Slashdot Mirror
13.8MP Kodak Tops Previously Leaked Canon
MadCow42 writes "With the professional imaging trade show Photokina opening this week in Koln Germany, digital camera manufacturers are announcing a stunning new lineup of professional digital cameras. These include a 13.8 megapixel monster from Kodak, and a 11.1 megapixel camera from Canon. I'm sure Nikon isn't too far behind, but no news yet on their offerings. These cameras are positioned for the professional photographer, but with list prices from under $4k to $6k, they're not out of reach for the 'pro-sumer' market either. The best news is that new products like this will push prices down on the 4-6MP cameras at the high end of the consumer level." We mentioned the premature release giving Canon's hand away; like MadCow42, I want to see what Nikon has to say.
Can anybody venture a guess at when I'll be able to get this in an SLR body that will take interchangable lenses for under $1000?
"Oh shit!"
OK, I'm sure they'll come out with something.
We're closing on 35mm with about 8 MP....with about 20 MP we'll be in the 645 category. What's next?
So, at what megapixel mark reach comparable to "photo quality". Not to say the actual quality of photos, but high enough for 720-dpi or so - so you could print it as a decent photo?
Or are we already there, and I just don't pay attention?
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Captain dislexia got to the poster on this one...here's the links in the correct order:
11.1 megapixel camera from Canon
13.8 megapixel monster from Kodak
I am a meat popsicle.
Someone, somewhere, should be working on inexpensive reusable "films" that have the same resolution as traditional film. It just doesn't make sense to be buying new cameras everytime CCDs get cheaper. At the very least, someone needs to make the chips interchangeable, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon since the camera companies like things the way they are. So, what kind of brew of light sensitive chemicals, magnetism, and degaussing apparatus will give us cheap "digital film"? Only time will tell.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You can confirm the gender by seeing the XX chromosome in each cell.
I was an "early adopter" of a Kodak DC-210 1-MPx digital camera. I've taken thousands of pictures with it - most archived on CD-R.
I love it!
Between my 5 children, running my own business, and home-schooling them, I just never got the time to run stupid errands like developing film.
My my DC-210, I just plug the Compact Flash card into my USB reader, save to the HDD, and every few months to CD-R.
Given that my 1.0 MPx camera blows up to about 6x8 before looking "grainy", I can't see the need for more than about 4 Mpx, but then again, "we don't need more than 640k!"...
With my DC-210, I get pictures I simply wouldn't have any other way... pictures I will cherish as an old fart.
Anyway, I recommend one. Highly.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
What I mean to say is, we read about facial recognition software and the way that the government abuses it every day here on Slashdot and on other privacy sites. With the ever-higher resolutions on these cameras, it will only make it that much easier for a computer to pick out someone's face in a crowd, tieing them into a huge database of personal data that the government keeps a secret and taking away their Constitutional right to privacy. The potential consequences are astounding.
I think perhaps we should think more carefully about the implications of such an advance in technology before we go ahead with blindly cheering it on. Dire predictions just might turn out to be true.
--sdem
Now, if only the price came down...
taking a picture of a Beowulf cluster with one of these!
So, is this a good time to ask whether floppy disk drives are worth having?
This camera will not be for the average users which you can see from the price. Unless the user is a camera freak and has a 6 digit salary. When I see the price I thought that could be a used car or a very nice computer system. but maybe thats just me.
With apologies to Rudy Rucker... wet ware rules whether in the photographer or the camera. Pulling focus Rocks! Stand less than fifty feet from a predator in the wild with a 300 mil lense and pull focus off one eyeball of the beast, then develop those E6, 50 ASA slides and tell me you want a digital camera. I don't think so. And ya you can pull focus on a 300 mil lense on a monopod shooting 50 ASA although the lights gotta be right. And it's such a rush, breath, steady.
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
These cameras are positioned for the professional photographer, but with list prices from under $4k to $6k, they're not out of reach for the 'pro-sumer' market either.
Since when was $4k-6k "pro-sumer" range? I'm no photography/digital camera buff by any stretch of the imagination so maybe this is just my naivete but I can't see spending that much money on one of these cameras unless you are professional when a 4-6 megapixel camera delivers damn good quality pictures and will be significantly less expensive.
But what the FSCK are we gonna do with a 100 million pixel camera (around 2010ish???) WTF? Any serious uses, I'd love to hear imaginations run wild. And no, I'm not talking pr0n, I mean medical, etc. I just don't see a use for it. Do you?
The Canon D1s uses a CMOS sensor (not CCD), which results in very low noise. This sensor type has a far lower noise floor then film or CCD. Although CCDs from Kodak and Nikon out-pixel-count the D30/D60/D1s, I would take a 'lowly' D60 any day of the week, simply because it has a pure color ramp with no noise, and all the resolution you would ever need, unless your printing multi-foot-wide prints.
As an aside, the new D1s is also full frame, meaning you do not have to multiply your lenses by a certain factor in order to get correct results.
The human eye can only discern 40 lines per inch.
black-----
white
black-----
white
black-----
white
black-----
white
black-----
white
black-----
white
black-----
white
black-----
white
"The best news is that new products like this will push prices down on the 4-6MP cameras at the high end of the consumer level."
IMHO, they won't have a real impact on that market. Canon's excellent G2, a 4-megapixel camera, is currently selling at a street price of $600-$650. Others are in that same range, between $500 and $1000. Do you really think that someone considering the purchase of a $700 camera is going to be swayed by a $4000 camera with less than twice the resolution (noting that resolution varies with the square of the pixel count)? And remember, interchangeable lenses means they're extra, so the actual price difference is actually greater.
I'm really excited about these new cameras and sensors, and I think they're going to make a big impact in the film-dominated pro market, but to think they're going to generate price pressure on sub-$1000 cameras would be like Toyota dropping Camry prices to compete with the newest Lamborghini.
works for olympus so i buy digi camera's for super cheap ... he told me about the new memory chip's they're gonna use to replace smartmedia / compact flash.. called Xd chips or soemthing .. the size of a quarter: maxing out at 8 gigz... can't wait to carry my mp3 collection around on a quarter sized mp3 player.
-judging another only defines yourself
im sure a real photographer would be much happier with a headline like, Cannon develops new camera which improves color accuracy, or a camera which can take more than 8 pictures per second. these cameras will have worse image quality than 3-4 megapixel cameras on regular sized prints. (in brief the higher the resolution given a constant image area in the camera the smaller the recievers, the less light the reciever gets. noise is constant for a single reciever so the less light the less signal. ie less accurate pixels) about the only thing this is usefull for would be that it allows for very large prints, then again who's ever heard of a professional photographer printing a digital image in large format? the technology's just not there yet. for the time being ill stick to good ole silver nitrates and developer.
--aiee
Would anyone care to make a recommendation to a digital newbie? I am having a baby soon, our first and I feel the urge to purchase a decent digital camera in the under 500 dollar range. Nothing fancy, just something that takes a good photo when used by someone with few photography skills. What is the least you would consider spending on a camera for typical family photo fun? I would much prefer the advice of geeks than marketing laden web sites. Thanks.
...But imagine how many CDs you'll fill up just trying to film all of Anna Nicole's boobs?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
dpreview.com is running quite a bit of news about Photokina 2002. They've even got 2 images of the new Kodak. (Note: that's /of/ not /from/).
s 14n.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0209/02092304kodakdc
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Here is a very detailed article comparing Film vs. Digital
This might be better than some 35mm films, especially at the higher ISO ratings.
Of course, it may be easier to get larger film than a larger sensor...
The article doesn't say what type of body the camera is going to use. Anybody know? *hopes it's Nikon*
In the discussion about the Canon, a number of people like me realized the sheer memory capacity even one picture will take, especially if it is not compressed. I find my 3MP pictures to take a hideous amount of room on my Flash card, and eventually my CDs. And forget emailing these suckers to people using nearly full email boxes. You have to convert them to a fraction of their original size even to get the jpgs to under 500Kb.
It only makes sense for professionals to have digital cameras that take 4MP or better. If you buy one of these puppies in the next 2 years, either you have too much money, or it is your passion/livelyhood taking photos.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
An ebay pic with a click this to enlarge to 100MP link would be sweet. You could zoom in and see if what you were buying had any scratches, defects, or other problems.
Nikon is the choice of pros for reasons other than pixel count. Nikon understands the concept of an investment. They realize that a professional photographer does not want to replace thousands of dollars worth of lenses just to get a new camera body. That's why you can take 20 and 30 year old Nikon lenses and put them on a brand-new Nikon digital SLR. Sure, it won't magically turn them into autofocus, but they will still work fine.
Nikon also builds a level of quality into their cameras that's just missing from many other brands. While Canon and Minolta make some great cameras, the pro Nikons are almost beyond reproach. Many of them have been used by photojournalists in such grueling conditions that it's a wonder that they work at all, but they just keep going until the lettering is all worn off of the countrols and the bodies look like they've been dragged behind trucks.
Consumer camera manufacturers don't get it, changing lenses on an all-too-frequent basis. They often come up with an all-new design that is totally incompatible with older lens series. While Canon has had some success in the semi-pro and pro market, Nikon is still king of the hill there.
He was basically saying that what Canon had done was combine two 5 megapixel CCDs to form something that resembles an 11 megapixel CCD. That means this is not actually new technology. It's not revolutionary. It's merely more pixels.
Also, the issue that someone else has raised is very important. When you get to higher resolution CCDs, you may see a degradation in colour sensitivity and therefore your photos will suffer. Sure, high res is nice, but not at the expense of washed out, muddy colours.
I still think that something about the instant gratification of digital cameras takes away from the joy of photography. The fact that you can't easily re-take shots with film means you have some very tangible incentive to improve your skills in a hurry!
Now, since I'm a Nikon user, I really do want to hear what Nikon has to say about all this. Since I'm a Nikon film user (yeah, yeah, yeah. I know this is slashdot and we're all supposed to love digital. Film is more fun.), my interest in this is still pretty academic.
Insert witty, contrived comment here.
www.dpreview.com has a review on this camera
Just had to do the quick math to figure out the approximate "top end" that one of these cameras can shoot. My admitedly aging Epson PhotoPC 750z is a 1.9MP camera, and tops out at 1600x1200 in an interpolated mode. Normal mode is only 1280x960 which is still fantastic for what I use it for, namely web page creation. I think it is still easier to crop and scale down than to scale up.
Anyway, going with the assumption of a 4x3 aspect ratio in the new camera, 13.8MP would yield a resolution of roughly 4300x3225 (13,867,500 pixels). Doing simple division to fit that roughly into an 8x10 photo would give you about 410dpi. A far cry better than the 150dpi that my camera is capable of. And while it is still not in the ballpark of 720dpi (7488x5616 or 41.8MP), it's surely a lot better than this amature photographer is ever going to need.
When the 20MP cameras are available, we will be looking at 5168x3876 (20,031,168 pixels) which yields 495dpi for an 8x10 photo.
I have a Canon Powershot S30, 3MP camera, and use it at 2MP most often. It also takes short movie clips which is a nice feature I think. It is in the $500US range as of 4 months ago. I hear lots of people on the web say they are happy with the G2 from Canon. The only downsides to mine, is the custom li ion battery, and the zoom button is a little sticky at times.
I get about 110 photos and videos from one battery life, and they are rechargable of course. You need a second battery with you basically, so factor that into the purchase price. Extra CF card(s) are a must too, and may cost you another $100 to have enough space for a weekend of pictures without downloading.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Who's anna nicole?
The Canon camera mentioned in the blurb is not digital.
Check out some pictures of the new Kodak at dpreview. It looks pretty nice. I like big cameras that fill my hands, have a nice solid feel, and weigh a few pounds.
Of course my dream camera is 4-6 megapixel SLR that has a full-35mm-size *interchangeable* sensor (in case I want to upgrade to more pixels), low noise, good color, and takes EOS lenses. All for $500 or less. Just a few more years....
A bunch of people are asking what resolution produces a good 8x10 print. I shoot at 3mp for the most part, and get stunning 8x10 prints from my $100 off the shelf printer using good photopaper. Unless you're a pro, $4000 is a waste of money for a digital still camera. If you are a pro, you'll buy a nikon d1x or a good camera; Not anything with kodaks name on it.
Maskirovka
I think the "pro-sumer" market is becoming increasingly important nowadays--to the HUGE advantage of electronic-gizmo and software companies, and seemingly to the disadvantage of the very un-pro "pro-sumer." (As opposed to the yes-pro "pro-sumer"--there is a difference, which I'll explain briefly.)
First, this is because there are a lot of self-proclaimed "experts of everything" out there who follow marketing hype like a dog on a leash. That's what I mean by "un-pro 'pro-sumer.'" You probably know a few in your own neighborhood: They're the kind of person who will state "facts" about any subject, and sound real-darn-confident that their "facts" are as correct as the fabric of space. They're the kind of person who has a copy of every single high-end program there is, don't know how to use it, but convince everybody they know that each of those programs is a critical necessity for enormous success in business (success, that is, that they just don't have, and never will). They're the kind of person who reads PC-World, decides there's some evil sub-organic-half-cyberbeing virus swimming through the Internet, so they install a virus protection program that doesn't work and subsequently firmly believe that they're 100% protected from any and all possible dangers, including blackouts and such. And they read magazines like Entrepreneur and Esquire and consider themselves the world's leading expert on all matters of business, et cetera.
Think I'm making all this up? I happen to know such a person. About five years ago, he tried to convince us that we MUST be on "the Internet" in order to keep our business successful. He went on and on about how our website would advertise our customers and how, by promoting their business, we'd be promoting our own. And he described a system for searching the Internet whereby these dogs run out and fetch the information you're looking for. Yeah. We seated him in front of a computer running Netscape Navigator and asked him to research the subject. He didn't know what to do. So we asked him if he knows how to operate a web browser. He had no idea. In fact, he had never operated any kind of program that communicated with the outside world. Not even gopher, or FTP, or anything! But his lecture sounded SO convincing.
Back to my original point: The "pro-sumer" market is increasingly important for business, especially with the enormous recent growth of the "un-pro expert" high-tech user market (high-tech users, that is, who don't know a "that black screen" from a C-shell).
Another case in point: There are lots of people out there with expensive digital cameras like that Minolta 5.0 megapixel one, who don't know a damn thing about photography and wonder why their pictures of God-knows-what in poor lighting conditions come out fuzzy, or why it's important to prevent shadows from overtaking half of some female's face in a photograph. (Shadows, properly placed on a male's face, and in the proper situation, make him look more masculine, whereas shadows on a female's face always make her look horrible. You don't have to go far to solve this problem--in a sunny outdoor situation, you can even use your camera's built-in flash, at the proper distance, of course. It looks funny, using flash in broad daylight, but it gets rid of the shadows and there's no evidence of flash in the photograph.) They're afraid to "mess up the camera's settings" in fear that all their future pictures will come out weird, and can't figure out why the shutter seemingly clicks twice for a single exposure. And yet, they proudly own the most expensive camera that's in their financial reach. READ: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS! But at least, if you're going to spend $1,000 on Adobe's pro-collection, or $1,200 on a camera, or $999,999,999,999.00 on a Lamborghini Diablo, at least LEARN HOW TO PROPERLY USE WHAT YOU PAID FOR! (On a side note, relating to expensive cameras again: I have an uncle who specified in exacting detail exactly what kind of Nikon camera he needed and which accessories, to open his professional photography business. (Sound familiar?) He dropped something like $4,000 on all the junk, and probably went through two rolls of film in four years.)
I keep digressing from my main point: That the "pro-sumer" market is growing larger with each passing day, because among the five or so real pro-sumers, there are a zillion self-proclaimed experts. That's why companies should continue to make these expensive toys for these folks. So I can laugh when the photographs I take are crystal clear and contain shadows only where I want them, and so I can laugh even more when their "100% protected" computers with Microsoft Outlook on the monitor and angry bulldogs defending the ports (and fetching data) get h4x0rd and my FreeBSD box with the few crappy ipfw rules I slopped together in 30 minutes remains untouched.
Would it be that hard for Canon to come out with a digital Rebel with around 4 MP and a price point of around $500. I would love to use of my older lenses again. My 600mm zoom is great for bird watching, nudge nudge know what I mean ;^)
Science is the Real TRUTH!
I have a similar camera (the s40). It has a hard time focusing in low light. It definatley takes some getting used to, and you won't be able to hand the camera to a relative without a tutorial ("ok, half press the button on a stationary object, wait for the box to turn green, if it doesn't, find another stationary object with more contrast, try again, ok, now while still holding the button half way down, frame the shot and take the picture).
Canon Can be flaky with designs but Minolta is right there with Nikon. I use 35yr old lenses on mine and my camera is only a few years old. They haven't changed their base in forever, they introduced AF bases but still make cameras with the manual base MD (i think, haven't touched it in a bit) actully the auto and manual lenses can be interchanged. You can put a 35 yr old manual lens on your new auto focus, but of course you have to manualy focus. You can't kill a good minolta, thats why so many pros use them. If I remember correct most National Geographic photophers run Minoltas. Nikons are very good. But they have got to a point where they sell at a higher price on their name. Not to say they are bad or anything. But Nikon and Minolta are dead even. I own cameras from both and like them equaly.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but your not going to take a 30 year old lens and put it on a d1x, at least not if you want the camera to be usefull. a 30 year old lens would be pre ai(IIRC), so it would be useless on anything made in the last 15, unless you had it converted, which is neither difficult nor expensive. But the real problem is that many new nikon bodies don't meter with non-af lenses, which makes them basically usless.
-- free as in swatantryam - not soujanyam.
Read the article, nimrod. The Kodak is basically a second-tier version of the 1Ds for the Nikon mount.
And it is also full-frame.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
and if you shoot medium format on Anna Nicole and scan it in at 4000dpi 48bits color - you will fill the entire CD with one boob shot :-)
Any of the CoolPix, either in the 800 or 900 range (990 or 995 at this time, as an example). Buy the most camera you can afford.
Carefull, your comment looks like you want to make baby porn if you don't read it just right.
... this might be the new toy to buy tomarrow, and yes, i'm drooling over the thought of it too! However, I've been thinking/waiting for the fall to pickup a Nikon D100, this is great news for me, with new tech coming out, the D100 will drop a bit in price, and my hobbist fantisies will become a more easily atainable reality!
=D
>Nikon understands the concept of an investment
Ahhh HAHAHAHAHA! ROTFLMAO! Now that's funny.
Nikon doesn't give two shits about their customers. Just ask anyone who owns an older model CoolScan. We trashed a few not so long ago because they worked fine, but Nikon won't devlop new drivers or touch the damn things. We lost a slide insert once. We ended up with a "spare" unit because Nikon doesn't make replacement parts for products that are more than a couple of years old.
Nikon is the shittiest company I've dealt with, barring Iomega.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
It is entirely subjective.
Take a good 8x10 from a good printer, on good paper.
Then take a good 8x10 photo-print on real photo paper, from real 35mm film. Or hell, even from 50mm (or whatever the professional standard is).
Now take out a magnifying glass.
Now you will see the difference.
Not the pros I know. Aside from Nat'l Geo contract pros who still (mostly) shoot slides, all the PJ's and pool reporters I know switched to digital long ago. Those guys used to spend more in a month on lab fees than they do in a year on bodies & lenses.
This includes freelance AP stringers, Washington Post pool reporters, and basically all of the pros that aren't making ''art''. And the latter are growing fewer and fewer due to the superior workflow from digital cameras. Curiously (to me), the guys who have stuck it out with film are Nat'l Geographic contract heavies (McCurry, Doubillet) and climbing photography pros. At least one guy I know who is a professional freelance photojournalist (don't laugh, he makes plenty of money doing it) and avid climber, still uses a film back for his climbing shots.
All this could change (a LOT) with the advent of affordable full-frame DSLRs. I know it's tempting me... and I'm just an amateur with a lot of lab fees to nudge me in that direction.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
Will they have support in Linux? That's the whole reason I bought my measly little Kodak DC3200: Because Kamera supports it.
So I don't have to deal with an imprisoned OS?
Smith, I think is the reference.
for anyone in the market for a digital camera. Unless you a serious photographer a 2.1MP with a good zoomable optical lens will work fine for most people. Having 3MP can't hurt, but anything beyond that is overkill(financially) for most people.
Ask yourself this. How many 8x10 photos have you made and kept in the past few years? If your like the average consumer and do 4x6's and 5x8 's a good 2.1MP will do you well.
Plus keep in mind that A) you will need a high speed connection if you want to upload your photos to an online printer. My father realized that after buying a 3MP and trying to upload a roll of 30 via a 56k line which as we all know only does 33.6 up. Also realize that B) printing your own photos is very expensive and between the ink and paper really burn money.
So while its all good and well that these higher MP camera are coming out, the cost of the camera can really sometime be minimal over the other expenses you may incur.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
I've wondered this. Is an interesting thought to think the world could be crisper than what we think as 20/20 (I know there are those who have better than 20/20, people get laser surgry to do this, like Pro atheletes)
Wonder what the highest resolution is for visual anything. Like what resolution would be the highest needed to see the universe at its finest level ( I don't know how to phrase that question, anyone understand what I'm getting at?) like do you take the smallest known/theroized partical/bit of energy and and take it's size and then use that with the most dense you can make the substance and that would be the highest resolution needed to properly view the universe without lose. It wouldn't be possable to achive it but makes you think about how blury are we seeing the world/universe
I appologize if this made no sence. I hate having a question that I can't even form.
1.) The Canon mentioned is not a digital camera.
2.) If you are intimidated by file size, you're most likely behind the curve. For me, a 128mb CF is small. I don't find buying more an issue.
I just spent the weekend shooting around Beijing, and between digital photos and DV, I'll have less than 500mb. My bottleneck is the time it takes to move the data, not to store it.
However, the imaging characteristics of film and digital are just different;
That's what I've been saying all along. For my money, digital cameras just won't compare to film until they can emulate various types of film stock. Just like I can get reverb, chorus and delay plug-ins for my audio editor, I'm not buying a digital camera until I can get (or it comes with) different plug-ins like "cheap polaroid" or "Tri-X" or whatever that all react to light (and specifically shadows and very bright light) and reproduce colors in the same way that those film stocks do.
c-hack.com |
Like I said, you only want the higher resolutions if you want to see all the details of the crud on an object at 30 meters. Otherwise 1600X1200 is just fine, and fills up the removable storage fast enough. Personally, I don't want to spend $100US on every additional 256meg card that I would need to use instead of the ONE I have, and can use nicely on a weekend vacation to New York.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Also try this article.
This camera will be better than film. As a pro writer/photographer who already shoots digital only at 4mp (EOS-1D), I can say that 35mm film is dead but for those quaint "vintage" photographers who are doing "art" stuff.
The amount of ignorance about digital and about photography in general here on Slashdot is shocking! These people may be geeks, but they understand little about optics, current sensor technology, film chemistry, or human perception of resolution and dynamic range.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
It turns out that the D1X (and D1H and F5, etc) will all meter with any AI lens made. 105/1.8 is a lovely portrait lens, for example.
My F100 will also do this. You have to use spot metering, but what else would a Real Man use, anyhow?
Anyways, the point is that you don't know (enough about) what you're talking about.
AI lenses were first produced about 25 years ago, so at least on that count, you're quite right that an unmodified 30-year-old Nikkor won't be real useful. Of course, if it's a long telephoto, it might be worth converting anyways. Not everyone is a staff photographer for a newspaper with a good lens pool.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
Ok this is for color. What is the status of Digital Black and White? Is there much done here? I would asume it would be at a far higher resolution than Color digital. Spy cameras use black and white since you can achive much higher detail with black and white. As in read the headline of a newspaper being read by a guy on a park bench with a camera taking the picture from space. I know NASA had some good digital imaging of the saltlake games, they I belive were colorized digital but I can't remember. Insane Hi Res B&W would be very usefull for telescope work looking for earth smashers.
Uh... resolution does not "vary with the square of the pixel count." The pixel count is the total number of pixels, and therefore determines the resolution. It's not the number of pixels per side, or something, which is what you perhaps had in mind.
Actually, that turns out not to be the case. Resolution refers to the ability to resolve, and is generally defined as the maximum number of alternating black and white lines that can be clearly seen per unit distance in an image. Camera makers generally use the megapixel shorthand to give an indication of resolution, but you can generally assume that the pixels are arranged in an approximately 3x4 aspect ratio, and make your assumptions based on that. But regardless of that ratio, image resolution is limited by the spacing of the pixels in any linear direction.
It makes sense if you think about it: In order to double the resolution of an image (simply, to see the same amount of detail at twice the subject distance), you have to quadruple the sensor's total pixel count. All else being equal, images from a 4-megapixel camera will have twice the resolution (resolving ability) of a one-megapixel camera. Not as impressive for the brochure, but still a physical fact. Assuming a fixed aspect ratio, image resolution varies with the square of the pixel count, and that's just the way it goes.
I can just picture in Koln, Germany right now...
Kodak: The numbers all go to thirteen. Look, right across the board, thirteen, thirteen, thirteen and -
Canon: Oh, I see. And most cams go up to eleven?
Kodak: Exactly.
Canon: Does that mean it's sharper? Is it any sharper?
Kodak: Well, it's two sharper, isn't it? It's not eleven. You see, most blokes, you know, will be shooting at eleven. You're on eleven here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on eleven on your camera. Where can you go from there? Where?
Canon: I don't know.
Kodak: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Canon: Put it up to thirteen.
Kodak: Thirteen. Exactly. Two sharper.
Canon: Why don't you just make eleven sharper and make eleven be the top number and make that a little sharper?
Kodak: [Pause] These go to thirteen.
(sorry)
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Then you get into things like 'visible spectrum'. Most creatures with a need for more than human level visual acutity & resolution don't use visible light, or even light, at all. There are frequently much better tools for gathering information. Graphic imaging is only one, and not a requirement for survival, I should think.
Stereoscopic imaging, such as ours, benefits predators that hunt primarily during the day. Since our food needs have eased, we've become more used to using our sight to support mating and communication, rather than just food supplies.
Once we learn how to communicate with our minds, and procreate without regard for gender, our visual ability and eyes may well diminish to the point of being nothing more than jewelry.
Morpheus: You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
If I were going on a few weeks expedition over the Sahara, I would be very hesitating taking digital camera. These babies eat batteries like there is no tomorrow. I wouldn't leave civilzation with one. I think every photographer who ventures in a remote location of the earth will be nervous without at least one camera that works on musclepower only. (My Olympus OM-1 still works, I haven't put battery in it for years)
Minor correction it should say,
"Unless your a serious photographer a 2.1MP with a good optical zoom..."
The reason is an optical zoom truely magnifies the subject, while a digital zoom just blows up the same area and doesn't really optically magnify it. This can often result in a blurry picture. So in otherwords, don't user digital zoom.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
...is found here Roger N. Clark's photography page provides supurb comparisons and information comparing film grain resolutions, and including digital cameras in the mix.
Many pundits here have been instantly shouting that 16+megapixels are unnecessary. They are very wrong. 16 megapixels only approxomate 35mm-- and don't even come close to large-format film.
The comparison is educational & eye opening and EXTREMELY well documented, with pictures.
The readers digest version is that "From these tests, it is my opinion that digital cameras will match Fujichrome Velvi 35mm film when they reach more than about 10 megapixels. Somewhere in the 12-16 megapixels will produce color image quality comparable to 35 mm film (this is a compromise of more intensity detail and less color detail than film). Somewhat fewer megapixels, approximately 7-8 Mpixels will match 35mm film intensity detail but at below 35mm film color detail.
Medium format film: about 50 digital camera megapixels are need to match Fujichrome Velvia in 6 x 4.5 cm.
Large format: more than 200 digital camera megapixels are need to match 4x5 Fujichrome Velvia film. How much more needs futher testing. "
Thanks Roger N. Clark.
The EOS-1DS has a single CCD sensor. There was a rumor circulating for a while that it had two sensors, like an old and unsuccessful Minolta DSLR did a while back. The rumor turned out to be incorrect.
for those who can neither type nor pronounce Köln (with the funny dots above the o), the international / anglophile name of the city is Cologne.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
Got confused for a sec.
This camera sounds like a great alternative. 3000 by 4000 pixel resolution means 400 dpi for a 10" text area (two pages of a book) and you need that resolution for good OCR'ing. The camera is portable--just bring a typewriter page holder to prop up the original, and fast: click! (turn page) click! (turn page) click!.
If I get the cash together I could imagine buying one just to use for stuff like this.
Uh, last time I checked two was the square root of four, not the square of four.
Missing from this slashdot story is that Photokina starts in 2 days, and so far only one or two rumors have come true. In the next week, we'll learn the rest of the story...
More rumors: Canon is developing (maybe they will announce it) a consumer priced ($1000) DSLR. Nikon will add 2 DSLRs: 11MP D2X and 5MP (high speed) D2H.
Also of interest is an announcement from vaporware company Silicon Film that they will be selling a $600 Wireless Full-Frame 11MP Color digital sensor for "most" consumer SLR cameras. If true, this would mean 2 things. 1) Silicon Film actually has a product, and 2) Silicon Film will be the sensor for my next camera.
Also, the Medium format cameras have digital backs from Kodak (16MP) and new this year is a 22MP Sinar digital back. 22MP beats 11MP by a factor of 2, and it is a hell of a lot larger (medium format being much larger than 35mm) so it has much better light gathering capability. Of course, what makes news is the price of the Kodak 14MP camera. At $4000, compared to the $6000 11MP Canon or rumored $6000 11MP Nikon, it's quite the price leader.
Mind you that I'm looking at various rumors, some interesting press, and some old, but really expensive stuff, but to appreciate the Digital aspect of photography, you really should look at the whole picture.
--Mike Fried
Digital photography enthusiast since 2000
Technology is like money. You know you have enough when you don't have to think about it.
Yeah, OK - 13 Mpixels
Nikkor F-mount lenses, supporting autofocus
36 x 24mm sensor, meaning a 16mm lens is a 16mm lens, not a 28 (or so)
256 to 512 MB buffer on board, for 8 - 18 shots
D-ttl flash, Speedlight.
$4k - $6k estimated price
mmmmmmm - digital
For example a 2.1MP camera only produces pictures @ 1600x1200 which contains 1,920,000 pixels. This is a ratio of about 10:11. This means that the 13.8MP camera gives pictures with approx. 12.5 Mpixels You do the math of figuring out the res.
[disclaimer]I am not into digital cameras, and all I know, I learned from this article, so don't fry me OK!!![/disclaimer]
Enig? Det alt for hot det smor!
Am I mistaken, or does this camera by Kodak have 16 megapixels?
(p.s. I don't have any lenses from the 1970s, but I'm still glad that my modest investment in recent af nikkor lenses will not be wasted when i move to digital)
So how much saving over film & developing charges? Well, 16000 pix / 24 pix = 666 (!) rolls of film. 666*$10 film & develop charges = $6,600. Thats the minimum it would have cost! And I probably shot at least two to three times that and tossed out the crap.
Acceptance of digital in the advertising, commercial and fashion markets is glacial at best. Digital is used in catalogue houses, where hundreds, if not thousands, of items are shot daily and has ready acceptance there. However my old shop was one the first in our area to go digital (PhaseOne back on Hassie/Sinar), and it completely revitalized the studio, but it was far and away the exception.
Photojournalists embraced digital because it made deadlines much easier to meet. The days of pestering the E-6 guy and 110 degree Rodinal are gone for them. For most of the commercial photography world, the benefits of digital photography are not that clear yet. These cameras are a good step, though.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
These cameras sound interesting, but I'm waiting to see how the foveon cameras turn out. The camera previewed there was recently announced to by $1800 for the body.
I have to think that buying a really high end diigtal camera in the next few years is only practical for a company with a lot of money - otherwise the imaging and storage technologies being developed and refined really make waiting worth while.
At the moment a good film scanner and camera are as appealing to me a digital system, and cheaper too. Plus film is a lot easier to deal with at the moment when travelling if you take more than a few hundred pictures.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
On a tripod, and assuming no subject movement, resolution will be limited by a combination of the film capability and the lens capability. This gets quite complicated because with conventional film the resolution degrades fairly gracefully. As the detail gets smaller lens contrast is lost, but also film contrast is lost because of scatter, flare, grain pattern. In theory a Leitz 50mm lens operating at around f/5.6 can achieve an equivalent of about 30MPx, but in practice nothing like this will be achieved by most subjects most of the time.
However, there are other fiddle factors. First, digital camera makers lie^x^x^x apply interpretation to their camera sensors. A camera advertised as 2.1MPx tends to have rather fewer actual working pixels, the rest is done by "interpolation", a process which involves removing artefacts, a degree of dither, and the fact that most image sensor cells, instead of having RGB sensor sites, have in effect RGBG with twice as many green, owing to the need for an XY matrix. It also loses performance because, having only a small photosensor, the lens design is compromised. All the years of 35mm lens development do not apply to the tiny short focussed lenses of small digital cameras.
Second, there is no direct equivalence between film photography, with its analog response (gradual degradation of image as detail gets smaller) and digital sensors which are all or nothing. Increased subject contrast increases resolution on analog cameras but can only increase the contrast on a digital sensor.
Finally, with a film camera you can increase resolution and image quality at the expense of light sensitivity by changing film.
My conclusion: I suspect that for most people most of the time something like a Canon G2 is perfectly adequate. But if you want to take high res photos on a tripod, if you need to use long or short focus lenses, if you want the highest color resolution, you need film.
Since you can currently get this quite easily, buy the G2 now, keep the 35mm system and wait till the pros start discarding their second hand bodies when the pixel count goes up to 22 or 30. There will be some bargains, and with your 35mm system you can always get the performance when you need it, using that old clunky silver technology.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Stevesdigicams.com is one of the best sites for info on digital cameras. Its kinda like the Toms Hardware of the digicam world.
I want to see what Nikon has to say
As the new Kodak is also a Nikon....
Tim
http://www.guymichel.com/Test-Sigma.html
Pretty darn good, (as most digicams are these days, anyway) considering the circumstances.
J.
Since when $4000-$6000 became prosumer range? The only product you could possibly buy at that price range and still call it "prosumer" with a straight face is a beat up race car to use on weekend races.
Prosumer is actually on the $1000-$1200 range. ust go to an electronics store and see how many camcorders. SLRs and digicams cross over that price range.
Not a hell of a lot.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
"opening this week in Koln Germany"
should read:
"opening this week in Cologne, Germany"
Köln is German for Cologne.
Get real.
Have you ever heard of a thing called a "light meter?"
I've got a 35/2 -- a superb lens. No, it doesn't meter on my crappy N80 -- but I *do* know how to (a)compensate for Sunny 16 and (b) use a light meter.
Besides, the bodies don't matter. It's the lenses. I know a lot of folks who'll trash their bodies, but I've yet to meet *anyone* who trashes lenses. Lenses are the real investment. And if you've got a fetish for a particular lens with a specific kind of film -- you'll reach for any body that fits the lens.
(My own fetish is an old 1960ish Russian Jupiter on a Leica M4-P. The lens is spectacular -- it gives a distinctive *look*.)
And ironically, I just got my new 3.1 MP Fuji S602 yesterday. *sigh, you really can't be top of the line very long, can you?
3 tech.asp for a technology overview slideshow. See some of the best digital pictures in the world for the proof that's inside that pudding. Of course, I'm still damn satisfied with my Fuji and its 3.1 MP ccd, 6MP output, .76 effective accurate resolution camera.
Anyway, I'm convinced that CCD cameras are dead. Nail in the coffin. Dead. Increaseing the pel count isn't going to fix what's wrong with digicam resolution: moire effects, off color pixels thrown everywhere in low light, low sensitivity (usually around ISO 400 or less; my camera has ISO 1600 capability but only at 1 MP -- 1280x800), fuzzy edges in precision shots due to the particulars of the CCD itself (red and blue sensors are necesarily half a pixel away from each other, meaning to get a truly sharp sample you have to divide the res by 4 (2x sampling)).
Which is why my next $2000 camera is going to have a Foveon sensor. See http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021102foveonx
Hey freaks: now you're ju
In the past three weeks we had several "leaked" eletronics. I think these companies are "leaking" it on purpose. It's a great marketing strategy, and builds a huge momentum waaaaay before your product actually hits the store.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
Someone, somewhere, should be working on inexpensive swappable "CPUs" that have the same performance as traditional supercomputers. It just doesn't make sense to be buying new computers everytime transistors can be made smaller. At the very least, someone needs to make the processors interchangeable, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon since chip companies like things the way they are.
I love it when people say they're waiting for a digicam that has swappable sensors. It just isn't going to happen. The name of the game with cameras, whether they be SLR or pocket, is to make them compact and integrated. The moment you try to make the electronics more generic, you're going to loose this. Not only will you have to swap out the sensor, but the memory, and the CPU too. If the general public wanted to use cameras the size of medium and large format cameras, they'd be using medium and large format cameras.
Every time I read a review of a top of the line SLR film camera, they tear it apart, and I wonder how the bloody hell do they get all that in there? Cameras, digi and film, are like laptops. They're packed in like jacks in the box, and they'll never be upgradable. You can't change the pentaprism, and you won't be able to change the sensor.
This article is BS. You can't compare film and digital images because of the different structures: 2D matrix vs. chaotic grains.
If you really want to compare, compare the same media. That could be:
- Two digital files(yes, you have to scan the film).
- Two final enlarged prints.
-- ess
I had a DC-210 for work, and it wasn't bad. I initially ended up with a DC-260, and it had problems. There was a red-magenta shift that really looked BAD when photographing outdoors - here's an example. Those are red cars, not magenta! Very Bad, Kodak.
It was slow to start, slow to focus, and bad with the color problem. I did like the photo clarity, though. They did even release a color fix which you could download into the camera, but it didn't actually do anything.
That camera died after 3000 or so photos, and it was better to replace it with something newer
surprisingly, the sensors will increase in resolution for the forseable future! but, one of the primary differentiators is the lense and not the sensor. as another post states, medium format film has a lower grain density than 35mm film, though i do not believe that 35mm has the advantage in total resolution. once people become more discerning, they will likely look at color, tonality, contrast, and image sharpness across the sensor/film plane. this is one reason for some photographers preferring certain brands of lenses. i prefer zeiss lenses as opposed to nikon's, since i don't like the contrast in nikon's lenses.
This guy has created 50 mega pixel images using current digital cameras!
:).
I guess his life will be 4 times easier
Also there is a preview of the cannon on www.dpreview.com
- Sam
Just from my angle, I prefer to use cameras in manual mode (meaning manual focus, f-stop, and shutter); I think it gets better pictures. This may because the autocameras I've used are stupid (I haven't had any experience with a better auto camera than what you find in a standard fairly-cheap non-SLR 35mm) and always a) underexpose, b) overexpose, c) leave the shutter open too long (blurring it), or d) a combination of the above (I even have one picture that is overexposed and underexposed at the same time - it was a dark subject in front of a window, and it overexposed the window and underexposed the subject). I assume that I would be happy most of the time with a good auto camera though.
So your statement that it's *useless* is silly. You just wouldn't have auto stuff.
(My experience with SLRs comes mainly from my mom's ~20 yr old Minolta)
Get 'em while they're hot! (note - Flash required)
Canon Japan's EOS-1Ds page
I wouldn't download the raw TIFFs though unless you have a use for them, and like 38MB images :) Sample 1 has brown splodges all over the wall areas, which I don't think are artifacts from the camera but rather markings on the walls themselves. I'm quite surprised that Canon didn't use some proper studio settings here for 1 & 2. Sample 3 also appears to have artifacts though at first glance, notice all along the left-hand side on the wall, on the colour chart and below the fruit, hmmmm... strange... I'll have to inspect the full-res. versions and see what I can find. Image sharpness around the edges looks good though, I guess Canon must have found a way round the CCD falloff?
I've got to say I'm damn impressed by these, I was unsure how the newer SLRs would fare, especially given the teething-troubles of the new Contax, but Canon have come up with a winner here IMHO. Think I'll stick with my EOS-3 until these babies come down in price a bit though !!Any AC's out there that know anything about the optics on satellites?
I had a neighbor who worked at lockheed and was a satellite engineer.... he was talking (in code of course) about some of the imaging capabilities of satellites.
how does 13.8Mp compare to the eyes in the sky? if we are going to get 13.8Mp at a semi-consumer level - what do the feds got above our heads and how do they compare. what type of optics do satellites use? and how good is the resolution - and how far/fine can they see?
I've shot 8000 pictures since May, I've had 50 4x6 prints made, mostly for greeting cards ... Besides, if you keep your photos on the computer...
:) ]
... maybe I'm getting old ...
[Not meaning to pick on your post, but you just had a great quote for me to reply to
This trend of digital photography is starting to really worry me, but not for the reasons it might. People don't seem to print their digital pics out.
I'm a very casual (read: not very good) photographer and for the most part I take photos to remind me of places I've been, people I've met and experiences I've had. But they are all photo prints - I won't lose my photos if my hard disk crashes. And how much better is it to sit down with friends/family and pore over a photo album of your latest travels or relive old memories? OK, I'm getting sentimental, but you get my point.
Photos are virtually irreplaceable, yet countless people I know seem quite happy to leave their precious memories at the mercy of a computer hard drive.
"Aha", you say "I burn them all to CDR/CDRW/DVD/the-next-thing, so I won't lose them." But there have been several Slashdot topics in the past that have highlighted the fact that we are losing digital data because the machines we need to read them are all failing or are no longer produced.
Am I the only one who is worried by this trend? sigh
"Because it's there." - George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mt Everest, March 18, 1923 (New York Times)
You do realize that all of Kodak's professional Digital bodies are F5 bases, right?
And the D100 doesn't meter with non-CPU (AF or AI-P) lenses, neither does the F55/N55,F65/N65 and F80/N80, all other Nikon AF bodies will work with AI or later lenses.
Note that Pentax is even better for this, with 3 mounts, K (MF), KAF (Will only work with KAF lenses, bodies are low-end) and KAF2(Will work with all K lenses, bodies are mid-high Amateur range), so with the exception of their cheapest current bodies, any K mount lens will work on their newest cameras without modification.
Minolta and Canon have changed their mount once, going to a larger mount when they moved to AF. A good choice, as they weren't in the position that Nikon was, with professionals still using cameras from 1959 with current production lenses.
The Crazy Finn
"You've got an invalid haircut" -Warren Zevon - Life'll Kill Ya
I have done tech work at a photographic studio/digital lab for the last 4 years. Anyways oabout 3 years ago we purchased a DCS 660 and about 1 year ago we purchased a DCS 760. Both of these cameras are based on Nikons F5 body and use a 6MP CCD. For what we use them for, we can print up to a 12x18 (12x24 rarely) prints on our noritsu QSS-2711 printer (400dpi direct to photographic paper printer). Anyways, although the images are interpolated from 18MB to a little larger than 100MB's when printed the pictures still come out very sharp, around the equivilant of 35mm negative on the same equiptment. All I could see these cameras being better for is for the very rare consumber who may want to make a family picture larger than a 16x20.
Also, another thing too, is that with this camera, it will make images 41.4MB's large, your going to need to upgrade your computer to manage these files properly, and probably going to have to buy an extra hard drive for temp storage, and then get a dvd-r for permanent storage. In my opionion, with the results that we get, I'm happy to stay at 6MP's for the time being.
If you can drop $6000 on one of these (they, or something similar, will be going for $200 on ebay in 2 years' time, trust me!) you can perfectly well afford a set of L series primes, which are easily fast enough to give you all the signal-to-noise ratio you'll ever need. Come on, they do a f1.0 50mm prime...
And now it will now take even longer to transfer the images to your computer! Good job guys!
How many people who buy a d1 do you think want to carry a seperate light meter? Not many. If they wanted to take good photos with accurate metering they wouldnt be using a 35 mm camera.
-- free as in swatantryam - not soujanyam.
THe whole point of the camera that this is based on, the F5, is that it is auto, if they didnt want it to be fancy auto everything they would have based it on an f3, not an f5. Paying $6000 for a manual 35mm style dslr, just seems a little rediculous.
-- free as in swatantryam - not soujanyam.
It's "Köln", not "Koln"!
That was interesting, though the french was a little hard to follow after translation. I'm still waiting for some final reviews with more time given, and I have to think that some things they mentioend (like the SD-9 only saving in RAW format which requires special software to view or convert to tiff) will be improved in the final version.
The pictures were really impressive, I'd love to see a comparison with other digital cameras at the same level to see how much different/better the Foveon chip is.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This site has some pics of the camera!
http://www.digit-life.com/news.html
How is this inane comment supposed to be 'insightful'?
"Wow! I wouldn't pay that for a camera. I'd rather have a nice computer system."
Well good for you! Maybe you're not a professional photographer!
Insighful my ass.
Unfortunately it does not go the other way though. I can not buy any new lenses for my Nikon F camera. The original Nikon F used a small tab on the top of the lens for passing information between camera body and lens. I have tried and can not get any new lenses for this camera, which is a real shame :(
Some people have told me they don't think a fat penguin really embodies the
grace of Linux, which just tells me they have never seen a angry penguin
charging at them in excess of 100mph. They'd be a lot more careful about what
they say if they had.
-- Linus Torvalds, announcing Linux v2.0
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...