Slashdot Mirror
Canon Mistakenly Announces 11-Megapixel Digital Camera
RichardtheSmith writes " PC Magazine just confirmed
that Canon
mistakenly announced a new 11-Megapixel digital camera that wasn't
supposed to be announced for another two weeks. This caused quite a
stir on the digital photography message boards like DPReview, where Canon
apparently tried to have all links to the press release taken down.
The PC Magazine article is here.
The original press release can be found here."
In case of slashdotting or other badness:
Canon Europe celebrates Digital Revolution at Photokina 2002
24/9/2002
Witness the launch of Canon Imaging Gateway an online digital imaging service for consumers
Canon takes its large format printers to high street print shops to deliver fast, large-scale image reproduction
Canon celebrates 15 years of EOS with the launch of the EOS 1Ds - the world's highest resolution professional camera
Cologne, Germany - Canon Europe will use Photokina 2002 as the launch-pad for its latest innovative digital technologies designed to meet the demands of both the consumer imaging and professional print markets.
Forecasting a stunning 70% increase in production of digital still cameras, 2002 has already been an historic year for Canon Europe as both professionals and consumers fully embrace digital imaging.
Mr Hajime Tsuruoka, Canon Europe's Chief Executive Officer and President, said: "Canon Europe is at the forefront of the digital revolution and we plan to remain there. Our strengths as an organisation lie in our implicit understanding of the digital process from start to finish. In addition, we are one of the only electronics companies that own and continue to develop innovative technologies for both the consumer and professional print markets and many of these products will be unveiled at this year's Photokina show, one of the most important industry events in the Canon Europe calendar."
Canon Consumer Imaging
Photokina marks the 15-year anniversary of EOS as a brand. Canon is announcing two new EOS models at the show - the world's highest resolution Pro-camera, the EOS 1Ds and the EOS 300V, which is predicted to become the world's number 1 selling SLR camera.
The EOS-1Ds features the first ever full frame 35mm CMOS sensor with 11.1 million effective pixels. The EOS-1Ds capture astounding detail & colour, almost doubling the resolution ordinarily considered state of the art for a digital SLR camera in the world today.*
Also new this year are three digital still cameras, all featuring the new high performance DIGital Imaging Core (DIGIC) processor. One of the trio, the Digital IXUS v, is claiming the position as the world's smallest 3.2 Megapixel digital camera with optical zoom and LCD monitor.*
Along with the new additions to the camera line up, Canon is announcing Canon Imaging Gateway (CIG), a digital imaging web site, which Canon Europe sees as the vital missing link in Customer Relationship Management (CRM) by creating a one-on-one communication channel to consumer users.
The online solution will allow users to download updates for their digital cameras, in much the same way that mobile phone users download personalised ring-tones. CIG also offers other services online, such as photo albums, photo-printing.
Canon Business Solutions
Canon, recently named one of the world's 'Innovation Elite' by Reuters Business Insight, will also announce the decision by its Business Solutions division to target high-street mini labs with its new range of industry-leading, large format printing devices.
On stand at the show, Canon will be demonstrating how large format devices, such as the W2200 and W7250, will offer the photographic and photo finishing markets innovative solutions to reproduce digital images in poster size, with speed and ease.
Accessible, easy to use, large format Canon printers will be installed in high street photo labs, a move that the market leaders see as a natural progression in the digital revolution. Consumers will be able to turn images from a digital camera, CD, floppy disk, print or negative into large scale versions of their images within an hour, at a considerably lower price than traditional photographic enlargements solutions currently on the market.
* As of September 2002
About Canon Europe
Canon Europe is a subsidiary of Canon Inc. of Japan, a world-leading innovator and provider of imaging and information technology solutions for individuals and businesses.
Canon Europe is a subsidiary of Canon Inc. of Japan, a world-leading innovator and provider of imaging and information technology solutions for individuals and businesses.
The main business focus for Canon Europe is in two clearly defined markets: Business Solutions (network peripherals: photocopy, printer, scanner and fax solutions) and Consumer Imaging (Input Solutions: photographic equipment including analogue and digital cameras and camcorders; and Output Solutions: Bubble Jet and other printers).
Canon Europe also provides Industrial Products including broadcast lenses, semiconductor and medical equipment.
Canon Europe employs more than 12,000 people across 19 countries.
This camera is probably the first to match the quality of a decent 35mm camera.
Taking even a very high-resolution (for a desktop) monitor, say 1600x1200, is less than 2 Megapixels. So anything higher than that will have to be downsampled to display on a monitor anyway (either that or you'll have to scroll around). The main advantage in going higher than that is for high-quality printing. Printing a standard 3x5" photograph at 300 dpi requires a bit less than a 5 Megapixel camera, though something less will probably do okay too. Of course the more megapixels, the bigger you can print and still have it look good.
Also, if you want to do image editing, you'll want to start out with a higher-quality image than what you want as a final image, since filtering/etc. will invariably reduce the quality of the image.
So is 11 megapixel necessary? If you're taking pictures to email to grandma, certainly not. If you want to print out 8x10" photographs on high-quality photographic paper, it could be nice.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
CMOS sensors look much worse than CCDs, so even a 11.1MP CMOS sensor will likely look worse than a 3-4MP CCD.
Um... The Canon D30 3 megapixel digital SLR has a CMOS censor. And although it might be a bit outdated on the megapixel front it still delivers one of the best quality images from a digital camera.
Print out a 2 meg image at 8x10 in 1200 DPI then a 33 meg (11MP) then look at an 8x10 blowup made from 100 ASA consumer grade 35mm film.
:(
2 meg image is VERY blurry compared to 35 mm. I of course havent seen the 11 MP camera output, but I can tell you that there is huge room for improvement over todays average 3MP cameras. And I'm not even talking about pro use. Just amateur photographer use.
Sure those people that never "needed" anything other than a 110 snappy camera wouldn't need it. But there are thousands of amateur photographers out there that would probably (like me) LOVE to have far more resolution that my current 3MP camera gives me.
I won't be shelling out whatever gawd awful price they'll want for it at first though
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
This is a pro level camera. We're not just talking 8x10 glossies - but poster size and larger. I'm not sure though where 11 Mpixels would measure up to - it would definitely be tangling with 35mm, but medium format and larger (medium format has like 3.5" film size) is probably still going to be a lot better!
Also if you have the optics to match and take a picture and want to zoom in you need that extra resolution. With something like medium format a small portion of a regular picture can be enlarged to regular view sizes without just going all blurry - stuff like that will drive digital camera resolutions on the pro level anyways - where lack of resolution very quickly makes things go all pixely.
I agree. Digital is just at the edge of 35mm quality. But medium and large format quality is ways off. The practical advantages are probably causing many to move to digital anyway.
Here's 35mm vs medium format if you're interested: comparing formats
What I really want is a more sensitive CCD that can take sharper pictures with less light and more brilliant color.
:)
On modern cameras, you can boost the gain on the CCD (this is often called changing the ISO equivalent setting, as if you were going to higher speed film). The problem, of course, is you get more noise when you boost the gain like that-- similar to when you go to a higher speed film.
The real answer, for film and digital cameras alike is, unfortunately, "Invest in a tripod." If you can't get the thing to a reasonable F-stop and still have the aperture open less than 1/60 of a second, you're gonna probably have a miserable picture if you're shooting it by hand.
I'd like to see more sensitive CCDs, too, but the film camera people have wanted more sensitive film that wasn't so blasted grainy for decades now, and they haven't gotten it, either.
Yes, it's 11 megapixel, which is great for very large prints. This also means that photographers using the camera will have that much more space to crop and still come out with a printable photo.
The other advancement that is very important is that it is a full-frame CMOS sensor. 35mm film is 24mm by 35mm. Today's digital cameras use sensors that are smaller than this. The side-effect of this is that you end up with what some call a focal-length multiplier. The Canon D60 digital SLR has a 1.6x focal-length multiplier, meaning that a 100mm lens turns into a 160mm lens. It doesn't really multiply the focal length, it just crops the image to only record the center portion of the lens' field of view.
This is great if you want to really zoom in on something, but if you're looking for wide angle, you have to buy expensive super-wide angle lenses to get the same effect. Now with a full-frame sensor, you actually get the focal length of the lens you buy.
This is speculation, but I imagine the 's' in 1Ds stands for studio. The Canon EOS 1D is a great pro digital SLR - it has super-fast AF, is built like a tank, has seperate color spaces, and can shoot up to 8 frames per second! However, it's 4 megapixel. The 1Ds is 11.1 megapixel, and will probably only be able to shoot about 2 to 3 frames per second. Perfect for the studio - not that great for sports photography.
I'm very interested to see/hear about the other improvements Canon may have made in the 1Ds!
- Eric, a Canon EOS D60 owner
Actually, even with a smaller sensor SLR like the D60 or D30, what you see in the viewfinder is what you get on the image. It is just that the viewfinder shows a smaller field of view than what a 35mm film camera shows (think of it like a crop mask).
BTW--the D60 image sensor size is likened to that of a APS camera (a little smaller). And it has a 1.6x multiplier (meaning you lose about 40% of the lens angle or so).
I have a canon s40 which is a pretty decent digital camera.
my only really big complaint about it is depth of field. except in extreme scenarios, EVERYTHING is going to be in focus with that camera. depth of field is one of the most important tools of photography to emphasize what you want to emphasize in the picture.
because the CCD is so much smaller than 35mm film, the lens is shorter. to accomodate the shorter lens and smaller sensor, the aperature is smaller than 35mm equivilent.
the 3 big ingredients to controlling depth of field are aperature, lens length and distance.
with todays smaller than 35mm digital cameras, the aperature is significantly smaller than 35mm equivilent (greater DOF)
the lens length is significantly shorter than 35mm equivilent (greater DOF)
so all you have is distance...
if you focus on something 2 feet away, maybe something across the street will be somewhat out of focus.
with a 35mm camera (digital or film), you can focus on something 2 feet away and then you, the photographer, can choose whether you want the thing across the street to be almost perfectly in focus or so out of focus that you can't even distinguish whether it's a tree or if it's a building.
this kicks a lot of ass.
my livejournal is interesting and worth reading - I swear. I know everyone thinks their blog is interesting. mine is.
I have a friend who's the head of a professional photographers guild in Hawaii. She explained why (a few years back) she thought digital photography would be a long time overtaking conventional photography. Film delivers the equivalent of about 14 megapixels. More importantly, film has far greater dynamic range than most digital processes. This means (as a previous poster mentioned) that you can shift color and contrast quite a bit without losing information.
High quality magazines print at 187 lines per inch (not DPI as another poster states, there IS a difference). In order to provide decent color information, a source file should have a DPI of twice the line screen, or nearly 400 DPI at 24 bit color for a high quality print. Say the magazine is 8.5x11 and you are printing a full page ad. You need 3400x4400 pixels for best quality.
So a professional 35mm that gives you the full 14 megapixels is good enough. This new 11 megapixel camera still isn't. This is not even counting larger format printing, like posters, which though usually printed at a lower line screen than 187, are much bigger than 8.5x11. This is why medium and large format professional cameras use larger film for even more resolution.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
It's not just the sensor that's important. It's the lens is often the limiting factor.
.25 second exposures.)
That's why a professional photographer (film or digital) will happily drop $3500 on something like a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM lens, when a lesser 300mm lens costs $300. Or spend $2500 on a 50mm f/1.0L USM when a basic 50mm lens is only $75.
It's not just lens-envy, either. Spend more and you get tack-sharp optics and smoother focusing, and with a brighter (faster) lens like that you can get amazing low-light capabilities and depth-of-field effects. And if your exposure is still kinda long, Image Stabilization (IS) will also help compensate for those slight jitters you mention (and it really does work - if I have to, I can take handheld photos with reasonable sharpness at
I'm no pro and I can't afford the very best L-Series professional lenses for my D30. (Though I did splurge on a 50mm f/1.4 USM for portraits.) I make do with the best consumer lenses and accept the limitations imposed by my wallet and my skills. But don't misplace the source of the limitations or underestimate what can be done with current technology.
Don't be surprised to see an 11 Megapixel Camera from SONY following soon. Last year during the World games in Edmonton, select press got a chance to use the cameras first hand.
Although Canon and Sony probably don't do as much joint camera and video development work together now as they used too (Sony used to do a major portion of the electronics development, while Canon would work on providing the opticas and such), rumor has it that the 11 million MegaPixel chip in both the new Canon and Sony cameras where developed together just over two yeasr ago.
Particularly with a large print, you're going to give your full attention to only a portion of the print at any one time. So, even if the eye can only see 800x600 or whatever (though calculations like this are pretty misleading because the eye does all sorts of image processing tricks and has non-uniform sensor density, IIRC), that doesn't mean a higher-resolution image is a waste.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
If you buy really good, really slow speed film that has minimal grain, the film can hold a little less than 20 megapixels of data. But to get a good quality shot that will have enough detail to fill all that information, you need to have a very steady tripod, a very good quality lens and perfect focusing and exposure.
I have a new film scanner I use that has made scans up around 5500x3600 pixels. That's about the highest one needs to go to get all the information out of an image. Oh and that comes out to about 19.8 mega pixels, which is about a 60 meg uncompressed file (24bit RGB). You can also scan in using 16bit RGB channels resulting in an image around 120megs.
And think, that's just 35mm film, which is about 1 square inch. Imagine what a large format camera can shoot with it's 8x10" film. And the film can be even larger than that!
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
Here is a very good article comparing
Film vs. Digital
Bottom line: This camera can beat some 35mm films in resolution, but not all of them.
Digital still has a long way to go:
8x10 format film is equivalent to ~1000 Mpixel
Or people who want longer-range shots without carrying heavy, expensive telephoto lenses, and don't mind cropping.
For instance, take your average "prosumer" non-SLR digital camera. They've got, what, 3-4MP, and usually not much better than a 175mm (35mm equiv) optical zoom -- often 105-140mm (35 mm equiv) when down in the sub-$600 range or so, with the 2100UZ and 720UZ from Olympus being the major exceptions. 140mm is rarely sufficient if, say, you'd like to photograph small, wild birds, or squirrels in trees, or other even not-terribly-far-but-small subjects.
11 MP / 4 MP = 2.75. Take the square root -- that's 1.658. That is, if you're perfectly happy with a 4 MP image right now, you could get 4 MP from an 11 MP monster CCD and essentially multiply the zoom by 1.658, without needing a teleconverter or a higher-end lens.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Interesting, I've found the exact opposite to be true. I'm going to first assume you're talking about slide film, which has a dynamic range of about four stops, since that's what most people are shooting professionally (save for photojournalists and wedding photographers).
I've found that the shadow detail in digital cameras (specifically the canon d60) can be absolutely stunning- through some Levels adjustment I've been able to take parts of a digital image that appear completely black, and get excellent detail out of them, something I'd never be able to do shooting on transparencies.
I'd recommend a look at Michael Reichmann's site, where he reviews the D60 vs. 35mm vs. Medium Format and concludes that for up to 11x17 prints, the Canon D60 is at least as good as 35mm. Furthermore, I've personally found that the raw images delivered by my D60 look better on screen and in print than scanned in images, since the pixel quality simply seems better (despite using a top of the line film scanner that's optimally configured).
In closing, as a professional photographer, I've never had a client need anything more resolution than what I've been able to deliver digitally.
Man, if I had this pent up I'd be releasing prematurely too!
Releasing prematurely? they have ways to fix that.
I don't know what the pixel bit depth is, but as far as file size.. My D60 pumps out between 9 and 12 meg RAW files, and it's 6 megapixel. I imagine the 1Ds would do around 15 to 18 meg file sizes, maybe larger.
.CRW files are the actual bit for bit data from the CMOS sensor. It's more pixel sensor size, color accuracy, sharpness of the optics, and most importantly, photographer skill. Can't ever forget that. Even a $50,000 camera will not make a poor photographer into a great photographer. :-)
I don't think actual file size has anything to do with it, though, except for real estate. The RAW