Beyond Megapixels - Part II

TheTechLounge writes "This is Part II of a series of three editorial articles examining current digital photography hardware, as well as my views of what is to come. In this segment I will be focusing on build, size, weight and ergonomics of camera bodies, as well as the size, weight, function and versatility of the glass strapped to the front of it. If you haven't already, you may want to read Part I first."

Comments

There making cam's to "camp"

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not expecting a military spec strength durable camera, but these comtempory cam's seem to fragile.
I remember seeing this store clerk setting the display of new cam's; the clerk was handling them as if they were new born babies.
Then again one those cam's probably cost a months wage for the clerk.

Re:There making cam's to "camp"

[Anonymous Coward]

" I'm not expecting a military spec strength durable camera"

All that a MILSPEC camera would be would be the same camera, but only $10,000 more. Its gotta be safe from whale sonar after all.

Re:There making cam's to "camp"

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, see, you really need to learn to spell. "There making" makes no sense, perhaps you meant THEY ARE MAKING, which contracts to THEY'RE. See that little apostrophe thing? I'll get to that soon. "comtempory "? What the hell is that? Contemporary maybe? Ok, let's get to that apostrophe: it can mean a contraction or a possessive. "cam's" The cam's what? What belongs to the cam? Nothing! You meant CAMS. This can be confusing. A cam is a mechanical part. Cams are several mechanical parts. You meant CAMERAS. "to fragile" ??? TOO FRAGILE.
UGH.

Article is Wrong on Lenses

[hanway]

The article started out okay, although taking a whole page to say little more than "DSLRs are big", but on the second page I came to this statement as a justification for using smaller lenses in DSLRs:

The sensor only receives the light that passes through the center of the lens, while the light on the outer region simply falls to the side of the sensor.

That's fundamentally wrong. A light ray that falls on any part of the lens can be refracted to any point on the focal plane. What gets focused onto the sensor in the center of the focal plane is not just the light that passed through the center of the lens, but part of the light passing through the entire lens.

The author is right that a range of smaller lenses would help reduce camera size, but with a smaller lens comes less light gathering ability and reduced ability to take advantage of depth of field when composing a photo, so smaller lenses would be a compromise in photo quality.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[dfghjk]

The author also missed the point that DSLR's are an attempt to make cameras that best utilize existing lenses. He says over and over that the lenses aren't necessary for the camera but that's meaningless. The lenses come first and the bodies follow. This is the best they can do at the price point and time.

He also stated that the 2/3" lens and DLSR lens at f/2.8 have the same light gathering ability. That's wrong. They have the same exposing rate ability but the SLR lens has greater light gathering ability because it exposes a larger image circle.

Frankly, everyone should ignore these articles. The author doesn't know enough about the subject to do anything but damage.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[MrMr]

You're right, but I think the author meant that the sensor only covers the central region of the image (which normally shows less imaging errors)

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[frdmfghtr]

What may have been the point is that while a ray of light at the top of the lens may be focused on the focal plane, it doesn't land on the sensor.

The sensor only receives the light that passes through the center of the lens, while the light on the outer region simply falls to the side of the sensor.

This is actually true, due to the nature of focusing a round image from a round lens onto a rectangular sensor (the round plug into the square hole, if you will). Either outer parts of the circle will fall on the focal plane that is not convered by the sensor or the sensor will have areas not exposed to the image (circle fitting entirely inside the rectangle).

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[kfg]

What effect would it have on my images if I simply mounted one of the lenses from my 2 1/4" format camera onto my 35mm body?

KFG

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[kfg]

The author also missed the point that DSLR's are an attempt to make cameras that best utilize existing lenses.

". . . by utilizing the interchangeability of the lenses on a DSLR, you open yourself up to the use of dozens of lenses appropriate for all kinds of various uses and prices from around $60 up to, and in excess of, $8,000. For photographers switching from a film SLR to a DSLR of the same brand and mount, this means your investment in lenses does not go out the window."

KFG

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[guidryp]

Actually he highlights the real world compromise of using the existing lenses with smaller sensors. But this is a comopromise.

He is actually correct. F/2.8 is essentially light gathering ability over area. Not total light gather ability. No matter what size sensor you put there within the image circle it is effectively F/2.8.

But it ends up being a waste of lens with smaller sensor. You can use a much smaller lens and deliver the equivalent light to the smaller image circle.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[Zocalo]

This is actually true...

Actually, it's kind of both. You need to think beyond those over simplified line drawings of a pinhole camera with a tree or vertical arrow as the "scene". A circular lens will create a circular image on the focal plane, which is where the sensor or film will hopefully lie, and since the sensor is usually rectangular part of that projection will indeed be "discarded".

However, for a point in the center of the image, reflected light from that point source will almost certainly be striking the *entire* front element of the lens, and being refracted back onto the sensor where they ideally will focus on a single point again. Instead of a single line from a point on the subject to a point on the sensor, you need to think of two conical objects (yes, 3D) joined at their equal sized bases (the lens).

The fact is that there are a lot of photographers that don't understand the finer points of optics, or need to for that matter, and are under the illusion that DSLRs are only utilising the superior glass in the center of their lenses. Given that many of them have only just grasped how the field of view crop actually works, and that it's not really the "zoom multiplier" marketing told them it was, I can't say I'm surprised. If anyone knows of a web page that explains this in laypersons terms, I'd certainly appreciate the URL though!

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[jdg]

Well, the article did not state it quite correctly, but the size of the sensor certainly drives the maximum diameter of the lens elements in almost all lenses of the design forms used for cameras. In real life, the diameter of the lens elements is determined by two things: 1) the speed of the lens (f-number), and 2) the coverage (field of view & sensor size).

Think of a limiting case. If you had a lens element in contact with the sensor, that lens element would have to be larger for a larger sensor. Often lens elements are quite close to the sensor because it is helpful in correcting field curvature.

If you are interested in this stuff, take a look at Modern Optical Engineering by Warren Smith.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[dfghjk]

My point was that they started with the lenses and designed a body for them. The author suggests that the lenses used are too big for the bodies but that is silly when you understand that the lenses came first.

Of course, preservation of lens investment is the whole idea both for the user and the manufacturer.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[kfg]

. . . the lenses came first.

Well, we seem to have a different perspective on the article, because to my reading that was the entire point of the article.

Of course, preservation of lens investment is the whole idea for the user. . .

No, that's only part of the idea. Eventually people are willing to "upgrade," if they perceive some advantage in doing so. People really do throw money around like water and I know lots of people who have thousands of dollars in lenses sitting around gathering dust.

. . .and the manufacturer.

Manufacturers do not invest in lenses. They invest in manufacturing and marketing. Their goal? To sell as much new product at a profit as they possibly can.

They don't give a shit about saving you money. They care about transfering your money from your pocket into theirs. The very antithesis of saving you money.

KFG

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[dfghjk]

f/2.8 would be a specific rate of exposure per unit of imager area. It would expose at the same rate regardless of the size of the imager. The sensitivity of the imager is rated by ISO and is also a rating per unit area. In this way, cameras with identical ISO ratings and f-stops will require the same shutter speed regardless of imager size. That how you want it to work.

Light gathering ability of the lens, however, is not per unit area. It means the total ability to gather light. Therefore a lens that covers a wider area at the same f-stop will have greater light gathering ability than its competitor. Whether that larger image circle is actually used is beside the point. The author was incorrect stating that the two lenses have identical light gathering ability. He would have been right had he said "exposure ability".

Two cameras with different sensor size but identical ISO's and f-stops will require the same shutter speed for proper exposure, but the camera with the larger sensor requires more light to expose due to its larger imager area. Where does this extra light come from? Not from increased exposure time since the shutter speed is the same. It comes from the lens delivering more total light. This occurs because its lens actually has a larger physical aperture to achieve the same f-stop and the larger aperture allows more light through the lens. The "luminous flux" is unchanged, however, because it's spread over a larger area. How does the lens get away with this? The larger sensor area requires a longer focal length lens for equivalent perspective and f-stop = (focal length/physical aperture). It's all cleverly hidden in the math. Perhaps a little too cleverly.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[ipfwadm]

I don't think either of you are exactly right. Obviously the manufacturer wants you to buy more lenses, because that means more money for them. But they also don't want you to have to throw away all your old lenses, because that would require a huge initial investment on your part (new camera + all new lenses) which would certainly deter a lot of people.

The happy medium? Cameras with an APS sensor size, which allow the use of the old lenses, but with a different effective focal length than when used with 35mm. You don't have to throw out all your old lenses, but because of the different performance characteristics they'll have when used with D-SLRs, you'll probably want to upgrade them in the future. You're happy because you can still use all your old lenses, and the manufacturer is happy because you'll probably buy new ones in the not-so-distant future, not to mention the fact that you also bought the camera.

Do I think this is the primary reason for manufacturers using APS-size sensors vs. 35mm? No, but I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of it.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[wfberg]

This is actually true, due to the nature of focusing a round image from a round lens onto a rectangular sensor (the round plug into the square hole, if you will).

35mm film is also a rectangular format.

A DSLR focusses the exact same picture on the sensor as a regular SLR would focus on the (greater) 35mm film area. That's the clever thing about these DSLR lenses - you get to keep your existing lenses AND they work the same way!

Some digital cameras are NOT designed to work with regular lenses, but can use lenses that are designed for use with 35mm film odies by using a convertor ring to screw them on. For example, tele or macro convertor lenses.
In THAT case, you will lose some of the picture and the total light gathering capability; not surprising since you're mixing technologies not designed to go together.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[kfg]

Of course there's an overlapping phase in period, but sooner or later we've nearly all had the experience of looking at the White Album and trying to decide whether we're really going to buy it again.

We usually do.

KFG

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[wfberg]

OK, I meant to say a full-frame sensor DSLR, like the Canon 1Ds.. With smaller sensor, apparently the image is cropped relative to 35mm.. Still, both 35mm and smaller sensors are both rectangular..

I wonder why they don't use a built-in lens to undo the ~ 1.5 'magnification'.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[haut]

You're right, and he also didn't even talk about the quality of the lenses. The aberrations in a 3 element, tiny zoom lens system will be much greater than in a 5+ element good sized SLR lens. This means that the geometrical spot size (which ideally would be a point, but with finite lenses would be the point spread function) will be samller on the SLR lenses. Since the 'pixel size' on the SLR will also be bigger, its much more likely there that spots will not overlap pixels. The next issue is the MTF (modulation transfer function) of the optical system. Having less aberrations, the 35 mm lens will be able to resolve higher spatial frequencies (closer together objects). While the author of this article is making a good point that megapixels are not all there is to a camera's quality, he doesn't seem fully qualified to explain why.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[floateyedumpi]

Actually, you're wrong. Imagine a set of mile markers set off in the distance you are imaging. Now imagine you've setup the same lens on a 35mm and DSLR, side by side, to capture the exact same field of view (same number of mile markers). To get the same field of view, you'll need to zoom the 35mm camera in. To get the same f-number, you'll need to open up its pupil aperture to 1.5x as big (it's collecting more light, as someone below points out, because it needs to preserve not total luminous input, but surface brightness per square mm of film). So we have our two cameras taking the exact same picture at the exact same exposure value, but one is zoomed in and has a larger aperture.

In order to reach the film/sensor, a bundle of rays must pass through the pupil aperture, aka the "iris". Consider the bundle for the mile marker post #123 on the extreme right-hand side of the scene. For the 35mm camera, the aperture is bigger (e.g. 1.5x as big), hence the bundle of rays accepted from that milepost is bigger, hence the actual amount of glass it traverses is bigger. If the aperture and hence bundle of rays is too big, and the field angle at the edge of the sensor is too large, part of that bundle will be shadowed by the lens hood and you'll have vignetting: again not so much of a problem for DSLRs (but a real problem for wide-angle lenses)! This is a real physical effect.

Yes, the front surface of the lens accepts light from mile post #123 over its entire diameter, but most of those photons are rejected by the aperture stop (i.e. they fall on the iris pupil and never makes it through). For a given FOV, the aperture diameter is *smaller* for DSLRs, simply because the focal length needs to be reduced.

The bottom line is standard 35mm lenses are overdesigned for DSLR usage, accomodating a larger pupil aperture than needed for a given field of view. Less of the lens really is used, and luckily, all problems of chromatic and spherical aberration increase drastically with field angle: in this case sticking to the "center of the lens" should be thought of the angular sense, and really does improve the image quality. The flip side of this is that DSLRs will be more forgiving when it comes to lens quality, since they don't stress the off-axis performance as much.

If you don't believe me, take a very wide angle lens on you 35mm film camera, open up the aperture as wide as possible, and take a highly-contrasting scene. Notice how the center of the image is sharper and more color-accurate? Get out your scissors and cut out the central 1/2 of that picture. You've just replicated what a DSLR at the same lens settings would have produced. Nicer looking, eh?

By the way, the terminology "equivalent focal length" when applied to DSLR lenses is a complete misnomer: see this comment.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why they don't use a built-in lens to undo the ~ 1.5 'magnification'. Because you'll lose sharpness, and gain distortion and chromatic abberation. It would take multiple elements to correct this, and there's not much you can do at all to correct the sharpness.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[guidryp]

This is simply arguing semantics. At F2.8 a smaller lens or a larger lens will still deliver the same amount of light to the sensor.

Having a lens gather more light and spill it beyond the sensor is wasted and the main point of the article. The point is putting a larger than needed lens with a larger than needed image circle is only a waste. When you could build a smaller lens with a smaller image circle with the exact same specs.

This why Nikon is building a line of lenses for the smaller APS image circle of it's DSLRs. On the smaller sensor there is NO drawback in using a smaller lens system, with the obvious advantage of it being smaller/lighter/cheaper.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[dfghjk]

I was referring to the manufacturer preserving their investment in lenses, that being design, manufacturing, inventory, etc. I never said that the manufacturer wanted to preserve your investment! The advantage to them is that you will be more inclined to adopt if you already have lenses that work.

If you start with the lens, then how do you conclude that the lens is poorly matched to the camera? There is no doubt that the lens came first, so that's why I take issue with the author's "insight".

Nikon readily admits that it is in business to sell lenses and that bodies are considered a complimentary product. If they don't sell you new lenses then they've failed in their goal.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[dfghjk]

I think I was misinterpreted on that. The whole idea of the manufacturers is to sell lenses. They want people to be invested in their format for that to happen, though, so they need continuity to make that happen. As you say, an entirely new format risks deterring potential buyers. We are in complete agreement on that.

The APS sensor size was a compromise for manufacturability and image quality. Existing lenses have issues with corner resolution and full frame sensors are very costly to make.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[Anonymous Coward]

A few more reasons I can think of:

- they figure most amateur-level photographers can just step back a few more feet to get the shot they want.

- the cropping causes people to buy more expensive wide-angle lenses (ex: Canon's 17-40mm runs about $600). If you were shooting a standard 35mm camera, you could grab a much cheaper 28-70mm lens to do approximately the same job.

- they don't want their consumer SLR cameras competing with the $8000 Canon 1Ds, which has the full-frame sensor.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[popeyethesailorman]

reason for manufacturers using APS-size sensors vs. 35mm

Larger arrays have a lower yield when manufactured since yield is inversely related to Area (A) and defect density (d, a function of the clean room and equipment) according to the equation.

Y=e^-(Ad)

Thus the smaller APS-sized sensors are less expensive to build, and the even smaller 2/3" even more so.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[ipfwadm]

You actually took a sentence from my post out of context so you could correct me by making a point that was implicit in the full text of what you (mis)quoted. Congratulations.

Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses

[dfghjk]

No, the lens with the larger image circle will gather more light. The amount of light delivered to the sensor varies with the sensor area.

If you start out with the assumption that the imager size is always the same, then you would be right to assume that the larger image circle is wasted. The whole point of the article would be wasted as well.

DSLR makers started out with the lens so the image circle was fixed. Their challenge was to produce the best digital camera they could within the constraints of the technology available and this is what they came up with. The wasted image circle area is really quite irrelevant when you realize this. Yes, Nikon is now offering DX lenses optimized for the smaller sensors but this amounts to far more than image cicle size. It turns out that the image circle isn't fixed anyway and DX lenses deliver full frame images through most of their zoom range anyway (not the primes, of course).

pixels?!?!?! Bahhh!! PINHOLES

[eclectro]

Back in the day we had no fancy shmancy pixels! We had no lens! We had no shutter!

*All* we had was a pinhole. That's all we ever had. We were even darned lucky to have the pin from aunt Emma to make the pinhole with! Life was hard, and we were GRATEFUL.

Why don't you whippersnappers grab a 'toid and make a Pintoid

Return to where your roots are, don't be deceived by megapixel this and megapixel that. It's a myth anyway. If film was good enough for your grandpa, and your parents, it's good enough for you.

Someday you will thank me for this.

see what a 'toid can do here

What is this article trying to say?

[B4RSK]

The first article in this series was reasonably well laid out and the information quite good.

But this one? What is he trying to say? It almost seems as though the article is missing several pages...

And a DSLR with a whole new series of lenses, presumably on a different mount? Not likely! In such a scenario anyone who eventually upgrades from a 10D-level camera to a full professional DSLR would be stuck with replacing all lenses as well. From the user-standpoint that obviously sucks, and from the camera maker standpoint there is no "brand lock in". If you have to change all your lenses anyway, then you can easily jump brands at the same time.

What is going to happen is eventually 10D-level cameras will have full-frame 35mm sensors. Canon and Nikon might not like this idea very much, but someone else is going to do it if they don't. If Minolta/Pentax/Sigma etc move in this direction, Canon and Nikon will be forced to follow. As pixel counts increase sensor size will eventually have to follow.

When this happens, prosumer point-and-shoots will move to APS-sized sensors, and the standard point-and-shoot models will increase to something around what the prosumers have now.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[dfghjk]

The 4/3 system is a DSLR with a whole new series of lenses. Been out for a while now in the form of the Olympus E-1.

Canon is the manufacturer most actively pushing full frame. That's because they lead in the manufacture of CMOS imagers so they have a distinct advantage in imager size. Still, there doesn't seem to be any race to get there. It's unlikely Canon and Nikon will be following anyone else any time soon. I should mention that Kodak makes full frame as well (the least expensive at around $4000).

I also don't agree that P&S digicams will move to APS sensors. APS sensors are quite costly and would dictate lenses that would be too large for that class camera. There is no inevitable march to larger sensor sizes.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[B4RSK]

You are thinking in terms of today's technology and today's costs.

Think of this in terms of (for example) computer memory. As the manufacturing technology improves, yields will increase and prices will drop. We have already seen this happen -- the EOS D60 to 10D, for example. The 10D has better electronics, better body, but is far cheaper than the D60 was. (I have a D60, EOS 3, 17-40 4L, 28-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L + various other bits and pieces.)

There is no reason that P&S prosumer level cameras can't move to APS-size sensors. The optical zoom ratings won't be as impressive as now, but the overall image quality will increase, along with the pixel count. Lens size does not have to go up, as long as the long end of the zoom drops a bit -- say to a 35mm effective 150 or 180mm.

I agree that Canon and Nikon do not typically follow others. But in this case, if other manufacturers move to higher pixel counts on larger sensors, they will either do likewise or lose market share. (I mean at all levels -- P&S, prosumer, DSLR.) There are lots of manufacturers who want a "piece of the pie" so to speak, and the technology will be driven by many more than we had with film SLRs in the past.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[kfg]

. . .a whole new series of lenses, presumably on a different mount? Not likely!

You're recycling this comment from the one you made when the 35mm format was first introduced, aren't you?

Or was it from the introduction of the PCI bus?

KFG

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[B4RSK]

That's a very interesting point.

When 35mm was introduced the previous formats were drastically different. It was not reasonable to use previous body/lens formats for 35mm film.

PCI is the same -- VESA local bus was a major kludge, to be polite about it. It also could not be run at speeds other than FSB, if memory serves. This was a rather large problem for the DX-50 chips! (Not DX2-50, DX50.) Many cards would not run reliably on a 50MHz bus. But I digress...

This situation is rather different. It is extremely difficult to make lens glass good enough to then be able pack 10 million+ pixels onto very small sensors and still get a good quality image. The cost of the glass would far exceed the savings of using a small sensor. This is a problem of optics that is not easy to overcome.

Beyond this, the sensors are going to get cheaper and cheaper, but the glass isn't going to drop much (if at all) in price.

Because of this it actually makes sense to have APS-to-35mm size digital sensors, and also medium format digital backs.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[kfg]

What makes sense often has little to no observable impact on what happens in reality.

KFG

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[carlislematthew]

It seems that Nikon are avoiding the 35mm size sensor more than anyone else. They've come out with these crippled "digital" (or whatever) lenses specifically for their DSLR range.

Right now, Canon actually *has* a 35mm sensor DSLR (EOS-1Ds) - it's supposed to be awesome, as well as being awesomely expensive ($9,000ish I believe). From what I've read, the problem is the low yield on making the sensors themselves and also some fancy expensive anti-aliasing filter that goes in front of the sensor.

Unfortunately, I don't think you can compare yield improvement of expensive 35mm 12MP sensors with yield improvement (and therefore cost reduction) on things like LCD flat panels. The reason is that consumers don't *need* image quality like the Canon EOS-1Ds provides. It's almost medium format quality and 99% of consumers used crappy tiny-lensed 35mm negative film for years, printed by shitty machines on 4x6 paper that fades.

So if it *is* the case that 35mm sensors are the future for DSLRs, I do not believe we can expect the kind of quick generational reduction in cost that we're used to for other more "commodity" consumer items like LCD flat panels, PDAs, cell phones, and so on.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[B4RSK]

My point is that the changes you mentioned were driven by need. It was not possible (and certainly not desirable) to work with what was there before.

In this case it is different. There are good reasons for staying with larger sensors, and good reasons for not moving to smaller ones.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[B4RSK]

Yes, the 1Ds is 11MP and the quality is beyond amazing. Even my D60 when coupled with L lenses gives fantastic quality.

We will see this happen though. CMOS sensors are manufactured using essentially the same technology that is used to make RAM. Yields will increase. Costs will come down.

If this is not driven by Canon or Nikon in the high end, it will be driven by Panasonic, Sony, Casio, etc in the P&S market. As the P&S quality increases, the 10D-level DSLR quality will have to increase to justify their higher prices. As the 10D quality level goes up, the 1Ds level cameras will have to improve too.

You are right that most consumers do not need a 10+megapixel camera. But they also do not need 3GHz PCs, 200+HP cars, 50" Plasma TVs... Because the technology is going to become available, the cameras are going to advance.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[dfghjk]

I just don't think anyone is in position to put Canon and Nikon into the role you suggest. I would be happy to see it, though. Nikon is struggling to develop what Canon already has, while only Kodak and Fuji are in a position to develop their own sensors. Both Kodak and Fuji are dependent on the other two for lens mounts. Perhaps the 4/3 system could be a spoiler but I believe the imager size there is just too small.

Yes, there is no reason why APS sensors couldn't be used in digicams but I believe technical reasons will discourage it. Users will want a range of form factors and APS sensors will necessarily drive the FF up in size. Lenses will be much larger and focal lengths larger (don't forget that the short end must lengthen). That's the limiting issue. There will ultimately be a compromise (as there is already) between pixel count, size, and optical zoom range/speed and I'm not certain that will allow sensors as large as APS to be used. I'd be happy to be wrong on that, though. I'm a big believer in the largest imager possible. I wouldn't be surprised at something larger than 2/3" in the future, though.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[B4RSK]

I agree that at the top end of the range there is not much to challenge Canon or Nikon, especially Canon.

At the P&S and prosumer levels though, there is a lot of competition, especially here in Japan.

Casio, Panasonic, Sony, Kyocera, Konica, Ricoh and others are all selling P&S digital cameras, but not DSLR. They want as much of the market as they can get, and will drive the lower end of the market up. This will in turn force the Kiss/300D/Rebel-level market up. Which will force the 10D market up... Which will... I think you see what I am saying!

Canon and Nikon were able to control the level of the SLR market in the past because it just was not possible to pressure them from below. That has changed with digital though.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you've said seems reasonable to me.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[dfghjk]

Yes, lots more players in the digicam market (which is much, much larger than the DSLR market). Interestingly, Canon and Nikon have quite similar market share in DSLR's, though Canon clearly has a lead in sensor development. The 1D2 looks very impressive. I personally think it caused the D2x to be withdrawn but who knows.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[karnal]

"But they also do not need 3GHz PCs, 200+HP cars, 50" Plasma TVs..."

Of course not. Gotta keep up with the jonses, though

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[B4RSK]

Hell yah!

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[B4RSK]

Interesting article.

When I originally heard that Nikon was using Sony sensors in some (all? not sure) of its digital cameras I was really shocked. Nikon is (rather obviously!) a camera company. To not develop all of their sensors in-house seems rather short-sited to me.

Canon is in full control of their future in the digital world. Right now Nikon does not seem to be in the same position. Being a Canon guy, part of me would love to see Canon dominate the world of prosumer/DSLR... But the realistic side of me realizes that having the two play off of each other at all levels of the market is best for everyone.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[dfghjk]

Nikon was near bankruptcy and couldn't afford it. In fact, digital saved them. Now, Nikon is playing catch-up by developing their own permutation of CMOS imaging tech.

Nikon considers themselves a lens company. Subtle distinction, but they offer bodies so that people will buy their lenses. I don't know for sure, but Canon may ultimately feel the same way. It all really depends on where the bulk of the profit lies.

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[B4RSK]

Didn't know that Nikon was close to going under. Also hadn't really considered that both companies would be more lens companies than body companies.

Certainly in the 35mm era this would have made sense -- overall the lens had much much more impact on the final images than the body did. The digital world though...Right now bodies (sensors!) have as much or more of an impact on the image as the glass does.

Obviously as a Canon user I am somewhat biased towards Canon, but I generally consider their optics (L-class) to be superior to Nikon's. Especially in accurate colour reproduction. For years they also had the best focusing system and the only stabilizing system... Nikon is catching up with the focus motors and the IS though, and even Sigma has a silent focus motor now.

I have no doubt that CMOS is the future of digital sensors. It is far cheaper/easier to produce than CCD, and Canon has shown that the quality can exceed CCD too. I look forward to seeing what Nikon produces and the competition between the two of them pushing the market forward!

Re:What is this article trying to say?

[dfghjk]

Yes, Canon and Nikon must think of digital bodies differently than film bodies. Nikon probably realizes that. Canon most surely does.

I think that CMOS is absolutely competitive with CCD from an image quality standpoint but not better. Of the APS sensors, I think (as a D100 owner) that the S2 is the class of the field. All three of the major players are very good, though. CMOS has big manufacturing and cost benefits and Nikon apparently agrees. Canon's got CMOS down and that's the huge advantage they have right now.

Being an underwater shooter, I use Nikon because of the broader industry support. That, and the fantastic 70-180 zoom micro which Canon chooses not to match. Canon has achieved significant success underwater with digital though, even though they had little presence with film.

35mm

[tooth]

I can't wait until they start making "full" 35mm sensors, that would rock. Unfortunatly it will probably only be on a $5000 pro camera that I'll never be able to afford. I don't think that a sensor that size will make it down into the "cheaper" digitals as consumers don't know what the difference is.

It would be great to have the same bodies for film or digital and just swap the back off if you feel like changing and have it all interface with the body correctly. I know you can sort of do this with medium format, but then you getting into real $$. I guess customers not really caring is why APS film hasn't disapeared yet (oh look honey, it's such a cute camera), though hopefully digital will kill it off. One thing I'd like to see move up from APS is the magnetic media film. I don't know how badly it affects the image quality, but it would be really great to have the focus distance/lens, zoom, f-stop, shutter speed etc record when I take a picture. I always forget what lense I used by the time i come to develop the film... Of course if you're using a filter this still wouldn't let you know which filter you used.

Re:35mm

[hanway]

Silicon Film has been promising an interchangeable digital back for 35mm SLR cameras for several years. As far as I know, it's still vaporware. One source indicates that the company ceased operations in 2001. The web site still exists, but seems to have nothing more than an "about us" page.

Re:35mm

[dfghjk]

The rumored Nikon F6 is a body with interchangable backs for digital and film. It will provide changable viewfinders as well. Don't expect it to be cheap, though. By the time it's available, few will care about film.

Full 35mm sensors have been available for some time in the form of the Canon 1Ds and the Kodak 14n, 14nx, SLR/n, and SLR/c. You are right about the price, though.

Re:35mm

[Hast]

Like the Canon EOS 1Ds or the EOS 1D mark 2? You are right that they are not consumer or prosumer prices though.

Re:35mm

[Karamchand]

I can't wait until they start making "full" 35mm sensors, that would rock.

Here you go...

Re:35mm

[sdr]

There are two digital SLR cameras in market right now with full 35mm sensors - the Canon EOS-D1s and the Kodak DCS SLR/n. The Canon is an 11 MP camera and costs about $8000.00. The Kodak is a 14MP camera costing about $5000.00. The Canon produces the best quality pictures among digital SLRs. The Kodak is rather new. It is actually an update of an older camera using the same sensor called DCS 14n. This older model has been described as rather noisy (in comparison to the Canon at least) in all but the lowest ISO setting. It also produced bad colors in certain situations. The new model supposed to be better - but not in the same class as the Canon. The Kodak uses Nikon lenses and is based on a Nikon camera body. Kodak has also announced another body with the same sensors that take Canon lenses.

So at least two full 35mm frame digital SLRs exist. None of them are cheap - and it it will quite possibly stay that way for some time.

Leica has announced a digital back for their R series SLR cameras. This being Leica, it will possibly be rather expensive - not to mention the huge price tags for their lenses and film bodies. There has been some persistent rumors that Nikon is designing their next professional flagship SLR camera body (the successor to the film SLR model F5) as a camera that can take interchangable digital (and film) backs. Nikon flagship models are usually replaced every 8 years. If the pattern holds then they should come up with a new model (the F6) this year.

Re:35mm

[herko_cl]

The Canon EOS 1Ds has a full 35mm frame, 11 Megapixel sensor. The Kodak DSC 14n accepts Nikkor lenses (for Nikon mounts) and has a full 35mm frame, 14 megapixel sensor (both links are reviews)
The Kodak costs approx. $ 4000, and the Canon $ 7500. But at least 35mm, full frame sensors ARE here already. If you win the lottery, you can also buy medium format digital backs.

Re:35mm

[jdg]

You mean like this:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/produ ct s/interline/KAI-11000CM/specifications.jhtml?id=0. 1.8.4.21.4&lc=en

Re:35mm

[Anonymous Coward]

Kodak also has a DCS SRL/n coming out with a mount for Canon lenses.

Personally, I'll still stick with my Canon bodies.

Re:35mm

[dfghjk]

The Kodak's imaging performance is definitely in the same class with the Canon. It has superior dynamic range, superior resolution, and more accurate color. It is not built on a pro class body, does not have as sophisticated AF, metering, or shutter, and is not as good an all around camera. The Kodak is, however, the resolution and sharpness king. Kodak's reputation for noise problems is due largely to a number of factors. First, they pre-announced and failed to ship. Then, they shipped before the camera was ready. They tried to preserve too many stops of dynamic range in the output image, and they reserved too much sensor range for overexposure. In reality, the Kodak's noise performance was far better than its reputation, but the new sensor eliminates those concerns (at least up to ISO 640). The new Kodaks are faster than the Canon and provide superior dynamic range. The professional digital community is heavily Canon-biased and does not give Kodak the respect it deserves. Thom Hogan feels otherwise. Unfortunately, we still haven't seen his review of the new camera.

Telecentric Lenses and Silicon

[G4from128k]

The article mentions the excessively large size of 35 mm lens for imaging on to small digital sensors, but misses the two additional problems with using film camera lenses with digital sensors.

Standard film camera lens tend to transmit light from the subject to the sensor at the angle that it was received (similar to the way that a pinhole camera projects a bundle of rays from object space to image space). Silicon sensors suffer from two problems when light enters them at an angle. First, the high index of the material and coatings tends to reflect the angled light -- causing less light to enter the sensor and the image to have dark corners. Second, long wavelength light penetrates the sensor deeper than does short wavelength light. If the light enters at an angle, the red photons can angle down into the substrate and actualy register in pixels further out. The result is that the red and infrared portions of the image are misregistered, causing color fringing in the corners.

The point is that the best lens for a digital camera will be different from the best lens for a film camera. A better lens design for digital cameras incorporates image-space telecentricity. Image-space telecentricity means that the light hitting the CCD is largely perpendicular to the sensor.

Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon

[hanway]

That's a very interesting point about the angle of incidence between the focused light and the sensor. Would film also have similar issues of reflection, diffraction and scattering, especially considering that color film has multiple emulsion layers?

Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to go back and look at how a lense works. The reason that a typical SLR lense has so many elements is that so the light that is received does hit the element at more or less perpendicular to the sensor. Otherwise how do you explain a lense that has a 120 degree FOV being able to print with minimal distortion on a flat surface?

Or the fact that perspective correcting lenses are able to tilt an image to bring it more in plane with the sensor. If the light was hitting a high angle then the image would be distorted.

This is even less of a problem on the SLR/sub APS sensor world where there is a cropping factor and the sensor is only exposed to a portion of the light available from the lense. Typically the cropping factor is 1.5, this means that the lense is receiving only a small portion (the straightest portion) of light available coming from the lense.

Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon

[jdg]

I design lenses for a living.

This statement is sort of correct. The real need for telecentricity is the limited acceptance angle of the lenslet arrays that are put on many sensors, particularly small pixel size consumer grade sensors. This is what causes the drop off in corner illumination with non-telecentric lenses in consumer grade digital cameras. Telecentricity is a real requirement, particularly in sensors which pixel sizes smaller than say 4um.

Large pixel, higher end CCDs generally don't need the lenslet arrays because the fill factor on the pixel aperture is much larger, so there is not much of a problem with non-telecentric designs. There are no lenslets present to limit the acceptance angle. I have never seen reflections off the sensor be an actual problem. People also talk about ray bundles from one obliquity passing through the wrong filter on the color filter array in a non-telecentric design, but I have never seen this happen either.

Longer wavelength light is generally eliminated by an infrared reject filter, so light rarely bleeds from pixel to pixel.

Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon

[HuguesT]

Thanks, I'd never heard of this term before. Telecentric lenses seems more complicated than normal lenses, are they only available for high-end camera, or do normal consumer-level lenses for digital cameras also are telecentric?

Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon

[dfghjk]

Some DSLR's have the microlens arrays and others do not. I believe that neither of the full frame 35mm DSLR's have them. The Kodak's lack the antialiasing filter as well. Still, there's the IR filter and the Bayer filter in the stack.

It's certainly possible that CA can be exagerated by this issue, seems to me.

In any event, the Canon 1Ds is known to be quite sensitive to lens build quality. The Kodak's have had lens issues as well, but those were due to a design shortcoming of the sensor site. The new Kodak sensors have fixed those problems but they are working through new ones. Nothing prevents manufacturers from improving their lens designs, either, and we are seeing some of that.

Re:pixels?!?!?! Bahhh!! PINHOLES

[kfg]

*All* we had was a pinhole. That's all we ever had.

The really cool part was getting to stand on your head to look at the picture on the back wall.

KFG

Article is Right on Lenses

[Anonymous Coward]

If you use a 35mm SLR lens system, you get a 35mm image in the focal plane. If you have a 2/3" CMOS sensor there, you will lose much of the image.

Effectively, you're always "zoomed".

Drop in 35mm electronic film capture

[stecoop]

It would be really neat if you could drop in an electronic sensor to replace your film in exciting cameras. Have the exact form factor of current 35mm barrel film with only added electronics. The data could be stored in the film barrel and a sensor could be drawn out like you do with current 35mm strip. The mechanical film advance would "tell" the electronics that a picture was taken and save what it just saw. That would be the best of both worlds - able to have electronic pictures and able to use 35mm regular film plus all the camera hardware is already built.

Re:Drop in 35mm electronic film capture

[hetta]

It would be really neat if you could drop in an electronic sensor to replace your film in exciting cameras.

You can.
WAAAY more expensive than a good quality digital camera, though. So how much money do you have?

Re:Drop in 35mm electronic film capture

[SlamMan]

Thats for a medium format camera, though. Whole different ball game.

Re:Actually you are incorrect

[guidryp]

Smaller lenses designed for the smaller image circle will not have less light gathering ability.

A properly designed lens for the smaller image circle will be smaller lighter and put the same light on the sensor. The larger lens is wasting light since a large percentage is dumped outside the sensor.

And while I wont argue the where the light rays come from, the effect remains the same. The outer edges of the image circle is where the performance is worse. Softness, Chromatic Aberration and Vignetting are all worse.

By cropping to the center portion of the image circle the smaller sensors are in the lens sweet spot.

Self Advertising Concerns

[Artega VH]

There are going to be three parts to this article on the tech lounge. But really.. is slashdot going to be able to have insightful commentary for all three parts? Or will it be a case of comment rehashing and karma whoring in all three threads..

Surely one slashdot article with links to all three techlounge articles would be more appropriate? But of course 3 separate articles on slashdot generates more advertising revenue than 1 doesnt it?

I have mod points at this current time, but I'm sure as hell not using them in this thread... I don't want to waste my time reading part 1 and part 2 checking that noone is karma whoring...

BAH...

Re:Self Advertising Concerns

[B4RSK]

You just posted in this thread! It's not like you can mod here now anyway...

Re:pixels?!?!?! Bahhh!! PINHOLES

[Hast]

*All* we had was a pinhole.

You were lucky, we used to dream about having a pinhole. We had to make do with square.

dpreview.com

[Seequeue]

Go look at http://dpreview.com for as much detailed, objective information regarding digital cameras as you're likely to want.

Re:Mod Hanway down, he has it wrong.

[guidryp]

The Majority of the light hitting the center of the image circle does pass through the center of the lens. Even more importantly the out edge of the image circle is where the quality is worse. More Chroma abberations, softer with less resolution and more vignetting. So essentially the article is correct, hanway is wrong. Hanway is also incorrect on the light gathering. Since the larger lenses are simply wasting light in a larger image circle. You can make a smaller lens that delivers a smaller image circle that will gather just as much light. Again the Article is correct, hanway incorrect.

Sample rules

[jsse]

Here is my little opinions on the subject. Not surprising I share the same view with the author.(My apology for the length and inaccurate technical details)

Lens
I agree with the author that the lens pays an important part of the overall quality, rather than no. of pixels. Generally speaking, lens with large aperture(F2.8>F4>F5.6>F8, etc.) can create better images. However, to compensate for the distortion near the edge, the larger the aperture, the bigger the lens size. You'd find digital camera with bigger lens(usually implies bigger aperture) cost more, regardless of no. of pixels.
While it's true that camera with exchangeable lens is very desirable for photographers especially when you already has a good lens. However, I do not think the high price of those lens-exhangeable digital camera, especially Nikon D70, is justified(I'm a diehard Nikon film amatuer photographer myself). If you don't like those digital camera exchangeble lens, you may look at those already has good lens equipped, like Lumix DMC-LC1, which equipped with a F2.0 Vario-Summicron Lens, a legendary brand name for most film photograpers. (Mind you, some perfectists critize that the lensare not made in their original factory. Oh well.. :)

Color
The article touchs this topic very lightly, in fact most digital camera manufactuers avoid this. You can imagine different wave in light spectrum refract in different angle in each piece of lens. The problem is particular complicated when the lens group has more than one lens. That's why lens with more lens group is more expensive. This problem is called the chromatic abberation.

Aspherical lens(glasses with uneven density) and coating could help solving this problem. You can see the color reflect from the surface of many professional lens are not white - usually redish or slight greenish. The less white light reflects from the lens' surface, the better the coating. (This is in fact one tip you can use in choosing a good digital camera)

Light
As implied in the word 'photographing', it's all about light(photo). The better the lighting condition, the better the images created - this is true for digital and film photographing. You can't control the light, but you can control how light enter the camera. Most digital camera owners would find that regardless of no. of pixels, the images quality drops drastically in low light condition.

Guess what I'd say - yes, bigger(and high quality) lens invite more light thus create better images. What's so difficult to understand. XD

Conclusion

The quality of the lens outweights the no. of pixels. Well, in fact this is a most unwelcome answer, and people stop asking me for opinion on choosing digital camera, and go buy some fancy looking garblish. Luckily we've slashdot where I can find people still listening to me.....hello? HELLO???......

Re:Sample rules

[Zocalo]

Generally speaking, lens with large aperture(F2.8>F4>F5.6>F8, etc.) can create better images.

That could have been phrased more clearly, since it seems to imply that f/2.8 is always better than f/8. A large aperture just lets more light into the camera meaning that you can achieve the desired exposure faster, but the flipside is that you have a shallower depth of field. For landscapes, where a large depth of field is key, you will usually want to close the aperture down as far as possible and make a longer exposure to bring out the detail.

I'm with you 100% percent on the quality of the lens outweighs the number of pixels though. If I had a dollar for every lunatic that spent about a $1000 on a DSLR body then slapped a $200 kit zoom lens on the front of it with the impression that the camera is all that matters... Well, I'd probably have a 1Ds MkII instead of my 10D to be honest, but only because I already have a good selection of expensive glass. ;)

Re:Sample rules

[TeknoHog]

You can see the color reflect from the surface of many professional lens are not white - usually redish or slight greenish. The less white light reflects from the lens' surface, the better the coating.

The coating must be chosen for a particular wavelength, and it works less optimally for wavelengths away from it. (In fact, the coating is a quarter-wavelength thickness of material whose optical impedance is between that of the glass and the air.)

For visible light, the coating is usually chosen for green light as it's in the middle of the spectrum. Hence what it reflects, is mostly red and violet from the extreme wavelengths. So you see a purplish reflection.

See an earlier Slashdot

[Darth Cider]

Back in October 2002 Slashdot asked Digital Camera Passing Quality of Film? which referenced a field report from Luminous Landscape. Now that was a great article, full of technical info. (The Canon 1DS 11-megapixel camera surpassed 35mm film.) Why is Slashdot calling attention to an informationally empty piece like Beyond Megapixels?

Dphc?

[dollargonzo]

one of my friends once made a digital pinhole camera. yes, you heard me right. it was really cool. and since there is not really any concept of depth of field (everything is in focus) you can get some pretty cool pictures. did it for a undergrad honors project in photography

Hanway's main point...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hanway's main point is that the articles are close to useless. That's correct.

Finally!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

A spelling nitpick on Slashdot that doesn't have a spelling error.

Now I'll have to submit that "Snowballs in Hell" story.

Re:Finally!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

"There making" makes no sense, perhaps you meant THEY ARE MAKING, which contracts to THEY'RE.

At least there was a run-on sentence.

I agree.

[Futurepower(R)]

B4RSK, I agree with what you said.

I'm disappointed with the quality of the articles.

The major issue is that it is far more difficult to improve lenses than it is to improve digital sensors. The development of lenses is already very mature.

It often happens that a digicam has a high number of pixels, but a poor lens, so that the captured image is of poor quality.

Leica Digital

[d-rock]

If you can't afford the digital back (or even the camera that takes it), Leica makes a very nice digital camera (albeit not SLR) called the Digilux (1 and 2). You can find it here.

It's pretty much everything you would expect from Leica in a point-and-shoot type. It reminds me very much of their MP-series film cameras, which are also incredible.

Derek

The Digital Camera Revolution is not in Megapixels

[miracle69]

But rather X3.

CCDs can only recognize one color per pixel, whereas X3 can recognize each color per pixel, producing much better pictures.

The CCD will be dead in 10 years and replaced by X3.

Re:Mod Hanway down, he has it wrong.

[AmericanInKiev]

I know from experience that you can create a soft circular vignette by filters placed at the front of the primary lens.

Thus empiricly - you are right - a majority of the light passes through the primary lens in a somewhat focussed manner.

If the fStop if higher, the light can be thought of as focused throughout.

Therefore the degree to which the outside of the lens is important changes with aperture, and I believe with focal distance.

Still, if you make a smaller lens then you are to some extent moving the outside closer?

Important here is that a lens is more than just a focusing device - it is also a triangulation device which renders a very important perception of depth.

Anyone dismissing the importance of depth of field is merely a rank amateur.

All that said - I find the rate of capture to be the feature I look at most. When using my Olympus, i am usually satisfied with the quality of the picture and frustrated at the capture rate - worse in video mode.

AIK

How sky-hi-end benefits us...

[Fringe]

The articles seem a bit lightweight, especially do what you could quickly glean from Steve's DigiCams or Imaging Resource or DP Review. I do agree with the little data in the article, specifically that above about 4MP, the average consumer doesn't benefit much. The big problem is that the lenses can't give you more than that, at the price and size range we're seeing.

But there's a huge benefit to this tech-race. More digital cameras. People with them, use them a lot more than they did with film. No cost to take, no cost to view, low cost to print or mail. I wrote an open-source project to make building galleries free-and-easy (primarily for my family initially, see it at Picture Pager on SourceForge) and that too is a benefit of digitals... they gain from the open source world.

So the only downside of 8MP cameras is that they're the Ferraris or Porsches of consumer-land. They push the technology, in a few years us mere mortals will benefit, but serious drivers and photographers benefit, at least slightly, now while bearing the hefty early-adopter price.

Re:How sky-hi-end benefits us...

[dfghjk]

Actually, a big problem with the 8MP cameras is that their noise performance is enough worse compared to their 5MP cousins that they can't be used to produce significantly bigger prints. The only purpose of higher pixel counts is to capture more detail in order to support larger prints. If that's not achieved then the manufacturers have failed.

The 8MP digicams do not produce better images than the current 6MP DSLR's. You can find information on that from a number of digital photo sites. They are nice cameras capable of great images but I wouldn't liken the to a Ferrari or Porsche. I'd save that analogy for a Canon 1Ds or an MF back. Price-wise that's more appropriate, too!

Slowness is the biggest problem

[truth_revealed]

The RAM transfer speeds are so poor that it takes around a second to snap a picture with many of these 5 Megapixel cameras - by that time you can easily miss the shot.

Re:Slowness is the biggest problem

[floateyedumpi]

That's one of the true advantages of DSLRs like the Nikon D70: much better memory buffering (treating flash like a hard disk). You can take 17 6MP pix at 3fps and an indefinite number at ~2fps.

Re:Slowness is the biggest problem

[DarkHelmet]

Actually, from what I've heard, a lot of the delay in taking a digital picture comes primarily from the Bayer interpolation that's being done in order to introduce full color into all the pixels. I could be wrong. If so, posters please correct me on this.

The author of this report lightly touched on the Foveon x3 sensor. This supposedly allows a sensor to capture full color without having to interpolate between pixels. I really wish the author would have gone into more detail about that, since I have my eye on the Polaroid x530 that's coming out in June.

Re:Slowness is the biggest problem

[dfghjk]

This is not a data transfer problem.

Digicams are unlike any other camera in that there is an expectation that you push the button and get a picture. No other camera works that way (unless you shoot manual focus). With digicams, the camera has to determine focus, then exposure, then shoot. It does this whenever you push the shutter and the combined time is known as shutter lag.

Film cameras and DSLR's will refuse to take a picture if the image is out of focus and you press the shutter. You can override that or shoot manual focus, but the shutter lag is essentially solved by this one difference. If you prefocus a digicam you will find that the annoying time delay is gone.

Re:Slowness is the biggest problem

[dfghjk]

This is not the cause. Bayer interpolation is just one of many internal processing steps that must be done and contributes little to the problem.

The real issue is shutter lag which is the accumulation of autofocus, autoexposure, and actual image taking. Of these, autofocus is the biggest culprit and the perception of slowness comes from the expectation that AF is performed after the shutter is pressed. In no other camera is this the case.

Re:Slowness is the biggest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Shutter lag is less than 1/1000th of a second. You don't know what you are talking about.

Re:Slowness is the biggest problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only a picture per 0.333 seconds! A good film camera can take several times the number of shots in the same period of time.

What's beyond megapixels??

[photonic]

..well, gigapixels of course.

I recently had the pleasure of attending a talk by a guy that worked on the focal plane of GAIA, a spacecraft to be launched by ESA around 2010. It is not designed for imaging, but for very accurately determining the position of stars (astrometry).

Their specs for the focal plane of the telescopes: size of around 0.6*0.8 meter, 180 CCD chips packed together for a total of 1.2 Gigapixels! I believe handling the thermal power alone (~100 Watt), without moving the location of the pixels a bit already was a typical case of rocket science.

Re:What's beyond megapixels??

[HenchmenResources]

The thing you have to be careful when discussing megapixels is, in what terms are you discussing megapixels. Having talked with Nikon and Canon tech reps, and having talked with university researchers who work with NASA on things like the Hubble is this. When a camera Manufacturer is talking megapixels, they are referring to how many megapixels a sensor has per square inch, when NASA talks about megapixels they usually talk in terms of total megapixels on a sensor despite it's size.

This means that when talking about two different Nikon/Canon/Kodak/Minolta cameras that have the same megapixel rating, they can produce different quality images because they have different sized sensors.

Example: Compare the image produced by the Nikon D1 a 2.1 Megapixel camera, to a Nikon Coolpix 950 also a 2.1 megapixel camera. with the D1 you can print an 8 X 10 print without getting too much digital noise, with the Coolpix 950 the highest you can go it 5 X 7 to get an equal quality print. The reason is that the D1 has a much larger sensor and so has more actual megapixels.

By your description it sounds like this spacecraft is getting the NASA type rating, doing QUICK math it looks like under the consumer camera rating system this would be rated at around a 3.4 to 4.0 megapixel sensor.

Re:What's beyond megapixels??

[dfghjk]

This is incorrect. Digicams and DSLR's are spec'ed in total pixel count, not count per unit area. The D1 was also a 2.75MP camera, not 2.1MP. It is true, though, that larger sensors are a good thing. The D1 had greater dynamic range and used far better lenses than digicams of its day. It is easily exceeded in quality today by both digicams and newer DSLR's. It was a very fine camera, though, and the D1x version is still sold.

Re:What's beyond megapixels??

[HenchmenResources]

First my apologies, I have been using a D1H for the last year so my memory of the D1 specs is a little off I forgot that it was a 2.75MP camera. As far as the rating system goes I'm just repeating what was told to me by my companies Nikon tech rep. perhaps I misunderstood the information. The only problem I see with two sensors with the same amount of MP's is the the larger one ether needs to have larger pixels or the pixels need to be spaced farther apart, doing ether causes the image to become soft, proof of that can be seen with Fuji's octagon pixels, all pictures taken with the Fuji cameras that used those pixels come out soft looking, the D1 shows no sign of that, nor does the D1 show signs of excessive sharpening this led me to believe what I had been told about consumer digital camera MP rating to be true. Of course that does not nessesarily make it true.

If you want to know how to use a Digital camera I'm your man, if you want to know about digital camera specs, I can only pass on what I have been told by people that, I would imagine, "know" what camera specs are and how to read them.

If anyone knows of a web site that goes into details about MP rating or one that explains why two different sized CCD's with the same number of MP's can produce different size/quality images I'd love to see it because honestly when it comes to the camera specs I'm a hobbyist, when it comes to camera handling that's where I'm a professional.

dcresource.com too

[haut]

dcresource.com has great reviews and I tend to like their page layout more than most other sites.

Did anyone find this article hard to read?

[redshadow01]

Reading this one over I found it rather hard to keep track of what was being said in a logical manner..the guy is all over the place without a logical structure to the paragraphs... Part one is better written I think, or better edited maybe...any thoughts?

Digital pinholes... thermal noise?

[Myself]

All the CCDs I've dealt with have significant thermal noise, so exposures must be kept short unless the device is kept very cold. Since the point of a pinhole camera is to have the smallest aperture possible, wouldn't you need fairly long exposures to get enough light onto the sensor?

There are tools like Pixelzap that do darkfield subtraction which can help with the pixels that are always noisy, but since thermal noise is random, there's always some to contend with. How would a digital pinhole camera deal with this?

Re:Digital pinholes... thermal noise?

[dollargonzo]

that was indeed an issue. he didn't really find a good way of dealing with it. his images came out kinda grainy, but not bad for an Art student :)

Aspherical Lens

[ChrisMaple]

An aspherical lens is one that has a surface that is not a portion of a sphere. It has nothing to do with the evenness of density of the lens.

Spelling matters.

[ChrisMaple]

The best sensor in the world is worth nothing without a body and lens that compliment its design.

The body said to the sensor, "Nice design."

Good Reviews

[HenchmenResources]

If your interested in good reviews/information pertaining to photography and cameras you may try Rob Galbraith's web site, he tends to give good information as well as reviews of camera equipment, both digital and film, plus he has a forum if you have questions, where professional photographers can help you out. The information you'll fine will be a whole lot more accurate than that given by "The tech Lounge." For good information ask someone who works with whats being reviewed as their profession if you ask me.

Re:The Digital Camera Revolution is not in Megapix

[TeknoHog]

The CCD will be dead in 10 years and replaced by X3.

CCD is already being replaced by CMOS sensors.

Re:The Digital Camera Revolution is not in Megapix

[iangoldby]

No. It'll be VHS vs Betamax all over again.

(I hope not though.)

Re:The Digital Camera Revolution is not in Megapix

[dfghjk]

Certainly no evidence of that yet.

Foveon needs to be able to make larger sensors with higher pixel counts and get greater buyin with major manufacturers. That appears unlikely to happen with Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, and Kodak all invested in their own imager technologies.

The primary advantage of a full color pixel site is sharpness. That doesn't ultimately help when your overall pixel count (3.5MP) is so much less that your Bayer counterparts. The Sigma Foveon camera produces images competitive with the 6MP DSLR's but not consistently better. Foveon is closer to dying that succeeding in this market. A shame.

what I want in a digital camera

[brer_rabbit]

I was pretty big on digital cameras til I got a Nikon FM-3a. The FM-3a is a fully manual SLR film camera and it completely reversed my view of photography. After I got it I took an intro to photography class at the local community college and was hooked. Now I'd like to get a digital camera to take the place of the FM-3a, but I don't see that happening. Here is my wish list for a digital SLR:

• Full 35mm sensor. Let me have a shallow depth of field, please! Smaller sensors give such a huge depth of field, it's difficult to blur the background.
• No built in flash. Face it, if you need a flash, you're going to need a REAL flash, not some cheapo flashlight built into the camera.
• Analog metering. By this I mean a little needle I can see thru the viewfinder for metering. I can look thru the FM-3a and instantly see how many stops I need to adjust the exposure.
• Traditional SLR feel. I need the shutter time on the top right of the camera on a dedicated knob. No multi-purpose jog wheel, a traditional knob with full stops. 60, 125, 250, no fraction-of-a-stop BS.
• No LCD display. Yep, you heard me right. Take this thing off and it'll lower the price & form factor. I don't need to review the shots I took, if I'm concerned about the exposure I'll bracket the shots +/- a stop. And I'm not worried about deleting a picture to save disk space when I've got a 1 gig compact flash card.
• No bells and whistles. I can pick up any old SLR and know how to use it in 10 seconds. Try this with any modern digital.

ok, those are my main gripes. I've got more minor ones, like screw USB and firewire, I'll just plug the CF card directly into my laptop. Wireless connection? Definetly axe that, what a waste of real estate on a camera.

A dedicated knob for shutter time, one for ISO setting, another for white balance, and a Nikon lens mount (ok, I don't care if it's Nikon, I'll buy a new system if the camera is as above).

Re:what I want in a digital camera

[Siegecube]

I started out in photography with all-manual cameras, mainly old Nikons (F3, FM2) and then medium-format RZ67 when I started shooting pro. I think in many ways it's very valuable to learn on "old-school" manual/mechanical cameras. But the advantages to learning with a digital camera far outway the minor advantages adhering to a strictly old-school analog rig would give you.

Newbies today, with access to instant review, live histograms, and no film/processing costs or lag time, can learn much faster and less painfully (expensively) than they ever could have dreamed of previously. This is a good thing. As long as they apply themselves, and learn from the info they now have at hand as they shoot, they can polish their technique without many thousands of dollars in wasted effort.

As for your declaration of camera "must's":

Full 35mm sensor

Already here. Canon 1Ds, not the only full-frame sensor, but the best. Better than the film it replaces on many levels.

No built in flash. Face it, if you need a flash, you're going to need a REAL flash, not some cheapo flashlight built into the camera.

Wrong. A built-in flash is something I'd love to have on my 1Ds, even when shooting professional gigs. I have the 550EX big gun, and it's great. But often if I'm shooting in a casual setting, or in quick-and-dirty reportage style, the 550EX is overkill. I just want a little fill or catchlight for the eyes. Using a "real" flash just for that is like driving nails with a sledgehammer.

Traditional SLR feel. I need the shutter time on the top right of the camera on a dedicated knob. No multi-purpose jog wheel, a traditional knob with full stops. 60, 125, 250, no fraction-of-a-stop BS.

Traditional feel is great, but no need for old-school knobs. I want a design that allows me to make my exposure changes without taking my eyes off the viewfinder and my hand off the shooting position. The current (as of about 1995) paradigm for pro-SLR's is designed for that. I can adjust my aperture and shutter speed using either my index finger and/or thumb, and never take my eyes far off from my subject. The partial-stop exposure adjustments are also welcome, as most of the time in life my subjects aren't courteous enough to confine their brightness range to tidy single-stop increments.

No LCD display...

Complaining about an LCD is about the same as complaining about having a back window in your car. Sure, it makes the car more expensive, and can be distracting, but it sure f*cking beats the alternative. When the shit hits the fan and you need to get the shot, why wouldn't you want to be able to verify it while you're on set/location, when you can do something about it, instead of when you pick up your clips? And yes, a good photographer should be able to nail a shot without recourse to an LCD. Or Polaroid for that matter. But when you've got a $75,000 shoot, and clients over your shoulder, it's sure nice to show them they don't need to worry

No bells and whistles.

The only bells and whistles on a good pro DSLR, as compared to a good pro film SLR, are the ones related to the digital capture workflow (menus for white balance, sharpening, quality, file format, etc). Set 'em once and forget 'em. And they're all pretty self-explanatory. I do agree that a lot of pro SLR's (digital or otherwise) in the past ten years have gone overboard with custom functions. But again, if you don't need them, you don't have to muck with them. If you do need them, they can be a lifesaver.

So, right now, we're really only left with one advantage to an old-school camera over a full-frame DSLR. Price. And that's big, comparing the $500 to the $7500. But factor in the film/processing savings over the life of the camera (even assuming a life span of ten years for a good mechanical camera and two years for a given digital sensor), and the massive productivity gains you make, and the advantage swings back to digital.

Each frame I shoot on film I

Re:what I want in a digital camera

[Christopher Bibbs]

How do you figure that a small sensor gives a larger depth of field? Do you think the concept of circles of confusion changes when you move from film to digital? Granted, most digital cameras can't open beyond f/4 and often go full power flash with an f-stop around f/8, but that is a design choice of the manufacturer rather than an intrinsic property of digital sensors.

A lot of people act like the world of photography has dramatically changed because of digital. The truth is, going from sheet to roll film was just a large a change for most of the same reasons. In retrospect, that change was more an evolution than revolution and both technologies are still in use today.

Re:what I want in a digital camera

[brer_rabbit]

It's well known that smaller sensors provide a greater depth of field. This page has links to multiple articles explaining depth of field with regard to digital cameras/small sensors.

Re:what I want in a digital camera

[Christopher Bibbs]

That's not a factor of it being digital, though, it is the effect of using a small sensor. My argument/complaint is that people attribute these things to it being digital when that has no bearing on the issue. If you ever used a quality 110 format camera (tough to find) you'd notice it had a really high depth of field as well.

Um... no.

[Civil_Disobedient]

No LCD display. Yep, you heard me right. Take this thing off and it'll lower the price & form factor. I don't need to review the shots I took, if I'm concerned about the exposure I'll bracket the shots +/- a stop. And I'm not worried about deleting a picture to save disk space when I've got a 1 gig compact flash card.

The instant feedback of a display is one of the best things about digitals -- you can instantly see if your exposure and focus is correct. Particularly focus. You can always bracket your exposures, but if my auto-focus is choosing the wrong subject to focus on, I need to know now, not after the model and her makeup artist have gone home.

For the beginner, it's a great learning tool (if used correctly) to instantly see the differences a change in aperature can make to the depth of field, for instance. If you're in a wierdly-lit situation and just starting out, you might not know what's the best part of the shot to expose for -- simple bracketing isn't going to help if you're off by several stops because you don't know what you're doing.

I agree with the rest of your suggestions, however.

Re:Um... no.

[brer_rabbit]

The instant feedback of a display is one of the best things about digitals

Yeah, you're right of course. The "No LCD Display" was probably going off the deep-end on my part. But really, people have been making excellent photographs for well over 100 years without instant feedback/LCD screens. Also, manual focus is too often overlooked. Manual focus that lens and you know exactly what your intended subject is.

Dead Right!

[purduephotog]

The author of these articles truly has no clue. I'm not sure where he's garnered his vast photographic experience from but so far he's simply told us
1) Bigger is better (duh)
2) Smaller sensor needs smaller lens (duh)
3) ????? (awaiting the third part)

Techincally (now talkign about the parent) your 2nd statement is incorrect. IF the SLR lense focused that same amount of light onto a smaller circle it would be faster. But they still put forth the same number of photons per unit area.

And to get on about lenses- (back to the articles author) 7 years ago I picked up a 70-200 2.8L canon USM lense. Big, beautiful, white piece of equipment that has served me for 7 years now- and will serve me for several more until I see the need to buy an Image Stabilized version. I paid a small fortune at the time - $1300. Would you like to compare the quality of images I get out of my glass to a piece of glass thats 50$? I just demo'd shots from the new camera I purchased and everyone couldn't believe how sharp, clear, and tight the images were. Of course they'd seen me with the camera (my god thats a big lense)... there just is no comparison for square inches.

In racing, it's cubic inches.

In photography, it's square inches.

And it would appear that, for the author of these articles, he's getting paid on the 'inch' basis.

Can we please skip the 3rd part? It's a waste of the inches I've got on my monitor. Much better taken up by ads.

Nope.

[purduephotog]

You can fit more APS sized sensors on a wafer as compared to a 35mm frame. It' simple economics.

The EOS 1Ds, full frame sensor, 11 mp, costs $7000.
The Eos 1DMKII, 1.3x smaller sensor, 8mp, costs $4500
The Eos 10D, 1.6x smaller sensor, 6.3mp, costs $1500.

Now if each wafer costs X dollars to make, and (pretend) have a fixed number of bad sensors due to crystal defects per wafer, which is the economically feasible solution to produce a consumer oriented camera?

Your pros will pay for the biggest sensor.

Your amateurs that can will also.

Your amateurs that can not will settle.

And actually, I just tossed an old lense to buy a brand new 16mm-35mm f2.8L Canon USM. $1300; with a 1.6x multiplier it's not even that good. But someday... I'll own that 1.3x multiplier, or even the 1.0x multiplier...

Re:Nope.

[ipfwadm]

Nope. You can fit more APS sized sensors on a wafer as compared to a 35mm frame. It' simple economics.

Perhaps you should go re-read the last line of my post. I'll quote it here for your convenience:

"Do I think this is the primary reason for manufacturers using APS-size sensors vs. 35mm? No, but I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of it."

Base ISO

[purduephotog]

The Canon camera is 11mp, the Kodak is a 14mp. The 14mp is required *by definition* to have smaller pixels.

Smaller pixels generate more noise; however in each case both cameras have above the number of pixels to properly capture all information in a scene (I think it's 9 micron off the top of my head).

The difference is the Kodak camera is really designed to be a studio camera. That means base ISO is low, because studios typically have enough watt-seconds to handle the slow speeds. Colour accuracy is awesome.

When you crank that speed up, however, you start running into gain issues. Frankly any system outside of its design spec will exhibit more problems than a system within its design spec.

Kodak introduced (awhile back) a camera system that shot up to 6400 ISO, and was based upon the CMY Bayer pattern. This simply blew film, and the competiton, away- there was no comparison. However the slowest speed it could be used at was 400 ISO.

The Kodak SLR/C/N is ISO 160. That corresponds to Portra NC/VC/UC, a common pro film used in wedding photography. That might not be a coincidence ;-)

Bleh. Marketing Hype. Keep repeating it......

[purduephotog]

.... till it's true.

It's funny. I've seen photos on that sensor- they look great.

As a 4x6.

I frankly like to look at my photos a bit larger, like maybe 8x10... or 11x14.... or even 16x20.

"The worlds first 10 MP camera". Only if you take every pixel and multiply by 3.

Frankly it's misleading advertising that, given time, may become true.

Unfortunately, it's not true now and unless they suddenly introduce something remarkable, say, full frame 11mp sensors that capture 3 channels independently, it'll still be a nice little gimmic.

But then again, thats just this one photographers opinion.

Heh Missed it.

[purduephotog]

Yep, your line was right there. Mentally skipped right over it- everything else was spot on and (expected) to see the logical conclusion somewhere.

Helps, of course, to read everything 3x and not be in a hurry.

Re:fp

[Anonymous Coward]

(Score -1: Pingular) Har har! Pingular has been defeated. If only he had used his whoring for good instead of evil!