Slashdot Mirror

Adding a 5mp camera to a telephone has been done mainly for marketing reasons. People who don't know anything will see the bigger number and think that it's better. The problem is, you need VERY decent optics to take advantage of a sensor with a 5 megapixel resolution. The TINY lenses that you will *always* get in a camera phone (unless you want your phone to be the size of a brick) will never be able to do justice to a 5mp CCD. Apart from anything else, a lens that's only a few millimeters across cannot gather enough light to let the camera expose the picture for a short enough time for it to still be sharp at that resolution. What I'm trying to say is, your pictures will have camera shake nearly all the time - even when a normal camera with a decent lens wouldn't have even used it's flash.

Basically - don't bother spending money to get a phone with 5mp instead of 1mp. 1mp is fine for instant snaps to put on your blog, but you're never going to want to print out your holiday-of-a-lifetime photos taken on a telephone with a 5mp camera coupled with a 3mm plastic (or glass if you're lucky) lens. Especially if said lens has been in your sweaty pocket for a few months and smashed against the tarmac a few times!

If you want decent photos, get a decent camera with a decent zoom lens.

Don't try and take photos you want to print out with your telephone! That's NOT what telephones are for - contrary to popular media hype.

I recommend http://www.dpreview.com/ for reviews of digital cameras.

According to the press release, the Epson has a "3.8-inch Photo Fine LCD" at a resolution of 212 ppi. Assuming that's the diagonal, and extrapolating from the photo that gives a size of about 6"x3.5", which is not too bad really. I'm not too sure about "killing" the iPod, but it might just steal some sales from Vosonic's XS drive range. I'm certainly leaning more towards the Epson for a bulk storage device to accompany my DSLR on field trips right now...

The specs on it are here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Casio/casio_ exs100.asp

Now I'm going to compare it by specs with two similar cameras from the digital camera market leaders:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?m ethod=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sd300%2Ccasio_exs10 0%2Cnikon_cp5200&show=all

There are 3 things that impact image quality in digicams: sensor size/resolution/noise, lens quality, and lens maximum aperture. The Canon and Nikon models have more resolution, larger aperture when wide open, and larger sensors (also more resolution). They both have optical viewfinders and come with more memory than the Casio (memory is cheap). The max aperture enables you to shoot in worse light without a tripod. The sensor size and resolution impact the amount of noise, and the lens quality impacts sharpness.

The LCD size of the Casio is large (by digicam standards), but it's matched by the Canon in size and beaten in resolution by both the Canon and Nikon. So by using ceramics for their weight and hardness, Casio has reduced image quality and lost some max aperture. Maybe this is an acceptable trade-off for reducing the weight by 70 grams (113g compared to 180g). The camera is the same size as the Canon. The Nikon is about twice as thick.

Add another 30 grams and subtract $75, and we can compare with two older and cheaper Canon/Nikon models which are mildly larger, and still beat the new Exilim:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?m ethod=sidebyside&cameras=casio_exs100%2Ccanon_s410 %2Cnikon_cpsq&camuser=canon_s410&show=all

Yes, it was noteworthy that Casio made a ceramic lens, just like it was noteworthy when Kodak created a one-time use camera with a plastic lens... The problem for Casio is that the image quality isn't as good as "still-very-pocketable" offerings from years past. For the same price of a newer model from Canon or Nikon, you don't get as much. Size is the same, it weighs a little less, and it has worse image quality and needs twice as much light.

The specs on it are here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Casio/casio_ exs100.asp

Now I'm going to compare it by specs with two similar cameras from the digital camera market leaders:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?m ethod=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sd300%2Ccasio_exs10 0%2Cnikon_cp5200&show=all

There are 3 things that impact image quality in digicams: sensor size/resolution/noise, lens quality, and lens maximum aperture. The Canon and Nikon models have more resolution, larger aperture when wide open, and larger sensors (also more resolution). They both have optical viewfinders and come with more memory than the Casio (memory is cheap). The max aperture enables you to shoot in worse light without a tripod. The sensor size and resolution impact the amount of noise, and the lens quality impacts sharpness.

The LCD size of the Casio is large (by digicam standards), but it's matched by the Canon in size and beaten in resolution by both the Canon and Nikon. So by using ceramics for their weight and hardness, Casio has reduced image quality and lost some max aperture. Maybe this is an acceptable trade-off for reducing the weight by 70 grams (113g compared to 180g). The camera is the same size as the Canon. The Nikon is about twice as thick.

Add another 30 grams and subtract $75, and we can compare with two older and cheaper Canon/Nikon models which are mildly larger, and still beat the new Exilim:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?m ethod=sidebyside&cameras=casio_exs100%2Ccanon_s410 %2Cnikon_cpsq&camuser=canon_s410&show=all

Yes, it was noteworthy that Casio made a ceramic lens, just like it was noteworthy when Kodak created a one-time use camera with a plastic lens... The problem for Casio is that the image quality isn't as good as "still-very-pocketable" offerings from years past. For the same price of a newer model from Canon or Nikon, you don't get as much. Size is the same, it weighs a little less, and it has worse image quality and needs twice as much light.

The specs on it are here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Casio/casio_ exs100.asp

Now I'm going to compare it by specs with two similar cameras from the digital camera market leaders:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?m ethod=sidebyside&cameras=canon_sd300%2Ccasio_exs10 0%2Cnikon_cp5200&show=all

There are 3 things that impact image quality in digicams: sensor size/resolution/noise, lens quality, and lens maximum aperture. The Canon and Nikon models have more resolution, larger aperture when wide open, and larger sensors (also more resolution). They both have optical viewfinders and come with more memory than the Casio (memory is cheap). The max aperture enables you to shoot in worse light without a tripod. The sensor size and resolution impact the amount of noise, and the lens quality impacts sharpness.

The LCD size of the Casio is large (by digicam standards), but it's matched by the Canon in size and beaten in resolution by both the Canon and Nikon. So by using ceramics for their weight and hardness, Casio has reduced image quality and lost some max aperture. Maybe this is an acceptable trade-off for reducing the weight by 70 grams (113g compared to 180g). The camera is the same size as the Canon. The Nikon is about twice as thick.

Add another 30 grams and subtract $75, and we can compare with two older and cheaper Canon/Nikon models which are mildly larger, and still beat the new Exilim:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?m ethod=sidebyside&cameras=casio_exs100%2Ccanon_s410 %2Cnikon_cpsq&camuser=canon_s410&show=all

Yes, it was noteworthy that Casio made a ceramic lens, just like it was noteworthy when Kodak created a one-time use camera with a plastic lens... The problem for Casio is that the image quality isn't as good as "still-very-pocketable" offerings from years past. For the same price of a newer model from Canon or Nikon, you don't get as much. Size is the same, it weighs a little less, and it has worse image quality and needs twice as much light.

Under 5 MP "barely acceptible" onscreen? What resolution is your monitor, 2560x1920? Somebody better tell Nikon to recall the D2H. If you're not getting excellent onscreen images and 300 dpi 4x6 prints out of 3 MP, it's not the megapixel count that's the problem.

dpreview had a press release from Casio a few weeks ago..

Highlights: ... higher refractive index than glass. [snip]... thinner and stronger than conventional glass. ..[snip] reduction in the profile of a lens system by approximately 20%.

(Yeah, silly name)
dpreview.com (scroll down)

dpnow.com

Looks very interesting...

There are two problems: first, Kodak would not return these money, they will instead cut local jobs and outsource

Second, I doubt federal court will uphold this decision (although it may temporary rise Kodak's stock and let several people do some money in between).

You are right, the 35mm size in not the main issue with image quality. However, the larger the sensor, the less noise in the image. I was saying the the high-quality 11MP sensor of the 1Ds can compete with medium format film. That statement has little to do with the size of the sensor.

As for a different lens standard, that is exactly what Olympus is trying with their 4/3 system.

Nope. Even the high end DSRLs still have a small crop factor. I think the 1ds has a 1.3 crop factor, small, but still there.

First of all, it's not a "crop factor" - that's a misnomer. It's a focal length multiplier, or if you're Canon and want to be cute about it, a "conversion factor". There's an important difference there, which relates to the focal length of the lenses you're using.

The original 1DS had no focal multiplier - it used a full-size CMOS sensor just like the new one does. See here and here (see the focal length multiplier, which is "1").

Kodak also produces cameras with full-size CMOS sensors (see here; they make basically this same camera with both Canon and Nikon lens mounts). Keep in mind, though, that "full-size" is a relative term and is basically a misnomer just like "crop factor" is - the only reason it even matters is so that photographers can match the lenses already on the market to their new digital camera. Otherwise it doesn't matter if the CMOS is 37mm or 40mm or 32mm or whatever, as long as there's enough room for however many pixels you want to stuff into it.

Initial post: "And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film."

At first I read that significant "and" as signifying:
16.7MP + full-size sensor = effective reproduction of 35mm film.

From dpreview.com: "For the first time, medium format image quality combines with access to the world's most extensive range of professional lenses, spanning from 14mm to 1200mm."

Looks like they're saying:
16.7MP + full (35mm)-size sensor = effective reproduction of medium format (bigger than 35mm) film.

?

The submitter is a bit mistaken that the 1Ds Mark II will be used by "photographers shooting sporting events" as the 1D Mark II (with the higher frame rate and focal length multiplier HELPS for telephoto shots, plus about half the cost) will be the DSLR of choise for these folks ... whereas the 1Ds Mark II is targetted towared studio work ... although obviousely both would do well in either environment.

BTW, I've actually used a 1D Mark II and it is an amazing DSLR - scary how fast you can shoot pictures ... and I even caught a semi-decent sequence of my having a hack of a water skiing crash

Nope. You're thinking of the 1D Mark II (yes Canon needs to change their naming scheme - I think it sucks).

1Ds

1D Mark II

Nope. You're thinking of the 1D Mark II (yes Canon needs to change their naming scheme - I think it sucks).

1Ds

1D Mark II

Here are some of the full-size samples available on the site:

Sample 1
Sample 2

The rest of samples can be found here. I don't want to slashdot poor dpreview. I'm sure as progress marches on, their bandwidth prices skyrocket.

Here are some of the full-size samples available on the site:

Sample 1
Sample 2

The rest of samples can be found here. I don't want to slashdot poor dpreview. I'm sure as progress marches on, their bandwidth prices skyrocket.

Here are some of the full-size samples available on the site:

Sample 1
Sample 2

The rest of samples can be found here. I don't want to slashdot poor dpreview. I'm sure as progress marches on, their bandwidth prices skyrocket.

We might mention that Nikon beat Canon to the punch with a wireless adapter for the D2H back in July. Still a cool development from Canon, but give credit where credit is due, I allus say.

And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film. I wonder if it plays mp3s too ..."

Um, the previous generation had a full frame CMOS sensor as well...

Look Here

To be fair, Canon (for once) took a technological idea from Nikon. The D2H had wireless FTP support back in July 2003.

Also there have been 35mm sensors before, including Canon's own 1Ds.

To be fair, Canon (for once) took a technological idea from Nikon. The D2H had wireless FTP support back in July 2003.

Also there have been 35mm sensors before, including Canon's own 1Ds.

> But very often digital cameras don't have separate sensors for each pixel; they have alternating R G B sensors in a kind of chessboard arrangement, and then interpolate the missing values.

Couple of notes...

That chessboard layout is called a Color Filter Array, usually arranged in a Bayer Pattern.

Digital cameras these days are 10 bit in RAW mode.

And some even have 4 color sensors.

dpreview is THE site for camera buffs, much the same way avsforum is for us audio & vidio philes. Now if only I could find sites for other categories....

--

"Geometry is frozen music"
- Pythagoras

> But very often digital cameras don't have separate sensors for each pixel; they have alternating R G B sensors in a kind of chessboard arrangement, and then interpolate the missing values.

Couple of notes...

That chessboard layout is called a Color Filter Array, usually arranged in a Bayer Pattern.

Digital cameras these days are 10 bit in RAW mode.

And some even have 4 color sensors.

dpreview is THE site for camera buffs, much the same way avsforum is for us audio & vidio philes. Now if only I could find sites for other categories....

--

"Geometry is frozen music"
- Pythagoras

The Digital Negative Specification is based on the TIFF EP format, an accepted standard, and already the basis of many proprietary raw formats. The power of .DNG format lies in a set of metadata that must be included in the file to describe key details about the camera and settings. .DNG-compliant software and hardware can adapt on the fly to handle new cameras as they are introduced. The new file format unifies conflicting raw formats, enabling the preservation of a pristine version of the original raw image and the metadata associated with it. .DNG is also flexible enough to allow camera manufacturers to continue to add their own "private" metadata fields.

Did you even RTFA? Oh, I forgot.. this is slashdot.

For more details about this announcement, go to dpreview.com

Adobe announces new format for raw files

The Digital Negative Specification is being posted to the Adobe Web site free of any legal restrictions or royalties, enabling integration of the .DNG file format into digital cameras, printers, and software products.

Adobe Systems has today announced a new unified public format for raw digital camera files and a free software tool, Adobe DNG Converter, for translating raw photo formats into the new .DNG format, which is compliant with the Digital Negative Specification. There is no standard format for raw files, which vary between manufacturers and cameras. Digital Negative Specification will introduce a single format that can store information from a diverse range of cameras. An updated Adobe RAW File Converter adds support for DNG as well as several other cameras.

Click here for more information on Adobe DNG

Press Release:

Adobe Unifies Raw Photo Formats with Introduction of Digital Negative Specification Free Converter Tool Kick Starts New Digital Negative File Format by Translating Raw Formats into Easy-to-Use, Archive-Ready Files

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- Sept. 27, 2004 -- Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq:ADBE) today introduced the Digital Negative Specification, a new unified public format for raw digital camera files. The company also launched a free software tool, Adobe DNG Converter, which translates many of today's popular raw photo formats into the new .DNG file format, compliant with the Digital Negative Specification.

Raw files, which contain the original information captured by a camera sensor prior to any in-camera processing, have become popular due to their promise of greater flexibility and image quality. Until today there has been no standard format for these files, which vary between manufacturers and individual cameras. The Digital Negative Specification solves this problem by introducing a single format that can store information from a diverse range of cameras. Technology leaders, major customers, and professional photographers today also endorsed the new specification (see separate quote sheet).

"Professional photographers and other creative professionals are moving to raw camera workflows because of the outstanding creative control they get over digital images," said Bryan Lamkin, senior vice president of Digital Imaging and Digital Video products at Adobe. "However, clients and publishers have difficulty working with disparate raw file formats and nobody can be sure that today's raw formats will be supported ten years from now. Adobe customers asked us to work on a unified, public format for raw files and that's what we've delivered with the new Digital Negative Specification."

Serious photographers want to store raw files in long-term image archives, because -- unlike standard JPEG's and TIFF's -- these files represent the pure, unaltered capture. Current raw formats are unsuitable for archiving because they are generally undocumented and tied to specific camera models, introducing the risk that the format will not be supported over time. The unified and publicly documented Digital Negative Specification ensures that digital photographs can be preserved in original form for future generations. The new .DNG file format also simplifies digital imaging workflows for creative professionals who today have to juggle multiple file formats as they bring raw images, from different cameras, into print and cross-media publishing projects.

New Specification Built on Existing Standards

The Digital Negative Specification is based on the TIFF EP format, an accepted standard, and already the basis of many proprietary raw formats. The power of .DNG format lies in a set of metadata that must be included in the file to describe key details about the camera and settings. .DNG-compliant software and hardware can adapt on the fly to handle new cameras as they are in

no need to huff and puff, why would they develop
something when they can just go out and buy it?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond1h/

But... aren't CF memory cards anywhere from 3 to 5 times slower?

In a word, No
High end CF memory cards are 2 to 3 times faster than microdrives.
Of course they can cost up to fourteen thousand dollars for the really big ones

I currently use a Fuji too. It is 2 MP as well. Probably the same as yours, the FinePix 2400 Zoom.

It is an OK camera, given that I purchased it 3.5 years ago, and it is still ticking. It has a good lens. The Megapixel thing is not an issue. Its pictures are nice and sharp. It also has great macro capability.

The problem I have with it is low light performance. It can't focus and the pictures are grainy. Flash pictures are really crappy too.

I found that this is a common problem with consumer digital cameras. A relative of mine has bought a high end prosumer camera, the Nikon 5700. It suffers from the same problems of low light performance as well. He also made a mistake of using a microdrive Compact Flash card, and writing to it is very slow.

I have been thinking of my next camera, and find the following choices to be suitable for my need:

• Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20. Here is a overview of it, and here is the info from the Panasonic web site. This camera has the greatest optical zoom you can find, 12X. The lens is made by Leica, known to be great always. It has an optical image stabilizers. The drawbacks are a proprietary battery (need to buy a spare for more $$$$), and the LCD does not swivel. The price has come down dramatically since they introduced the 2 Megapixel model. This one is 599$ MSRP.
• Canon S1 IS. This one has it all, a good lens, a swivel LCD, image stabilizer, Canon quality, AA batteries (cheap rechargables), ...etc. The problem is that it is only a 3 megapixel camera, and for this day and age, this is a bit low. It takes great pictures for sure. Check the gallery in the above link.

Of course, you can take the removable lens DSLR route, but that is too expensive for a general user like me.

I currently use a Fuji too. It is 2 MP as well. Probably the same as yours, the FinePix 2400 Zoom.

It is an OK camera, given that I purchased it 3.5 years ago, and it is still ticking. It has a good lens. The Megapixel thing is not an issue. Its pictures are nice and sharp. It also has great macro capability.

The problem I have with it is low light performance. It can't focus and the pictures are grainy. Flash pictures are really crappy too.

I found that this is a common problem with consumer digital cameras. A relative of mine has bought a high end prosumer camera, the Nikon 5700. It suffers from the same problems of low light performance as well. He also made a mistake of using a microdrive Compact Flash card, and writing to it is very slow.

I have been thinking of my next camera, and find the following choices to be suitable for my need:

• Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20. Here is a overview of it, and here is the info from the Panasonic web site. This camera has the greatest optical zoom you can find, 12X. The lens is made by Leica, known to be great always. It has an optical image stabilizers. The drawbacks are a proprietary battery (need to buy a spare for more $$$$), and the LCD does not swivel. The price has come down dramatically since they introduced the 2 Megapixel model. This one is 599$ MSRP.
• Canon S1 IS. This one has it all, a good lens, a swivel LCD, image stabilizer, Canon quality, AA batteries (cheap rechargables), ...etc. The problem is that it is only a 3 megapixel camera, and for this day and age, this is a bit low. It takes great pictures for sure. Check the gallery in the above link.

Of course, you can take the removable lens DSLR route, but that is too expensive for a general user like me.

"Apple ipod drives are 'dumber' than your normal 1" microdrive or 1.6" mini-drive. They lack a lot of the logic IC's and firmware that allows them to be used with standard IDE interfaces."

Well, that's not what mr Tony D says. Read on for more information about how to get your iPod Mini's microdrive up and running in your digital camera.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1 023&message=10224662

First, that's not new by any definition.

Second, these Kodak cameras have larger sensors (although in this particular case larger != better quality).

Finally, there are such things as digital backs for larger format cameras. Check this one out.

Canon is nice, but it's not an end-all-be-all in photography.

First, that's not new by any definition.

Second, these Kodak cameras have larger sensors (although in this particular case larger != better quality).

Finally, there are such things as digital backs for larger format cameras. Check this one out.

Canon is nice, but it's not an end-all-be-all in photography.

And don't forget about this guy.

It would certainly beat the latest array of new digital cameras - the biggest of which only has an 8.2MP sensor!

Speak of the devil, I did this the other weekend using a $15 stunt kite and my digital camera, a Sony P32 (got it for only $90 at Target, so I felt it was worth the risk)
The video on this little cam is great, 640x480 at 24fps (though it actually seems more like 15fps, some frames are doubled). With a 128M memory stick, I can get 5 minutes of video and audio. Viewing the results on TV is great, it's almost DVCam quality.

I'd love to post the videos here (some flyovers at the beach), but my department's sysadmin would be pissed if I uploaded the 20+M mpgs. There's audio too, but it's basically wind noise, and not very interesting.

They do make something like this...

Here's one for a specific Nikon camera...

I remember seeing one that plugged in to a CF slot and looked like a regular flash card to the camera, bugt I can't find it now.

Just as a counter-point, I own a Sony DSC-P1 digital camera. I bought it at Fry's on a business trip to Califoria back in 2001.

During subsequent years, the camera (or its battery) developed a problem; it wouldn't "hold a charge", but would instead signal being fully charged, and then drop to empty/no charge from mere minutes of use. It was useless.

I surfed around, and one day I found this note about the problem. It's on a (as far as I know, I'm not a regular) US site, and I'm in Sweden with a camera bought three years ago in a diferent country, and without any warranty cards or anything sent in.

I thought "what the heck", and e-mailed Sony about it. That's right, I just wrote a question to "info@sony.se", describing my situation and linking to the above page (or maybe Sony's page about the problem, which seems to be gone now). Writing to a general "info" address of a major multinational felt almost silly, in an "of course I won't get a reply" kind of way. But, what can I say; I got a reply within 24 hours! It was from their service representatives here, asking me to send the camera to them, including all accessories. No questions asked.

I did so, and in one week I got it back, with a new battery (that's a $50 value right there, approximately), new charger, a replaced power port in the camera body, and upgraded firmware. The cost to me was the postage to get the camera to the service techs, approx $8 or so.

So, I guess my point is that Sony are surely capable of excellent service, too!

Just as a counter-point, I own a Sony DSC-P1 digital camera. I bought it at Fry's on a business trip to Califoria back in 2001.

During subsequent years, the camera (or its battery) developed a problem; it wouldn't "hold a charge", but would instead signal being fully charged, and then drop to empty/no charge from mere minutes of use. It was useless.

I surfed around, and one day I found this note about the problem. It's on a (as far as I know, I'm not a regular) US site, and I'm in Sweden with a camera bought three years ago in a diferent country, and without any warranty cards or anything sent in.

I thought "what the heck", and e-mailed Sony about it. That's right, I just wrote a question to "info@sony.se", describing my situation and linking to the above page (or maybe Sony's page about the problem, which seems to be gone now). Writing to a general "info" address of a major multinational felt almost silly, in an "of course I won't get a reply" kind of way. But, what can I say; I got a reply within 24 hours! It was from their service representatives here, asking me to send the camera to them, including all accessories. No questions asked.

I did so, and in one week I got it back, with a new battery (that's a $50 value right there, approximately), new charger, a replaced power port in the camera body, and upgraded firmware. The cost to me was the postage to get the camera to the service techs, approx $8 or so.

So, I guess my point is that Sony are surely capable of excellent service, too!

Cool. Finally something to tackle the 1.8 barrier, and smaller glasses for me. 8-)

Perhaps these lenses are made of it? They say their "lumicera" material has Nd=2.08 and superior strength, so it might be based on Alumina.

See the link for the lens photo. Relevant paragraph of the press-release text:

LUMICERA has the same light transmitting qualities as optical glass commonly used in today?s conventional camera lenses, however it has two very important properties that caught CASIO?s attention. Not only is LUMICERA?s refractive index (nd = 2.08) much greater than that of optical glass (nd = 1.5 ? 1.85 *2), it also offers superior strength. CASIO has been able to create a ceramic lens with extremely high levels of precision thanks to several factors. Under recommendations from CASIO the material itself has been refined for use in digital camera optical lenses by endowing it with improved transmission of short wavelength light and eliminating pores (air bubbles) that reduce transparency. CASIO has also established a complete process involving the perfect combination of polishing material, time and pressure, and by treating the lens with a special coating compatible with a high refractive index.

By incorporating this lens into the construction of the zoom lenses developed by CASIO, a reduction in profile of approximately 20% has been made possible.

FYI, Canon just announced their next generation camera today:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0408/04081909canon_eo s20d.asp

Quick summary:
Canon has today revealed the EOS 20D, the eight megapixel successor to the EOS 10D. The new sensor is however only half the story the EOS 20D has a slightly smaller and lighter body, a brand new 9-point AF system, near instant power on time, 5 frames per second continuous shooting, support for EF-S digital lenses, true RAW+JPEG, a B&W mode and USB 2.0. In total we've counted approximately 30 noteworthy improvements on the EOS 20D. Naturally we have a detailed eleven page hands-on preview of the EOS 20D and will have sample images available in a few days time. Price on the street around US$1,500.

This looks cool, not that I would use it as I have a digital camera that I am happy with already, but the retailers can reuse the cameras making it a little cheaper for them, and the disposable camera market seems to do pretty well. I think they can replace the disposable 35mm cameras with these fairly well. However as an end users more than maybe 7-8 uses of this becomes pointless as you can get your own one for that much. Though if they are hacked and they turn into $20 digital cameras then I think the company will have to go back to the drawing board. It will be interesting to see if these become mainstream soon or not.

surprised no one mentioned that CF read speeds average 3 megabytes vs "transfer rates over 100 MB/sec" from this drive:

"all Viking and Microtech cards all put in performances of 4 MB/sec or greater (which is seriously fast)."
"Lexar's new 8GB CompactFlash card delivers a 40X speed-rating, signifying a minimum sustained write speed capability of 6MB/s."

surprised no one mentioned that CF read speeds average 3 megabytes vs "transfer rates over 100 MB/sec" from this drive:

"all Viking and Microtech cards all put in performances of 4 MB/sec or greater (which is seriously fast)."
"Lexar's new 8GB CompactFlash card delivers a 40X speed-rating, signifying a minimum sustained write speed capability of 6MB/s."

Furthermore as solid state memory advances and cheapens (we already have 1gb cf cards commerically available) Well Pretec offers 12GB CF memory already, perhaps a bit overpriced, but I'm sure affordable 15GB is just around the corner.

Some info from 3 reputable sites:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/digital/sensorsize/
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/key=Pixel_Quality
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/counting1 .shtml

As for lens quality, it ought to be obvious that a better lens will provide better image quality. If it's not, go here, click on a couple lenses, and look at their MTF chart. If you're not familiar with how to read an MTF chart, here's the low-down: a better lens has all the lines closer to the top of the chart (for a more detailed explanation, check out Canon's glossary). Pick a couple lenses of comparable focal length, look at their MTF chart, and then compare the price. For instance, look at the 80-200mm f/4-5.6 compared with the 70-200mm f/4L or f/2.8L. The 80-200mm is currently going for $120. The 70-200mm f/2.8L is currently going for a little over $1100. FYI, lenses with an "L" in the name are their pro series. There's a lot more to a lens than just its ability to resolve detail and show contrast, of course -- look here for more info on why pro lenses are so much more expensive (and better) than consumer-grade lenses. And by "consumer grade" I'm not even getting close to the level of a camera phone lens.

This fluid lens technology from Philips Research may eliminate some of the physical limitations of optics and allow camera phones to one day rival full-size cameras in image quality.

Just so you know, samsung has recently put out a phone with a 3MP CCD and 3x Optical zoom. Sure right now it's form factor is ugly as hell, but give it a year. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0407/04071202samsungs ph2300.asp

That article is pretty pathetic. It doesn't even mention this, which can be used to verify that an image is original and unmodified.