Pentax 645. The DSLR yields an obviously superior image to film, regardless of the theoretical extra information the film may contain.

Note that the 1Ds is several years old, and has since been surpassed by the second-generation 1Ds-MkII. Even my own camera, the 5D, is pretty far beyond the reach of a 35mm film camera in terms of image quality. (Note: I use Canon equipment so that's all I've referenced, but similarly Nikon's D2X outperforms 35mm film cameras).

Last I checked, 35mm was approximately 3500-4000 DPI. That's significantly more than even the latest digital cameras.

Last I checked, 35mm was approximately 3500-4000 DPI. That's significantly more than even the latest digital cameras.

Really bad example with the airplane, because as long as the off-to-shot time is short enough, it all comes down to the speed of the autofocus. For that the $1000+ DSLRs beat even the $650 Panasonic DMC prosumer line handedly.

Considering my next camera in a year or two will probably be a Canon S80, I'll have to hope the autofocus and aperture capture it. Having practiced with it though, I'll know the controls though to rapidly switch to shutter-priority mode and select at least 1/400th of a second if it's a sunny day. I'd like a prosumer model with image stabilization, but a compact size is more important to me. Taking the time to learn how to use a camera is what matters with any camera, digital or otherwise. Getting to experiment with the digital means I'll know the settings to use to capture a moment. Getting a digital with enough controls to quickly adjust is another matter. The S80 is near the bottom of that scale, but it beats other compacts and super-compacts that force using menus to change the ISO or shot mode.

yeah, kinda like the rumor that Carl Zeiss is making lenses for Nikon.

What does that mean to companies that sell stuff like USB flash drives or CF cards? They'll obviously have to pay royalties, of course,

Yep, they will pricing has been set to 25c per unit.

Utterly crippling in the low margin, high volume USB storage market (especially at the low end)

and that means a mass migration to a new filesystem to avoid such payments.

And exactly what filesystem could that be? That is supported out of the box by 95% of desktop PCs?

This - if anyone was still wondering why a monopoly is so dangerous in the hands of an immoral company like MS.

You can use your overwhelming advantage in one market (desktop PCs) to exert influence in another.

But what new FS will that be? FAT32? EXT2/3?

Fat32? Patents cover it.

EXT2/3? Get real. Who wants to install 3rd party drivers every time you plugin your USB device?

Epson has tried the digita; rangefinder idea before with the R-D1. Evidently it didn't do too well, but there wasn't much hype about it.

I can't name a single one that would accept an SD card.

detailed review at the "camera geek" site: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/ very interesting design, my guess is that the innovations in the R1 are more likely to migrate into the point and shoot lines (of Sony and the other camera companies) than into DSLRs

As far as I know, the Powershot Pro 1 has a Sony ICX456 CCD in it. And by the way, the Sony R1 has Carl Zeiss optics. So half of your argument melts away there.

Having said that, there are obvious benefits of an SLR and while I wouldn't buy the R1 myself, I think you should read DP Review's review of it. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

Judging from the review, the CCD is top notch. The main lacking part in my opinion is the slow tele-end of the lens (F4.8). If it was F2.8 all the way from 24 to 120mm, I don't see much reason for most people to need any interchangeable lenses - unless you're shooting birds or something. And quite frankly, most owners of say, Canon 350D's will only have one slow and crappy zoom like a 28-105 with F3.5 at the wide-end or something. So this camera will be a much better choice for a lot of the current DSLR buyers.

Peppe

Take a look at the Canon Digital Rebel XT. It's a digital SLR that takes Canon's EOS series of lenses (basically, the only lenses they produce currently), and it's priced at around $900. Here's the Dpreview review of the camera http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/

"Obviously, it works great to impress the guys at DPReview who take pictures of a uniform gray chart. "

That's not true. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page21 .asp

I've found dpreview to be a great review site. I haven't seen anybody else as thorough, but steves-digicams.com isn't too bad. I just don't like the site layout.

Sony actually does make good sensors. Canon uses some in there point and shoot line. Other manufacturers do as well. Camera makers don't talk much about who's sensore they are using publicly. Rumor is the Nikon SLR line is using sony sensors.

  Sony digital cameras aren't bad (I have an canon s70 and rebel xt). However my friends Sony focuses and shots faster than my canon s70. (the rebel xt is an SLR and is a great camera). I don't like memory stick and that is my reason for avoiding.

You have a good point though.. the sony is more expensive than the digital rebel xt and can't change lenses. Although it has 2 more megapixels..but that matters little.

See the review of the sony at http://dpreview.com/

TFA is confused about sensor sizes. First, it says this:

But like an SLR, it has a huge sensor inside, 21.5 by 14.4 millimeters.

And then it says this:

Yet without switching lenses, the R1 also zooms in 5x (a 120-mm equivalent). Unlike the focal-length measurements of other digitals, these are true 35-mm camera equivalents that don't have to be multiplied by, say, 1.5.

The 35mm frame size is 36 by 24 mm, for a diagonal of 43mm, which is 1.67 times the diagonal of the sensor in the camera. So you have to multiply by 1.67 to get your "35mm equivalents". If you look at the front of the camera (pictured here) you can see that the actual focal length range of the lens is 14.3mm to 71.5mm, and when you multiply by 1.67, you get the quoted 24mm to 120mm. It is hardly new, or in any way a "feature" for a digital camera manufacturer to quote the "35mm equivalent" when talking about focal lengths. It is, however, totally bogus, IMO, because it tells you nothing about depth of field, which depends on the actual physical focal length and the distance to the subject. Given that the maximum apeture at the longer end of the range is f/4.8, your subject will have to be pretty close to get the claimed ability to use "that professionals' trick of blurring the background".

Really?

That's nice and all for a film camera, but for a DSLR, there are several very distinct advantages for me, multilens support being only one of them.

I actually *like* having a real viewfinder. A low-resolution EVF or LCD screen just doesn't cut it for me, especially when taking shots that utilize a very shallow or very deep depth of field.

Secondly, the fact that there is virtually no power-on lag, and that there is absolutely no shutter lag is a big plus. Likewise, my canon DSLR dumps images (even RAW) to the CF card at a rate that is fast enough to let me shoot more or less continuously. Because of the huge benefits of RAW processing, I always shoot in RAW, and the fact that the sony requires a 9 second lag to save a RAW image makes the fature virutally worthless.

The single biggest feature of the DSLR however, is the ability to shoot in ISO 1600 or 3200 mode with very little visible noise. Imagine being able to take pictures in low light and indoors without a flash... It's that good. Fortunately, according to DPReview, ISO1600 performance is indeed above that of a normal compact camera, but not quite up to par with a real DSLR. This, in my mind, is the camera's ONLY saving grace. Unfortunately, they aren't the first to do this, and Fuji's approach doesn't require an expensive full-sized APS-C sensor (and lens to match) to do so which means they can implement it in a compact camera.

(in short, fuji's SuperCCD sensor has a bunch of extra photosensors that are normally used to extrapolate a little additional resolution, but in the case of the F10, these sensors are used to reduce noise in the surrounding sensors, resulting in fully-usable ISO1600 images. Sony's approach simply uses a larger sensor like in a DSLR, where the density of the photosensors is much lower, resulting in less electrical noise overall. The innovation here is that sony's camera has no real shutter/mirror mechanism which means that the sensor is exposed to light whenever the camera is on, allowing residual charges (noise) to build up on the CCD that have to be somehow 'cleared' before the photo is taken, hence the shutter lag.)

There are 1,001 different digital cameras out there, including dozens of that blow the doors off this model. This is not a camera for professionals. How many non-pros need 10 megapixel resolution? If it's for a website, 5 MP is already overkill.

According to DPreview, This camera offers both Memory Stick/Memory Stick Pro and Compact Flash Type I/II. Isn't Memory Stick chock full of DRM goodies? While CF is also available, isn't a DRM storage method bad? Help me out here, people!

I was just about to post the same comment. Olympus has been doing this for years... I still use my E10 regularly, and I can definately say it is *NOT* a compact camera. Anyway, dpreview has a very detailed (as usual) review of the camera at: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/

-MS2K

Why is this being announced now? This is ancient history, Sony announced the R1 long back. In fact, on Dec-1 they even announced a firmware update. Check here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120101dscr1fir mware.asp

Umm.... wake up slashdot.

Not everyone is as into optics and cameras as you are.

if you are going to spend 1K on a camera... you have to know a little bit at least...

Anyways, sony lenses are not that bad. Personally, I will compare what are you getting on that camera compared to other at the same/similar price. For example you can get decent slr cameras for around the same price, and there is not where this camera fails.

The lenses are not so close... there is an adapter you can use and extra lenses/filters to match (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/). I still think, as most of sony products, it is too pricy for what you get.

My feelings are that Sony is a great hardware company being tormented by its music and movies divisions. Whatever genuis in Tokyo came up with the idea of acquiring media companies needs to be beaten. Badly.

Good review can be found here.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120603sonydscr 1review.asp

Summary -- fantastic lens, but despite the large sensor inferior noise performance to entry level DSLRs.

The Canon 1Ds doesn't approach medium format film in absolute terms. It's a nice camera, but it's out of its league when you start comparing it to medium format, film or digital.

It might approach medium format if a photographer wasn't using it to it's full ability, and doing a better job maximizing the digital's capabilities, but this is really an operator-training issue and not an equipment one.

If you want to read a good professional assessment of film versus digital equivalent megapixels, read this:
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital .1.html

A 35mm film frame, shot on Fuji Velvia, is considered to be equivalent to somewhere between 10 and 16 MP. So the Canon is quite possibly the first digital camera that actually approaches the limit of what 35mm film can do at its best -- but even then I take issue, since each pixel in the digital frame records one color, and then the software interpolates the missing values for the other two colors on each pixel (unless you have a camera with the Foveon sensor).

However for medium format film still has a clear advantage. Even Ektachrome -- which has something of a reputation for being grainy at times -- is going to give you somewhere in the neighborhood of 18MP; Velvia is way above that (granted the error does start to get large). To get a digital that can compete with medium-format film, you're well out of the 1Ds range and looking more at things like the 22MP Mamiya ZD. (Feel free to tell me how much that one costs -- the press release doesn't even mention a price.)

Digital definitely has gotten APS film beat, and it's closing in on what quality advantage 35mm still holds. But Medium format is still superior, and 4x5 and the larger medium-format pano formats have no competition at all. If you want really high quality digital at the upper end of the spectrum, you're better to shoot film and then scan it, either on a flatbed or a drum scanner, to get your file.

I'm not some film-photo Luddite -- I use a digital myself because I think the loss in quality is worth the gain in convenience. However I think it's important to objectively assess the difference in quality, and realize that for the price, film still has its advantages.

Yeah, I thought Canon made their own CCDs. At least they're not at Sony's mercy.

Here's a little bit about the sony LCD though: this post at dpreview I happened upon this after I fudged up the LCD cover on my 20D. It's inexpensive and easy to fix, and there's a little sony logo just under the Canon logo. I should've taken a picture! There's probably more parts on the camera that were sourced than I'd ever care to know. But it's interesting anyway.

First: There are ways of identifying photos which has been photoshopped (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/ 24/1459257&tid=152&tid=14)

Second: Canon has at least one camera which, if you store the flash card, can show the authenticity of the original photo (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081909canon_e os20d.asp) using an data verification kit (Canon DVK-E2), explanation of how it works (although very untechy explanation) can be found here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvk e2.asp (it seems to be a hash based system, from what I can gleam of that text).

I don't know if either method would stand up in court anywhere, but it is two places to start planning for your future documentation needs.

Another thing, although costly, can't one just create a 35 mm film from something like this http://www.colorslide.com/artists.html? (just my first result from a google search, but there are equipment for this on the market).

The point of evidence, though, is to show that it hasn't been tampered with from the gathering until used in court, that's true for any kind of evidence. With the right tools that can be done with digital photos.

Best regards,
Paul

First: There are ways of identifying photos which has been photoshopped (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/ 24/1459257&tid=152&tid=14)

Second: Canon has at least one camera which, if you store the flash card, can show the authenticity of the original photo (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081909canon_e os20d.asp) using an data verification kit (Canon DVK-E2), explanation of how it works (although very untechy explanation) can be found here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvk e2.asp (it seems to be a hash based system, from what I can gleam of that text).

I don't know if either method would stand up in court anywhere, but it is two places to start planning for your future documentation needs.

Another thing, although costly, can't one just create a 35 mm film from something like this http://www.colorslide.com/artists.html? (just my first result from a google search, but there are equipment for this on the market).

The point of evidence, though, is to show that it hasn't been tampered with from the gathering until used in court, that's true for any kind of evidence. With the right tools that can be done with digital photos.

Best regards,
Paul

Actually, you end up with fewer of them, as most of the optical aberrations occur the closer you get to the edges of the image circle. That's why APS-sized sensors see fewer distortion and chromatic issues edge-to-edge as opposed to their full-frame brethren, given the same lens, and another reason why they can "work" with cheaper lenses. Most of the bad stuff happens outside the chip's area.

If you're interested in this kind of stuff, you should hang out on the forums of Digital Phography Review http://www.dpreview.com/.

...but when they do, they'll guarantee that the living hell is confused out of of camera buffs, Macheads, Photoshop users, and, well, just about every search engine on the planet.

"Your problem is that you didn't correctly set the aperture on your G5, which accounts for the bad results in Aperture on your G5. That's because aperture data isn't recorded in the Aperture suite, so creative professionals should use Creative Suite, and don't even think of swapping your iPod Photo for a G5 and the Zen player made by these guys, and be thankful that Creative doesn't make a sound card for the G5 either.

Who the hell hired Bjarne Stroustroup as a product marketing specialist, and why, dear, God, why, did he accept? :)

The Fuji S2 is indeed suffering from a similar problem, though it doesn't use a Sony CCD. The forums at Digital Photography Review are littered the the dreaded "black frame" S2 reports, and Fuji has recently announced that they will repair/replace all affected models regardless of warranty status.

That said, I wouldn't hesitate to buy a Fuji camera now that it's clear that this will be handled by Fuji, since the image quality from the Fuji DSLRs is excellent, and enjoys a higher dynamic range than offerings from Nikon or Canon.

I can't tell the difference between prints made with Canon ink and aftermarket ink. In fade tests in sunlight, the aftermarket inks fade about the same as Canon, but last better than Epson (not current generation, I don't do Epson anymore).

I only have a couple of links the compair OEM canon ink to 3rd party
-MIS (believed to be Image Specalists) vs InkGrabber vs OEM-
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/inktest.html
-OEM canon vs various others swab test-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1 003&message=12198835

I have to do some tests of what i'm currently using to see how well it holds up vs the OEM solution.

IOW, if you're frugal, you can make your own prints for VERY cheap. I think my 4x6's probably cost 5 cents each.

The cost of any of the listed 3rd party solutions is going to run about $300/gal if you buy in small lots under 4oz, or $100/gal if you buy in gallons. This is vs the $3000ish/gal for OEM canon which to be fair isn't the most fade resistant ink on the market. This accounts for about a 90% savings in ink. We are talking in the neighborhood of about a quarter a full sized print in terms of ink. When taking the cost of paper into account, 4x6 often cheaper to get done at a costco or some other photoshop. But this goes out the window once you start talking larger than 4x6 or non standard size prints like 5x5 cd covers.

There are those who claim that non-OEM ink will affect your printhead life. This is possible I have to admit, but given 90% savings if your printer explodes after the 3rd refill, you saved money assumming we're talking a base model printer. This is what I find sad about the current ink market not that you spend more on supplies then you do hardware, but the fact that sometimes the hardware with supplies costs the same.

Nikon was the first to come out with a camera that was WiFi-capable. Nikon's D2H, which came out in Q3 2003, was also introduced with the Nikon WT-1 (and WT-1A in America), which attached to the camera and provided 802.11b transmission right from the camera. Nikon's latest offerings, the D2Hs and the D2x, are compatible with the new WT-2 and WT-2A, which support 802.11g and some new features. While the camera itself does not have internal WiFi support, it was designed with that function in mind and the optional accessory enabled that. Canon also offers the WFT-E1 transmitter for the EOS-1Dmk2 cameras as well as the EOS-20D. This was introduced after Nikon, however it supports WiFi as well as Ethernet. Mike Isler

go to http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query =commercial+printing&page=1&forum=all for more info than you will ever want on printers and printing. Oh, and I would recomend NOT getting your prints printed at wallmart, costco, sam's club, or any of the other discount places if you care at all about your photos. Use a more pro shop, or spend a couple of years to learn how to print your own... I know a fair bit about photography, but close to diddly squat about apache.....

I'm a bit sceptical about this being the reason, as the use of the color grid on the sensors is a well-known fact anyway. I'd think that a significant number of people who are buying a camera and browse for example dpreview are going to notice this. (probably a bigger number of people than the number of frequent RAW users, IMO)

Peh... I think your friend needs a new camera

A friend of mine is a photojournalist, and she says that standard digital SLR is still not high resolution enough to be blown up to 6ft on the wall of an art gallery - for that, you need medium format or at a push 35mm slide film. Sure, resolutions will go up and up, but it's likely to be a few years before digital is good enough for artistic/professional photographers.

Digital cameras also have some limitations inherent to the format. One example is chromatic aberration or 'edge fringing' which is coloured fringes (typically cyan or red) around the border between different coloured objects near the edge of the lens. It's caused by an interraction between the lens' properties and the CCD, and does not happen with film. Guess what - artistic and professional photographers don't want to have to touch these up in Photoshop because it's losing detail.

Every format has its strengths and weaknessess, but as a very popular art form, traditional film photography is here to stay for a long time. As a consumer product, it's pretty much dead.

It is hard to expect a site selling products to host honest reviews & comments of those products. There are shills everywhere, you are right. And don't forget the possibility that people are writing negative reviews of competitors products. I doubt NewEgg is very different from any other site. DPReview seemed to be a very good when I was buying a digital camera a few years ago. But who knows...

Sites like consumerreports.org are more independent. But it would be nice to have an independent site with moderated user comments (ala slashdot) to help filter out the shills.

Beyond that, you have to just go with word of mouth. If your friend bought it and it was good then you might buy it too.

Word of mouth hasn't stopped UHaul from remaining in business though.

They made 560 million. Which is better than what I implied, as I took my info from this blurb But their profit comes from 22,000 job cuts and closing plants.

They did not make 13 billion dollars last year moron.

What do you think of the 20D?

I'd definitely like to own one -- more pixels, less image noise, turns on/wakes up faster, etc., etc. Of course, if money were no option I'd get the 1Ds Mark II and be shooting 16.6 million pixels. If money were no option.

Still, the 10D and its 6.3 million pixels produces shots that are good enough for magazine publication, and I like it way more than the film cameras I've owned. In another ten years we'll probably all be shooting with cameras that capture 50 million pixels and the 10D will seem like a dinosaur, but for the moment it's helped me to shoot some of the best photos I've ever taken.

What about this badboy? http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05030901samsung_ schv770.asp http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/5879.html

Of course, quality will jump tremendously when we switch over from the RGRB CCDs to tri-color CCD's. Slightly offtopic, does anyone know the progress of this? When will we be able to get true 3-color CCD cameras? About two years ago I had heard this would be in about a year...

You are probably thinking of Foveon's X3 sensor. The first production camera with this sensor was the Sigma SD9 Digital SLR, way back in November 2002, but as of writing the sensor is only available in a handful of cameras.

The X3 sensor works with three photodetectors in a column at each pixel location, rather than a conventional sensor which uses a flat RGBG matrix and only measures a single colour at each pixel location.

Consensus is that X3 is definately better than a conventional sensor with the same pixel resolution, but not as good as a conventional CCD with the same number of photodetectors. So the 3x3 megapixel sensor in the SD9 (marketed by Foveon/Sigma as 9 megapixel) is unquestionably better than a conventional 3 megapixel sensor but not as good as a conventional 9 megapixel sensor, losing in particular in the resolution stakes.

It has also arguably been somewhat hobbled by a lack of mainstream support and a number of annoying quirks on the Sigma cameras (the SD9, for example, was RAW only.) This lack of support is understandable many of the big manufacturers have significant R&D invested in their (conventional) in-house sensor technology - and at the moment this tech seems to be advancing faster than Foveon's; I think we could be seeing another Transmeta situation here.

here are some links i just found that illustrates my point.

5 megapixel camera phone
http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/Pr essRelease.asp?seq=20041020_0000074352

7 megapixel camera phone
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05030901samsung_ schv770.asp

Quality...

If you take an ordinary SLR with an prosumer tele on it and shoot in good light, how big can you make that picture before sharpness becomes an issue... (that ofcourse depends of a far away from the picture you are...)?? I use an 300D with good lenses, not the $3k lenses but $300-$500 lenses, and I assure you that befor I hit the "pixel-wall" I run into the "sharpness-wall", so is 6M pixel enough?? Until I get some $3k lenses I won't "upgrade" the body...

A new fenomen is that people are starting to return lenses -"it's not sharp wide open" -"it's something wrong with the lens", as icmp posted on dpreview people are blowing up their pictures like never before... so to sum it up, the quality of the digital SLR cameras has given the lensmakers headache (some make both cameras and lenses ofcourse...). Me... I calibrate the darn things myself (latest is my "old" 100-300 USM which became VERY nice :) :)

I'm sure you already know that each pixel on most sensors can only record one colour?

Info on RAW. Info on colour filters.

I'm sure you already know that each pixel on most sensors can only record one colour?

Info on RAW. Info on colour filters.

application for the Nikon SDK is possible for bona fide software companies that send Nikon a written application for the SDK. Once approved, the SDK is provided to the developer at no charge and they are authorized to use it.

One key difference is that Nikon has not only left their file format undocumented, they've actively encrypted a key image parameter, allegedly as a spoiler tactic to prevent 3rd party developers fully parsing the files without signing up as 'approved' developers. If Nikon decides you are a 'bona fide' software company worthy of the honour, you can get hold of an SDK (apparently Windows/Mac C++ only with binary runtime libraries) but won't be given a full description of the file format. This has serious implications for the use of Nikon NEF files as an archival format (will Nikon's SDK components work on whatever OS you are running in 20 years time?), for developers who want to use their own algorithms (like Adobe), and for FOSS projects. Luckily, Dave Coffin has already reverse engineered the decryption algorithm in the current version of his open source dcraw RAW converter, so we're not yet locked out of the NEF format. What isn't yet clear is whether Nikon will continue with this sort of tactic in future NEF versions, and if Adobe will overcome their DMCA concerns to fully support NEF in their ACR raw converter (assuming they're not just grandstanding). Incidentally, there's a brief description by Tom Christiansen of the white balance encryption algorithm here, and a pointer by Thomas Knoll (of Photoshop fame) to the relevant section of the dcraw code here.

One key difference is that Nikon has not only left their file format undocumented, they've actively encrypted a key image parameter, allegedly as a spoiler tactic to prevent 3rd party developers fully parsing the files without signing up as 'approved' developers. If Nikon decides you are a 'bona fide' software company worthy of the honour, you can get hold of an SDK (apparently Windows/Mac C++ only with binary runtime libraries) but won't be given a full description of the file format. This has serious implications for the use of Nikon NEF files as an archival format (will Nikon's SDK components work on whatever OS you are running in 20 years time?), for developers who want to use their own algorithms (like Adobe), and for FOSS projects. Luckily, Dave Coffin has already reverse engineered the decryption algorithm in the current version of his open source dcraw RAW converter, so we're not yet locked out of the NEF format. What isn't yet clear is whether Nikon will continue with this sort of tactic in future NEF versions, and if Adobe will overcome their DMCA concerns to fully support NEF in their ACR raw converter (assuming they're not just grandstanding). Incidentally, there's a brief description by Tom Christiansen of the white balance encryption algorithm here, and a pointer by Thomas Knoll (of Photoshop fame) to the relevant section of the dcraw code here.

the canon rebel is a really nice camera for under $1000 and nikon doesnt have anything in the same price bracket that comes anywhere close.

Mod parent flamebait.

The D70 is Nikon's model that lies in the same bracket and indeed was released as direct competition to outdo the 300D/Digital Rebel. It is both on paper, and in popular opinion, a superior product (software aside).