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.
"Oh shit!"
OK, I'm sure they'll come out with something.
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"?
Well, Epson says that a high quality color inkjet prints at 1440x720 dpi (they have some at double that...)
Let's say you ignore that and print at 300 dpi. That's 2400 by 3000 pixels. There's 7.2 MP.
Now, if only the price came down...
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 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.
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
However, the imaging characteristics of film and digital are just different; resolution isn't everything and you can't compare them that way. For practical purposes, a 4 or 5 Megapixel gives most amateurs and professionals similar functionality to what they get with 35mm. Under many conditions, a 5 Mpixel digital camera produces nicer images than a 35mm film camera with any film, and under some other conditions, it's worse.
In fact, scaling up such estimates to medium format is particularly silly. People generally don't use MF or LF for higher resolution, but for characteristics like tonality and DOF. Even if you manage to get the right film and the right lens on your MF system, the longer shutter speeds and smaller DOF will likely counteract any theoretical gain in resolution under most conditions; and films for MF on the whole aren't as good for 35mm either. A Rolleiflex (maybe even loaded with Tri-X) or Pentax67 can't compete with modern 35mm SLR systems and lenses, but that's not the point.
So, don't wait for some big, high-resolution digital camera to do digital imaging. 12 Megapixels is nice, and some people may need, but most amateurs and professionals probably don't. The real news about the two latest SLRs is that they have no focal length multiplier, and that means that we finally get real wide-angles. That's been the real limitation of digital cameras so far.
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...
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.
you'd never have to frame a shot again. just point the camera in the general direction of whatever you want to picture, and then you can crop out a nice shot. Want a close-up of the same thing? No problem, just crop it closer. See a cool looking bug on a leaf in the corner of the shot? Just zoom right in, and still have enough pixels for an 8x10 glossy.
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.
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....
Printer DPI and photographic image DPI are entirely different.
A 720DPI printer, for example, will be able to spit about half a million ink droplets per square inch of paper, but one ink droplet != 1 pixel. Remember, as the previous reply stated, the printer uses many small droplets of exactly four colors (some inkjets use up to eight colors) of ink and attempts to create the perception of a certain color by mixing dots of those, much like your monitor uses different and separate intensities of red, green, and blue to approximate a color other than one of those three.
So how does the DPI rating of an ink printer relate to the DPI of a digital camera? It doesn't necessarily. In fact, most parts of any color printout will not have the maximum number of ink droplets (even if using absorbent photo paper) because far fewer are needed, particularly with light colors. There is absolutely no way to compare the two, but in general a 300DPI image will look better than most modern ink printers can accurately portray, and 600DPI will approach the representational limits of color laser, dye sublimation, and good thermal wax printers.
The DPI-to-paper ratio is a simple matter of comparing the resolutions (say, 1600x1200) of the digital camera image with the size of the printout (say, 8x10")
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
You're referring to the xD-Picture Card, which was announced back in July. 128MB cards were supposed to be available this month, with 256MB cards coming out around Christmas and higher-capacity cards (eventually topping out at 8GB) in 2003 and beyond.
Personally, I'm waiting for Dr. Arroway's camera in the movie Contact:
"...we have your personal recording unit. Normal, infrared and ultraviolet lenses. Digital microchip, good for thousands of hours of recording."
Maybe that will be Nikon's response!
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.
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
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.
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'
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)
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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