Slashdot Mirror
Beyond Megapixels - Part III
TheTechLounge writes "Beyond Megapixels - Part I & Part II have both been posted here at Slashdot, and now it is my pleasure to bring to you Beyond Megapixels - Part III. This is the final part of this series of editorial articles examining current digital photography hardware. In this segment I will be focusing on function, filetypes, and features."
I don't understand the whole hype about MEGApixXels.
2 01&mode=nested&tid=133&tid=186&tid=214 )
I have a 2.0 megapixel camera. It was about 250 bucks when I purchased it.
It's an Olympus D-380 Digital Camera, it uses a (60?) meg flash memory card. Connects to the computer via USB to upload pics.
I've -never- seemed to need a new camera after this year of having owned it. Pictures are pretty clear, they're great for vacation, taking pictures of my latest case mod, pasting links of me almost naked on slashdot (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/04/18/1515
Or just about anything else.
What's this growing need of a huge megepixel camera?
What? Do you enjoy being able to clearly see an ant from taking a picture with your camera 12 feet above an ant mound?
...purchases in the last few months and I have to say that the "megapixel race" is becoming like the megahertz race in that many people use that feature alone as their determining factor. Rarely do they want to discuss optical versus digital zoom (something that Kodak is addressing with their DX6490, a 10X OPTICAL zoom in an inexpensive, well-built camera), output format, etc.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
Not bad. Why not concentrate on F/OSS abit more. As it is it doesn't look much more than any article you might find on any photography site, very photoshop centric. With barely a mention of GIMP.
Isn't that the whole point of the article? Hence the title? But then I guess this is slashdot after all.
Aerial photography would be a good application, needs GOOD resolution, but the average consumer won't have access to aircraft.
Then again the average consumer buys a P4 3.4GHZ EE with FX5900 XT and 4GB of Ram to use type reports so... why the hell not,eh?
Yeah I know dagny. I mean, it'd be better if cameras had zoom like those old cameras that photographers use.
You know, where you buy them and they come with interchangable lenses?
I'd LOVE a digitam cam like that, so I could have super super super zoom or just a normal cam... etc...
Have those cameras become a thing of the past where "fixed lense" cameras are the new craze with 100 megapixel resolution?
You can buy digital SLR bodies with changeable lenses. Expect to pay several thousand pounds.
Almost all digital cameras have 2 megapixels these days, it's around about the industry standard, nobody needs any more in my opinion. I have a 2 megapixel camera which cost $300, my dad has a 2 megapixel camera which cost $599, theres really no difference mega-pixel wise, of course for more money your going to get a higher resolution and more features, thats off-topic though. I really don't think there's much difference once you get over 2 megapixels though, of course Digital Photographers (professional ones) would complain beacuse it's not a perfect picture when they look through a microscope at 300x though.
Have you metaroderated recently?
For the RTFA-ers:
Beyond Megapixels
Beyond Megapixels - Part II
Linux users can use the dcraw util to convert RAW into TIFF format. It also has a plugin for GIMP which works fine. On my camera though, the RAW files are 6.3Mb, and the TIFFs created with dcraw are 18Mb.
:)
Have a look at my pics, too.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I remember watching a review of digital cameras on a gadget show a year or so ago. The reviewer pointed out that the key to the image was the lens, if that is bad, then nothing else matters.
Don't talk pixels, talk optics.
You don't need a lab to make mud.
I have a C-3000 that does exactly that. Interchangeable lenses, filters, whatever. Just like a regular film SLR. Reasonable price, too.
I think the general sentiment of this article is very true. I remember when I bought my first digital camera, it was a case of the biggest number of pixels winning. In those days 1.0MP cameras were pretty expensive, and I remember being overjoyed that I managed to get a great deal on a Kodak that reached this "magic figure" producing 1152x864 images - rather than most of the other cameras within my price bracket at the time which were between 640x480 and 1024x768.
Skip forward to last month, and I bought my third digital camera. There were 3MP, 4MP and 5MP models within my price range, but in the end, I settled for a 4MP model with a great lens, full manual control and some nifty other features (a Canon Powershot A80, I'd recommend this model to anyone after a fortnight of snapping with it). It produces 2272x1704 images, quite a lot bigger than I'm ever likely to need.
I'd LOVE a digitam cam like that,...
Digital SLRs are available starting at US$899 (list) for the Canon Digital Rebel/300D/Kiss Digital (the name varies by region).
Visit here to learn more.
SteveM
Well, you do need a certain minimum of megapixels, so you can have your photo printed. See, I never print photos on my PC (which is why I don't need an inkjet* with highly expensive ink (1 liter = 1 kg Gold)), but bring or send them to the photoshop instead.
They will print it using a seriously good printer on great paper, and charge a pittance for it. Some shops (and websites) also allow me to design a nice hardcover book full of my photos and text, which makes a great present for friends and family.
But the requirement-limit is at, what, between 3 and 5 megapixels. Using more is useful for cutting images and having only a small part printed, but this happens rather rarely.
Instead I want the following:
* a good optical lens (come on, an f of 2.8 is not that great, unless you live in a really sunny country) with a solid optical zoom (who CARES about digital zoom?).
* Use standard AA rechargable batteries - they are cheap, hold a heck of a charge by now, and are easily replacable - with plain batteries if necessary.
Keep in mind that these things have to be replaced every now and then, and a propriatary one isn't cheap.
* Use CF cards. Cheap, fast, big, and under steady development.
* Allow me to access the camera via USB as an external drive, without needing some kind of stupid program.
* Reasonably small, so I will usually carry it with me in my pocket instead of leaving it at home due to bulk/weight.
Currently, I use the Canon A70/A75/A80. I can recommend them all, except for the lens (2.8, but this currently is standard, except for the great Olympus 5050 with 1.8), and the interface (I have to pop out the CF to read it - I'm not using some kiddy-aimed windows program here).
Not too expensive, either (nope, I have no connection to the manufacturer).
Ciao,
Klaus
* Tip: Buy a used postscripting laserprinter with >= 600 dpi. Dirt cheap, toner lasts forever, you'll love it. And no drivers needed, ever.
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
My Fuji S602Zoom has a threaded ring and a 55mm ring on the outer edge of its lens adapter.
I can put the Fuji zoom or wide angle lens on, and I've got a Cokin adapter for filters. I'm going to find out if it'll focus through a 'generic' zoom lens if i can adapt it on. probably.
The camera is a 'fake' slr (0.3mp digital viewfinder in addition to screen) but I can't see any benefits to it being a real slr (harder to superimpose shutter information for a start).
While they've just been superseded by IIRC the 6900 they're about GBP 450.
Old cameras didn't have zooms.
I'd LOVE a digitam cam like that
Check out Canon EOS 300D (Canon Rebel Digital in the US), it's around 1000 monetary units on both sides of the pond. The lack of noise from the big sensor, excellent viewfinder, focusing and responsiveness beat the latest fixed-lens 8-mpix wonders 4-0.
--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
There's barely a mention of Photoshop either. The article is about the cameras.
Since I haven't read them, and I don't see them posted here anywhere, here are the links to the first two stories:
y =beyond_megapixels_part_1
y =beyond_megapixels_part_2
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?director
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?director
Ah yes, I can feel the Slashdotting coming on now =)
NOT. The Canon EOS D300/Digital Rebel which is compatible with almost all EF series lenses, and has its own line of EF-S lenses can be had for only ~$950 bundled with a great 18-55 EF-S autofocus lense. Of course once you've caught the bug you can easily spend thousands on new lenses but the barrier to entry in the DSLR world has come crashing down with several competitors offering similarly priced models (though AFAIK none of them have as good of a lense on their ~$1K DSLR's)
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I am what you would consider a serious amatuer photographer. (Note that's not seriously amatuer.) I like taking nice photos and blowing them up/enlarging the best of them to frame and hang on the wall. I've even had one professional gig where I got paid for taking official photos at a wedding. A few extra bucks for me and some decent photos at a cheap price for the couple.
Here is my perfect camera:
1. Six Megapixel. You can print out an 8X10" photo at the same quality as 35mm film. More is better, but does an amatuer really need any more than that?
2. An SLR. This is a single lens reflex. It focuses the image onto the focusing screens by using the light coming through the lens (what you see through the view-finder is what you get) and has interchangable lenses.
3. Has a nice optical zoom. How many X makes a nice optical zoom? I suppose that's up to the individual, but I think 10X or more. More is always better when it comes to optical zoom.
The Canon Digital Rebel seems to be the perfect camera for me. The price is still a bit out there, in the neighborhood of $1000, but I'm sure it will come down as time goes on. I'm thinking we are nearing the end of the major advances in digital cameras. Not that we can't improve them, but they are practically at the quality/price levels of film cameras. You can get a cheapie for less than $100 that takes "okay" 3 megapixel images. Great for 4x6 snapshots. You can also spend about $1000 for everything a non-professional could want. Any improvements beyond this are gravy and probably wouldn't profit the researcher or manufacturer much.
Oh! And ignore digital zoom. I wish it didn't exist. I can enlarge it on my computer after the fact and get the same effect.
But why is the rum gone?
Olympus used to make the ideal digital camera for me, the E-100. SLR, with a fixed lens, but in exactly the right range for my intended use (10x optical zoom), and with exactly the right resolution for my intended use, 1.5 megapixels and very fast rapid shot mode.
I would never be making large, high resolution prints from this camera. I need it strictly for computer display.
They've stopped making it, I presume not to force the market to higher resolution cameras, but because the market is buying the hype itself so they couldn't profitably sell it.
Now they offer me a higher resolution camera, with the wrong lens (4x optical zoom) for a higher price.
About all I can do is pray that when my new camera budget reaches the price of the NOS the NOS still exists.
KFG
Remember a 4M-pixel camera with 6x optical zoom and 2x digital zoom is equivalent to a 1M pixel camera with 24x optical zoom. How many 1M cheap/consumer cameras do you know with 24x optical zoom?
You mean sloshing chemicals around in a closed tank? I didn't find that very interesting :-) Making prints was a different ballgame though.
If you want the ultimate B&W print, I don't think you can beat all-chemical process.
But making color prints was a real pain in the butt. I did prints from color negatives and Ilfochromes from slides, but most of the time I ran out of patience before getting everything just right. Sending the images over the net to a printing service, where they are printed straight onto photographic paper, and sent to me via the post, is so much easier and produces so good results that I don't want to go back to the color chemicals ever again.
--
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, where does the road paved with evil intentions lead to?
Should have been coded
Because most readers do not keep links to stories that old...
Trolling using another account since 2005.
That's true in film, too: I two some pictures I took at the same time and same place with the same brand, speed, and age of film. One I took with a high quality Minolta SLR and the other with a low quality point and shoot job. The pictures from the Minolta are MUCH clearer. For example, in the pic from the Minolta, you can see the individual blades of grass that aren't visible in the picture from the other camera (the grass is just a green blur).
I own a Nikon SLR film camera now, but you can bet I won't forget that lesson when I go digital.
--RJ
fixed lenses also solve a major problem in digital cameras
dust collects on the imager.
Think about it.
Film is constantly fresh out of the can.
The CCD on the other hand - just sits there and wahtever parks on its surface stays there and creates obstructions until its cleaned.
Cleaning risks the entire camera - since imagers are also easy to crack.
So keeping the chamber sealed with a fixed lens - and attachments to alter range - has an unanticiated benefit.
AIK
Nonsense. Nikon D70, Canon Rebel and others are fine bodies, under 1 grand in any currency you care to mention (except lira & yen). If you've got an existing lens collection, adding a digital body is the way to go.
Firstly, there are no good LCD viewfinders...especially when we're talking about still frame quality of any kind. Secondly, there is no need for an SLR mechanism on a digital LCD viewfinder, since the picture is being fed from the imaging CCD anyways. Cameras such as the Canon D300, 10D or any other digital SLR don't use LCD viewfinders, because that's not what their customers really want or need...and it would defeat the purpose anyway.
:) More or less, I can do more serious amateur photography without spending my entire livelihood on film/development/printing, which allows me to take many, many more pictures.
When I was in the camera market, I was going for either the Digital Rebel or the gigantic Sony 8MP thing...and eventually settled on the rebel. (Okay, its was the EF Lens capability that won me over). I find that being able to make image adjustments is a lot easier when I'm looking at exactly what will be photographed, instead of some downsized representation. That, and I take good pictures from anywhere in the ballpark with an additional zoom lens.
Granted, this works because I bought my camera to be a camera...not some kind of camcorder...which is one feature most LCD viewfinder cameras offer.
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
In all seriousness, the really odd bit about this article is that the author doesn't seem to know his audience . . . he writes about the most basic of features at a very high level for the novice (like metering, b&w, & sepia features), but then spends an inordinate amount of time describing camera raw files . . . which would be more appropriate for the more advanced user. Then he goes on do describe digital SLR features which are pro and pro-sumer level cameras. But when the author writes about advanced features, he writes about them in a very condscending way . . . like he is coddling a newbie.
I would guess that the author wrote the article with the entire audience in mind (from beginner to pro), but because of this, the author has created a mediocre article that is not very useful for anyone. It's like building the perfect automobile for everyone, without regard to the needs of specific end consumers . . . you wind up with a single product that is not very good for anyone.
Beginners would do better to read tutorials on Cnet etc. and advanced users would find more benefit at sites like luminous landscape
The author claims that he will write reviews next . . . Based on the quality of this article, I would read these with caution. I'd suggest the reviews at DPReview instead.
That's why the quality of the user interface of a camera is of the same importance to me as the quality of the pictures. I want features to be there when I think of them and I want to find them automatically, just like using a Mac.
Three MP, or something like 3.2, is now below $300, more like $250.
The mid-range models are now at four -- that's the current standard, more-or-less, for solid point-and-shooters.
Personally I know from experience that if you're going to want to make enlargements, you want something like four at least. Three will be okay, but there's some degradation of the image, especially if you're going up to 8x10. That's not a microscope, it's just a picture for your desk at work. A 2 MP camera is going to be painful at that size.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
For the RTFA-ers
Shouldn't this be:
TFAR - The F...... Article Readers
...and is nothing like a 'regular film SLR'.
Who modded this +5 Informative for Christ's sake?
The guy doesn't know shit!
Even if you are not going to print your digital photos, there is still one reason you might want the highest pixel count:
zooming in on the details.
Ok, ok.....not 'just like'. However....it does have the ability to add on lenses & filters, and it does have manual controls if you choose, as opposed to auto only.
No, it is not a 'digital SLR'.
Happy now?
>Happy now?
Well, add on lenses are not the same thing as interchangeable lenses are they.
I wasn't attacking you, just the mods who decided your post was 'informative' when actualluy it was nothing of the sort. Sorry!
I'd rather see digital cameras go deeper in bitdepth (as in HDR Images) than resolution from now on really. Maybe one day shutter speed will be left on the cameras only for purposes of motionblur :)
Here's hoping.
I'm thinking we are nearing the end of the major advances in digital cameras. Not that we can't improve them, but they are practically at the quality/price levels of film cameras.
Not so sure. For a long time I was convinced I'd get whichever Canon digital SLR dropped below a grand, to use with my set of old EOS lenses preferably. But you know, there's a huge difference in size from the Sony snappy we've picked up in the meantime and an SLR body. There are limits to what one can do with glass, but I'm going to say we have at least one generation of significant size and weight (and resulting design) change coming for that level of camera. I want my Rebel-level camera, swappable lenses and filters and all, to be easy to carry around too. Take a look at digital camcorders like Canon's Elura or Optura series, or Sony's little uprights. Those aren't pro-grade, no, and really they're almost too small to use well in my hands, but I was sorely tempted by them before I decided on a mid-(still very compact)-sized Sony model with the same basic quality for less. You could carry those anywhere.
'Cause I'm spoiled, that's why. And right now the price of a Canon Digital Rebel is more than twice what I paid for a film Rebel in maybe 1988, so there's room for that to come down too...
So far the stills from various camcorders are crap next to inexpensive still cameras. Everyone but the real pros could end up tossing dedicated still cameras in favor of hybrid models, if that improves somewhat.
The whole "digital hub" model could seriously reshape how we think about cameras too. Makes storage a different sort of issue, if you're tagging off the camera with your laptop all the time. Between that and potential hybrid movie/still models, you'd have to think storage will be an interesting question, anyway. That's just an obvious detail. There've got to be other implications we just haven't come to yet.
Seems like room for change yet, to me. Some major, some incremental.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
I found this series to be a pretty big let down. I guess I was expecting too much, but I was hoping the author would go down the list of where digital doesn't live up to film as a call to action for camera makers and consumers. But no, the series for the most part just talks about existing digital camera features like autofocus and zoom lenses. Oh well.
I want to see some serious discussion about things like color gamut. The gamut of film (especially slide film) is much better than that of digital cameras. Is anyone working to improve the situation for digicams? There's a interesting looking article at extreme tech that talks about gamuts here.
Basically current sRGB devices don't cover the full range of colors which the human visual system can percieve (nor does film, but film comes closer than digital). Think of deep violet for instance. You simply can't get those hues on a monitor, and so today's digital cameras just don't record those colors. However, it is likely that some day we will have monitors and hardcopy ouptut devices that perform as well as the human visual system. So ideally the pictures I take today would have the full range of color information, even if they're forced to display only a subset of those colors on current display devices. That way, in the future when "uberdisplays" are available, my pictures from 2000 will still look nice, and not washed out and cheesy like color photographs from the 60's do today.
If you widen the gamut of CCDs, you'll probably want to add a few bits to each color channel as well -- use 12 bit color instead of 8 bit for instance.
And as long as you're adding bits, the other thing it seems like digital cameras could possibly offer some day is point-and-click high dynamic range (HDR) images, say in EXR format. Couldn't one build CDD sensors with automatic gain control (ISO) on a per-pixel basis, and then assemble the results into a HDR image? Currently the way to make HDR images is by taking several photos of the same scene and carefully merging them together, but that's pretty cumbersome.
With HDR images, you have much more flexibility to adjust the exposure and reveal detail in the shadows after taking the image.
What other cool things could digital cameras offer that would take us beyond simply replacing film cameras?
Um it is nothing differnt than a el-cheapo camera.
you want a real digital SLR... buy a canon Digital REbel. the only choice.
funny, canon is the only company making real equipment for pro-sumers... the digital reble and D10 for stills and the XL1s for video... all real cameras compared to the toys the other companies put out.
Only DSLR's and some Nikons do that.
I've been shooting digital for a few years, and 4:3 STILL look ugly to me.
Please, add 3:2 outputs.
Sigh. Zoomfactor is just as much a non-informative factor as megapixels.
10x what? 28mm (equiv)? 35mm? 38?
That's quite a difference. And the wide angle is more important than the zoomfactor anyway, in 9 out of 10 cases.
the pun is mightier than the sword
And then dumping the silver nitrate and the rest of the witches' brew down the sink when you're done? No thanks. I'll keep the rivers around here clean, if its all the same. With digital, you can shoot and shoot, play around with fstop, shutter speed, exposure, everything, without wasting anything except time.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Other than a brief mention of "virtual fill flash" from Nikon, I don't see anything in any of these articles about flash capabilities. I don't care about the built-in flash, but having an external, powerful, fully integrated flash unit sitting a foot above my lens, held by a high-quality bracket, is extremely important to me. My Nikon F5 is almost never used without the SB28 flash unit (I tend to shoot people, indoors) and the combination is *SO* much more than the sum of the parts.
So here's my question and one of my big selection criteria: What non-interchangeable lens digital cameras are available with highly integrated and powerful external flash systems? All the usual requirement of a good lens, etc., also apply. Anybody have any experience/knowledge to share?
Its all child's play compared to 4x5 large-format photography. I think it will be a long time before they are able to manufacture a 4x5" CCD or CMOS sensor economically. If they do, well then it will probably slide into the back of my view camera like sheet film, polaroid holders, and roll-film holders.
However the right digitoy makes a nice light meter.
Ergonomics and size can be pretty important, too. It's pretty easy to ruin a shot because you pushed the wrong button somehow and got the settings wrong. Even worse, you may fail to take any picture, even a bad one, if you're still fiddling with the controls when the perfect shot happens, or if you left your camera at home because it was too heavy and bulky to bring along.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
calibrated image * deviceprofile = output
High-end cameras can attach or apply various sensor profile transforms to the actual sensor data, leaving the pixels in a factory-average sRGB, such as AdobeRGB colorspace. Some can even apply or attach custom tone curves or custom colorspaces if you put the profiles on the memory card.
I haven't used Sane in a while, but it would also need a sensor profile capability.
Since the 2.0 release of GIMP, it has been making small steps leading up to support for attaching color profiles, but not actually applying color profiles.
I've heard that some people on the Xorg team have been considering the full scope of solutions for this problem, but I would rather they just hit the 90% mark with one feature: load an ICC display profile and program a single head on the video card to apply that transform for all X output on that head. Let's not wait for the whole thing (how to profile, how to work multihead, how to manage multiple profiles, etc.) to spring out of the head of Zeus.
CUPS or some other printing subsystem should be able to take ICC printer profiles also, and prefix printer jobs with those profile transforms where appropriate.
Then you'll see a LOT of people in the photography world erase their Windows and their Photoshop, and join the marketplace vote against product activation.
[
I don't want to go back to the color chemicals ever again.
When were you doing this? Its been at least 15 years since anyone serious about color work touched chemicals. You feed your prints through a machine that processes the paper for you. With color printing, there's no reason to vary anything in the chemical treatment of the paper unless you enjoy frustration.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
As mentioned, it is all in what you need it for. Many of today's consumer digital cameras are nothing less than outstanding. If you have had to suffer through the growth of digital cameras like I have ( $20-25,000 ) DCS1 Camera circa 1992 ( 1.5 megapixel approx ) and lousy color and contrast ) All you pukes :) should be thankful today.
Pros will always need large megapixel cameras. Example: Group shots, even then the industry is still working out bugs. The Kodak DCS n14 ( 13.5 megapixel camera )is awesome for group shots and such high detail / high enlargement things. Problem is that even with firmware patchs to it and its follow on model, heavy noise in the shadow areas makes it unusable for existing-low-light photography. An area that a 6 megapixel Nikon D1x or D100 has no problem in. Also as the high end systems are still very expensive, most pros have a narrow experience based on the few expensive systems they have / use.
A very excellent example of digital photography I have scene recently is a 100 years of Flight issue by National Geographic, all shot with a Nikon D1x ( 6 megapixel ) in Raw mode. Excellent photos. ( The Kodak 13.5 megapixel camera would have failed that mission because of all of the noise it still produces in the shadow areas.)
My current work cameras ( I am a USAF photographer ) are the Fuji S2, Nikon D100, Kodak 14n. This systems fit our needs ( industrial photography ). Having used film cameras for ages ( 8x10, 4x5, 120/220, 35mm ), I prefer digital cameras all the time now. Burning in and dodging, croping the digital way is a lot more fun and I find I can concentrate more on taking good photos.
For less than that consider the Sigma SD9 - they newer model, the SD10, is more expensive but the SD9 is starting to go for cheap on eBay. Right now an SD9 plus a really good lens and professional flash is listed for only $650!
The disadvantage of the SD9 over the 300D is that the camera does not have as high an ISO support, and the camera does not do in-camera JPG. But it produces great images, just take a look at the SD9 users gallery on pbase. You'll also get more advanced features like mirror lock-up that the 300D only supports through a user created firmware update (not that there's anything wrong with that).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
>the digital reble and D10 for stills and the XL1s for video... all real cameras compared to the toys the other companies put out.
What a load of uninformed crap!
I suppose the Nikon D70 is a 'pro-sumer' toy, is it?
BTW Canon's midrange DSLR is the 10D not a 'D10', idiot!
The problem is that the sensors are not all alike. The Sony F828 has a lot of pixels but also more than just the RGB filters (adds cyan). Normal cameras just have RGB filters. Fuji rotates the sensor a bit and offers sensors with higher dynamic range. The Foveon chip stacks sensors so a 3.4 MP camera has 10 million image sensors, and an image quality somewhere in-between 3.4MP and 10MP as a result.
In short, relying on just the MP count is not really going to help anymore, especially now that companies are really started to explore different paths for sensor development.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
As if storing your evil chemicals in milk bottles marked "POISON" and taking them down to your local village department of public works for toxic waste disposal and handing the guy the nominal 5 quid cover charge is all that tough... ;-)
First of all, a number of cameras (especially higher end cameras) let you choose the Adobe RGB color space, which while not matching human vision is better than sRGB. Also, since a lot of people are just going to be displaying for the web sRGB may be all they ever need - and since the printer range is stuck around the same area as Adobe RGB I'm not sure what benefit you'd get from a much higher range since no output device could support it.
As for the higher dynamic range, the Fuji SuperCCD does something like what you describe by having two sets of photosensors to record different levels of intensity. They combine that all into one image, but you can also shoot a RAW file with that camera which then preserves the full set of sensor readings.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
handing the guy the nominal 5 quid cover charge
So he can pour them down the drain for you? Not having the chemicals to dispose of does seem just a wee bit easier, yes.
You won't be able to adapt a generic zoom lens to work on a consumer camera like the s602z, the fact there's that fixed lens already on the front means any extra lenses need to take this into account when considering their optics or the focal length is all wrong.
If you're thinking of playing with extra lens' beyond the two Fujitsu sell for the s602z series you'd be better looking at something like the Canon EOS-100D (Digital Rebel outside of the UK, I believe) which has been specially designed to accept an entire range of lenses for Canon's SLRs
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
If you're new to the digital world that's not a bad read. It covers the basics, and explains some important issues (color balance, metering, etc). However it doesn't separate some marketing which sways people.
Constantly people will choose one camera over another based on things like how it segments the metering. While you can read over 1000 locations, there are plenty of instances where that means putting too much emphasis on point sources that deviate considerably from the rest of the image. I've seen situations where that can falter.
On the flip side the lower end cameras from Canon for example may meter off 21 regions, which effectively ignores those things, however if you're metering a more complex scene it can start to slip. Obviously a little user input can go a long way towards compensating for these failures from both types of systems. More regions however simply does not mean better. It's like the whole Mhz thing, it depends.
The issue with different sensor layouts is real. Fuji has the rotated array, Foveon is layered, Sony uses the Emerald filter, while most cameras are RGB with some exceptions. However an issue frequently ignored is sensor size. Sure, I can have a 2/3" 8mp sensor that might cost $200 (a la the new 8mp consumer cameras), or I can have an 8mp 1.4x sensor in a 1DMKII which probably costs nearly $2000. Clearly something is different, and it's not that one is CMOS and the other CCD, or that one's more expensive. Sensor size is everything, and if you've got two cameras with the same sensor size and comes in a 4mp and 5mp flavor, the 4mp camera may produce bigger enlargements with better quality simply due to the smoother, lower noise image. More isn't necessarily better, but it's hard to explain that to people.
Foveon confuses things by layering. They get better color resolution, but because X and Y pixel density is lower, they lose some spatial resolution capabilities in some ways. Overall however it performs well. SuperCCD isn't too different, just rotated.
Presently here, but not there.
just as an FYI:
I have found digital zoom to be useful in odd lighting situations when I wanted to get the right aperture for a distant object. Think far away monkey in a tree with a bright background, if I click away, I won't see monky, I will see a dark outline of a tree. with the digital zoom it sets the light balance accordingly for the area in question. from there i could either lock the aperture, and zoom back out or just snap away and suffer the inadequacies of digital zoom. I suppose there are other ways to do it, but digi zoom is the quickest for me.
Also Sonys new cameras have and "intelligent" digitial zoom where it will automatically crop a higher resolution pic down to the lower resolution that you are using (say you are taking a pic a 2 MP, it would automatically zoom in to the 5MP picture it just took and give you that portion of the picture), which may not be perfect, but handy on large trips where capacity becomes and issue.
Another common misconception I, and many others, had was that you could just take a color pic and converrt it to black and white on my computer. I tested this multiple times in a darker setting and the original black and whites came out tons better than the colors that had been sampled back to black and white. I don't know if this is because the CCD is put in a more 'sensitized' mode of some sort, or if the cameras algorithms for dealing with dark situations is better with black and white, but there was no denying the difference.
Middle of the 3rd page:
"Nikon's D70 has a clever function that emulates the use of a fill flash when processing the image, without actually using a fill flash. The virtual fill flash adjusts the exposure level of darker parts of the image in order to show more detail that would otherwise be lost in shadow. Although the same effect could be produced through post-shooting manipulation, it's nice to see the effect immediately after capturing the frame."
He's talking about virtual fill flash in-camera function. But I never found such a function on my D70. Am I missing something or did he have another cam in mind?
AB.
Digital Photography Review lists two* SLRs for under $1000. Click here and select SLR / under $1000. Select under $2000 and you open your options up to nine*.
I plan to buy the Canon 300D soon. Though it is a somewhat crippled (with some uncrippling hacks available) version of the 10D, it is still an exceptional value.
*The HP Photosmart doesn't belong on the list. It's not actually a SLR so I am not including it in my count. Looks like an error in the site's database.
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Expect to pay several thousand pounds.
Dang! I'm going to have to gain some weight. I thought they only cost an arm and a leg which for me is well under a hundred pounds....
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
GTRacer
Defending IP by destroying access to it? That makes sense, RIAA/MPAA. Go to the corner until you can play nice!
I too tried dcraw and among other things (file size?), I never really liked the white balance afterward.
Vuescan on the other hand, is very well built. It has a linux version and was made for film and flatbed scanners (some of which have little to no linux support otherwise), but it can also scan from CRW files (canon raws). It still has all the flexibility you get with film scanners when you scan from raws (gamma, white balance, etc), and it does ICC profiles, too. You can even calibrate using your IT8 target if you have one.
Sure it's not free, but I think they deserve $60-$80 for their work.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi omnem pecuniam tuam mihi dabis, ad tuum caput saxum immane mittam.
Photography is 90% composition and 10% tech-specs of your camera! Learn to find something to shoot at before you get all tech-revved.
But no one has said it.
What does this mean for Pr0n?
Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
100D? AFAIK, the Digital Rebel's product number is 300D internationally... In the US its known as the Digital Rebel, everywhere else the 300D.
But yes, you're right, the Rebel would be a MUCH better choice since its compatible with ANY Canon EF lense (so pretty much every modern Canon Lense). Its absolutely the best prosumer camera for the buck right now. For anyone who doesn't believe it, just take a look at some of the pics.
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
I think that a lot of consumers think that there will be a signifigant difference in the rectangular dimensions of an 8MP image versus a 5MP. They don't consider that as the area expands, exponentially more pixels are needed to gain, say, another inch in height and width (i.e. the pixel count increases as the square of the dimensions), so that a 5MP image would represent an image side of 2236.1 pixels, while an 8MP image has 2828.4 pixel sides, a ~26% pixel increase per side from 5MP, where the user was thinking of a straight ratio (60%) increase.
Is there any standard product labeling system out there that lets you know how fast a digital camera captures a picture? I got a a 3MP camera last christmas for my father and it's worked great, but naturally, the higher the resolution the longer it takes to process the photo. It doesn't bug him, but you do have to keep it in mind when switching between taking pictures of landscapes vs pictures of pets. A low resolution of an action scene comes out with little to no blur while the full 3MP photo is quite blurred.
Before buying a camera for myself it would be nice to know how fast the camera takes a picture at each of it's different MP levels.
...and I remember seeing an article in pop photo a few years ago where they gave a half dozen professional photographers disposable cameras and let them loose in NYC. The photos they took were absolutely amazing, even though all they had to work with was a camera with a cheap, plastic, fixed focus lens, and no flash. The moral of the story is that the equipment doesn't matter so much as the skill and experience of the person wielding it.
You should rather use Cinepaint (formerly called Film Gimp) for such images. Cinepaint is based on an early fork of Gimp.
I prefer fixed focal length lenses with a really large aperture. They are lighter, smaller and sharper than the zooms. I really care about sharpness and contrast, focusing ease and the ability to take clear pictures in low lighting.
Dpi has NOTHING to do with the color resolution of an inkjet printer, unless you are printing black and white line art. If you feel you need a 1200ppi image to print at the full capacity of your 1200dpi printer, you are:
1: Sadly mistaken.
2: Working with huge images unnecessarily.
3: Probably spent much more on your camera than you needed to do.
4: Are spending a lot of time watching your computer transmit these huge images to your printer, which is merrily throwing away much of the data sent it.
A single dot of color, does not a color cell make. If so, you'd have a limited color pallette of black, white, and subtractively created single tone RGB.
Example: An HP large format printer (say a Design Jet 2000 series) prints at 600dpi. That means it can put down an individual ink dot every 1/600th of an inch. And most of them don't overlap the adjacent one, as some printers claiming insanely high horizontal resolutions do. In order to create a wide spectrum of color, this printer builds a 4x4 color cell of 16 dots. Depending on which colors are placed in this cell in which order (yes, dots can be placed on top of each other, and this ordering is significant), you get a wide variety of results. What this means to the image however is that the maximum resolution of this printer is 150ppi. There are 150 color cells per inch horizontally and vertically. Any resolution higher than that is discarded as the image is downsized in the printer to 150 pels (picture elements) per inch. And the results are gorgeous!
Example: An Epson 1440dpi printer actually prints about 240 color cells per inch. A higher resolution image will not print any sharper.
Important thing to remember #1: Dots per Inch figures for inkjet printers are nothing more than advertising hype and garbage.
Important thing to remember #2: Your eye can't see much more than about 100dpi anyway from more than a few inches away. And most people don't hang the image on their nose to view it.
Important thing to remember #3: The very hard to find color cells per inch figure is the true printer resolution, and the manufacturers don't make this easy to find because they like to advertise big numbers. People also like to buy big numbers.
Important thing to remember #4: The only way to get a good printer is to view samples of your work on the various printers you are considering buying, and pick the one that is most pleasing to you. It's a lot like wine -- the kind you drink.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I've got a Tamron 28-300 (effectively (or rather 35mm-equivalent) something like 45-480 I think - 1.6x magnification on the Rebel, right?) for my Digital Rebel. Don't remember what it cost, somewhere around $350 I think. Not too bulky, either, although I certainly don't carry it around all the time. So yeah, getting 10x zoom for the Digital Rebel can be done, and not too incredibly expensively, but it isn't as portable as some other options (but then outside of an Elph or equivalent that is really small, it doesn't make too much difference - If I have to carry a camera bag around, I might as well carry my DSLR).
Pan-STARRS (pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu) is building a GIGApixel camera.
So I have a Nikon D70, which uses all the same lenses as my N80. Excellent!
But now I'm going travelling, and want a very capable lens. I figure an 14mm-440mm zoom, with a constant 2.0 aperature would be just fine, although I'd prefer a constant f/1.8. Absolutely no less than 0.95 MTF at 10 lines/mm. Oh, and it needs to do 1:1 macro at ranges of about six inches.
I aked for a lens like this at the local high-end lens manufacturer. They said "no problem!" They wheeled out a small truck to transport it, since it comprised 750lbs of glass.
So I guess I'm in the market for a different travel lens. (Actually, the Nikkor 28-105/3.5-5 is pretty decent, but I'd love a brighter version).
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
From personal observation, cannot be solved with megapixels. 9 out of 10 times, people have their camera on low - mediums quality settings "so they can take more pictures." Of course, they get more pictures that have no prayer of being printed because of compression artifacts, bit it's useless explaining that. To most people, looks good on screen means it will print well.
My father asked about a digital camera today. He was thinking in the 4-6MP range , mostly because I recently bought a D-Rebel and rave about it. (That's because I love RAW format, and the extra breathing room for tight crops more than anything. It does feel "crippled" compared to my ELAN 7 though.)
My suggestion to him : Buy a good, comfortable 3MP camera with a GOOD LENSE on it and a flexible feature set and spend the money you saved on a decent amount of storage. Set the camera to it's highest quality setting, and leave it there. A 3 megapixel image will produce a decent 4x6 to 8x10s without a problem, IF you use a proper quality setting.
Remember folks, you CAN'T go back to take the picture again. Make sure you have the best quality you can the first time around!
Because the SLR mechanism precludes it. That's the whole reason.
LCD viewfinders keep getting better and better. And they already can give info that an SLR viewfinder cannot, like exposure preview and such.
I admire your green credentials! Using a digital camera made of wood and recycled paper... not plastic and silicon doped with toxic metals. That can't be recycled.
It's okay... so long as the toxic gunk is being tipped into a river in a third-world country, you don't have to worry about anything.
By the way... most photographic chemicals are pretty benign. Your body produces waste that's just as bad, and in far greater quantities.
I've got a Kodak DX4900 and my biggest gripes are the LCD screen is washed out in bright sunlight and the rechargeable battery is almost useless - go with non-rechargeable or you'll only get a few pics before the camera shuts off. Nice camera otherwise, though.
My Canon Powershot G3 can take several hundreds of photos with one charge of the battery with the LCD on, and I don't think the custom battery is *that* much superior to set of "normal" AAs..?
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.