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.
Now, if only the price came down...
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.
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 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'
...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.
Canon's CMOS-based sensors, which will be used in the D1s, have proven excellent color stability and tonality when used correctly as shown by folks like Michael Reichmann of the Luminous Landscape. Previous digital-SLRs that used those sensors (D30, D60) demonstrated excellent low-light performance and had smaller than "full-frame" sensors, the size of the individual pixels on the D1s won't be very dissimilar IIRC to those on the Canon D60.
Larger than 3-4 megapixel resolution does matter to me, but only because I want to make 24x16 prints. If you're happy with 8x10s, there's nothing wrong with 3-4 megapixels in and of itself (although not all 3MP cameras are created equal by any means.) Still, for regular prints there should be no reduced quality at all with proper data handling.
I do landscacpe photography, 8fps is overkill.
who's ever heard of a professional photographer printing a digital image in large format?
Moving images through a digital stage is already standard procedure for many fine art photographers who do image capture on film, folks like the late Galen Rowell already use this process (a workflow that was, interestingly enough, improved a lot with the work of former Mac Ghod Bill Atkinson. (Interestingly enough, these processes end up again back on silver nitrate paper, but I digress.)
Starting off with digital images would actually remove layers of "stuff" happening to the image reducing quality--so long as the orignial image is detailed enough (in spacial resolution, in contrast range, and in color resolution.) Existing sensors can achieve this, the missing link really was resolution.
The new Canon D1s (not to mention the Sigma SD9, the Kodak 14MP SLR, and the Kodak 16MP digital back for the to-be-announced-in-the-next-day Hasselblad H1) are going to take serious bites into the serious film photography market.
I'm a nature photographer.
Am I mistaken, or does this camera by Kodak have 16 megapixels?