Ultrawide Zoom in a Compact Camera

Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Spy+der+Mann · 2006-01-02 11:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

how about 3-D cameras?

Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by pair-a-noyd · 2006-01-02 12:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

I was about to pop in and say just about the same thing and the very first thing I see is your post.

When I was a kid in the 60's they had a huge collection of stereoscopic slides at our local library.

I would go there everyday and spend hours and hours going back in time through
that old wooden viewer and those old slides. Many of them were 1800's or near the turn of the century.

To me, those old slides WERE time travel. Where are those slides now?
I suspect that most of them went in dumpsters in the 70's..

History, lost forever.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by LionKimbro · 2006-01-02 12:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

3-D photography does not require multiple lenses, if you can move the camera, and if the target is relatively stationary.

So for example, if you were photographing a mountain scene, you can just wave your camera around. If you had 25 different shots, it's like having 25 different eyes to position and construct an image from.

And the resulting calculated image can have a much greater resolution than the camera itself.

So, you can end up with a 3D high-resolution textured model, simply from one camera input. Like, say, your cell phone.

Now, granted, that's a lot of processing for a camera to perform... ...which is why wireless is so interesting. If you can send the pictures to google, and get google to work out the calculations, and send you the result, ...

Look up Photogrammetry.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by dangitman · 2006-01-02 13:04 · Score: 1

They're easy. You just Gaffa tape two cameras together and you're good to go. Well, if you're not into gaffa, you can always use, like mounting hardware and stuff. Or just a double-ended screw in the tripod mount, provided it is centred underneath the lens, and not offset. A high-end system will have adjustable spacing and adjustable toe-in among other features.
Then you use free software like Panorama Tools to process the image in a variety of ways.
Digital cameras are so cheap these days that it's very tempting to buy a couple of cheapies for a dedicated compact-size 3D snapshot camera.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by plover · 2006-01-02 13:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

My mom has quite a collection of them. She used to live in an old school that was converted to condominiums in the 1980s, and they had preserved a cabinet with several drawers of these slides. She contacted one of the local museums to see if they were interested, but they were not. As far as I know, she still has them.

--
John
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by kaarigar · 2006-01-02 13:16 · Score: 1

If only the designers would have placed the lenses next to each other, horizontally (instead of on top of the other, vertically), it would have been possble to hack this camera to take stereoscopic pictures.

Kaarigar
==================
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by jpatters · 2006-01-02 13:23 · Score: 1

If it wasn't for that built in flywheel that prevents turning the camera on its side...

--
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 14:17 · Score: 0

You know, I was going to make a nice sarcastic comment about that too, but yours is so much funnier than anything I would have said.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by MSBob · 2006-01-02 14:17 · Score: 1

I doubt that their lenses have any overlap in the focal length. One is a wide angle lens and the other is narrow angle + zoom. Even if they do have a common focal length you'll only be able to use it at the overlapping focal lengths.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 14:23 · Score: 0

Lomo makes some interesting cameras using multiple lenses. Not 3-D, but interesting.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-02 14:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

You would not need just the images, but also very accurate positioning data on where the photos were taken.

In theory, perhaps you could extrapolate the positioning information by looking at static objects in the frame, shadows, etc., but I don't think that's anywhere near practical.

However if you had a cellphone with augmented GPS (WAAS or something like it) that had submeter accuracy or better, and you were taking pictures of a large object, and maybe included a compass chip or something like it to give you an azimuth reading, then I think you could do what you're talking about. At the very least you'd be able to easily construct a photographic panorama / flyaround (a la Quicktime VR). The work necessary to produce a 3-D model might be, as a physicist I knew used to say, "really nontrivial." At least working just from the images and telemetry data without any other subjective stuff (like selecting out the areas by hand as those 2-d photogrammetry systems have you doing, it seems).

But in general I think that's a very cool idea. It would be neat to see digital camera manufacturers start to embed GPS chips into cameras; at the very least it would be cool to open something in iPhoto and see a minimap of exactly where you took the photo. I know that there are some vacation photos of mine that I wish I knew exactly where I'd been standing when I took it, and there's no easy way to figure out now. It's not like the chips to do that would be bulky anymore, now that they've been miniaturized for cellphones. In fact I think I remember a fairly old Kodak DSLR (one of their really serious ones that were built on Nikon F1 frames) that had a serial port and might have been able to connect to a GPS, for that purpose. I think it's a feature that's ready for prime time.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-02 15:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

You can do it for a lot cheaper than that.

Just get two disposable cameras. Film is okay, if you count your frames, but now they've even got digital "disposables." Mount them horizontally on a flat piece of wood (I saw someone use what looked like a 1x2, but it's not like it matters) right next to each other. Depending on the kind of camera, they're small enough that placed next to each other the lenses are spaced almost the right distance apart. You can even space them wider apart if you want a more exaggerated 3-d effect.

Then just wind and shoot the cameras simultaneously. If you're taking pictures of anything moving, you have to be pretty lucky to catch the shutters at exactly the same time or else it'll look messed up. (But i've actually seen some pretty amazing stuff done this way of people on stage.) Also avoid using their flashes since they won't go off in sync and you may get strange shadows.

Then just get them developed and put on a CD, and make sure that the processor keeps them straight so you know afterwards which one is left and which one is right.

Then you can either print them and try to mount them in a stereoscope viewer, which is what I saw done with them (basically just two prints hung side by side with a divider in between that you put your nose up to), or you could probably produce a red/blue image in Photoshop. You need some tinkering to get the viewers right, but there are a lot of books on the subject.

There is also, if you want to blow a lot of money on such a project, there used to be a purpose-built Russian camera called the "FED" that used regular 35mm film and had two separate lenses. No idea if they're still making them or not.

I just did a little Googling and there is a Engadget tutorial available. It uses some assumedly PC-only software though, so I'm not too interested. Others might be, though.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by LionKimbro · 2006-01-02 16:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

You would not need just the images, but also very accurate positioning data on where the photos were taken.

Quite right!

In theory, perhaps you could extrapolate the positioning information by looking at static objects in the frame, shadows, etc., but I don't think that's anywhere near practical.

No; It actually exists, now. It's not just a theory. I have a video on my hard drive here, demonstrating it ("kitchen.mp4.avi",) but I can't find it online. No matter; do a google search on "real-time camera tracking in unknown scenes" (which is the title I see when I start up the video,

It's just as you say-- those little points are called "landmarks," and it uses them to track by.

However if you had a cellphone with augmented GPS (WAAS or something like it) that had submeter accuracy or better, and you were taking pictures of a large object, and maybe included a compass chip or something like it to give you an azimuth reading, then I think you could do what you're talking about. At the very least you'd be able to easily construct a photographic panorama / flyaround (a la Quicktime VR). The work necessary to produce a 3-D model might be, as a physicist I knew used to say, "really nontrivial." At least working just from the images and telemetry data without any other subjective stuff (like selecting out the areas by hand as those 2-d photogrammetry systems have you doing, it seems).

A blue bird in industry has told me that in the next 3-5 years, cell phones will have not only GPS, but $3 accelerometers capable of sub-meter resolution sustained for 1 hour without update. (Important for underground locations.)

The work to produce 3-D models may be non-trivial, but: Did you follow the links I gave you? It's all been done- and this isn't recent: This is a few years back.

Here's a very simple example, here's a more complicated one, and here's yet another, this time dated 2000. Be sure to check out the generated 3D models.

So the techniques are out there, and they're in practice, and many people are starting to wake up that these are useful things to do. There's a lot of money to be made here. So, this is why I don't think it'll be long before this is integrated into cameras.

We have 2D camera phone scanners. Why not 3-D? Some even do OCR.

But in general I think that's a very cool idea. It would be neat to see digital camera manufacturers start to embed GPS chips into cameras; at the very least it would be cool to open something in iPhoto and see a minimap of exactly where you took the photo. I know that there are some vacation photos of mine that I wish I knew exactly where I'd been standing when I took it, and there's no easy way to figure out now. It's not like the chips to do that would be bulky anymore, now that they've been miniaturized for cellphones. In fact I think I remember a fairly old Kodak DSLR (one of their really serious ones that were built on Nikon F1 frames) that had a serial port and might have been able to connect to a GPS, for that purpose. I think it's a feature that's ready for prime time.

The cell phones have cameras, and many phones already have GPS. It won't be long before they all do..!
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by plover · 2006-01-02 16:28 · Score: 0

Troll? Somehow my mom having a bunch of ancient educational stereoscopic slides is a "troll"? Or that the James Ford Bell museum turned them down, mostly because she didn't have a "complete set"?
Or perhaps it's because the pictures are old, and show politically incorrect things. Is that the troll?
I don't get it. Be a man, post a rebuttal. Engage in a conversation. Call me a liar -- even if you're wrong, at least you're not a coward.

--
John
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Viceice · 2006-01-02 16:31 · Score: 0

Troll? How on Earth is this a troll? I wish i had mod points today... Somebody please do the parent some justice.

--
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by saskboy · 2006-01-02 16:53 · Score: 1

There's a historic house in north Philly, I forget the site, but it's an old battle from the Revolutionary war with the British. Germantown seems to be a familiar name, but doesn't seem right.
They give a guided tour of the main house, and although they don't let people touch things, they let me and my friend look at the stereopticon on a table. I got to see several 3D pictures from the turn of the 20th Century in it. Yet another thing I forgot to get a picture of on that trip... [another museum I could have got a video of Edison wax cylinder playing.]

Any camera with two lenses, better be taking 3D pictures optionally, or I'm not buyin' it.

--
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Basehart · 2006-01-02 18:05 · Score: 1

"There's a historic house in north Philly, I forget the site, but it's an old battle from the Revolutionary war with the British. Germantown seems to be a familiar name, but doesn't seem right."

A battleground in Philly involving the British called Germantown. Ouch!
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by tigersha · 2006-01-02 21:21 · Score: 1

Shooting 3D stereo slides is very easy. The thing is, you do not have to worry about the details, the eye takes care of it. Simply load a roll of slide film into any cheap old camera and shoot two shot offset. Make sure you do not flash (since the light changes then) and that you have the same point in the middle of the shot.

Then you take two handheld slide viewers, the sort that you can hold up to the light with a framed slide in it and use one on each eye. This is important, it allows you to move the slides separately until the picture snaps into 3D. Since you can control the slides easily at viewing time the alignment for the shot itself is not critical. The only issue that that you cannot shoot moving things. But it works very well and I have quite a few nice 3D slides.

--
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by o2binbuzios · 2006-01-03 01:52 · Score: 0

Stereoscopy is a pretty active photography genre - I have a relative who has a large library of self created images. There are numerous websites devoted to it. http://www.stereoscopy.com/cameras/ is one example. At one end you can simply glue to cameras together bottom to bottom as someone mentioned, at the higher end there are dual lens cameras that use normal 35mm film and developing...you just need to mat them carefully. The images are very compelling - much more immersive than regular photos. The handheld viewers work OK - but for the real effect get a dual lens projector for the slides and some green & red glasses and watch the show on a wall size image.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by dangitman · 2006-01-03 09:59 · Score: 1

Yeah, thanks, but I'm a camera collector - and I have built my own unusual cameras before, including film-based stereo rigs. It's not really worth it to me unless it's a reasonably good set-up.
But I think that more people should experiment with this kind of thing, instead of just doing the same old thing with their cameras.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by saskboy · 2006-01-03 10:13 · Score: 1

http://www.britishbattles.com/germantown.htm
My brain didn't fail me.

--
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Henk+Postma · 2006-01-03 19:35 · Score: 1

You would not need just the images, but also very accurate positioning data on where the photos were taken. In theory, perhaps you could extrapolate the positioning information by looking at static objects in the frame, shadows, etc., but I don't think that's anywhere near practical.
It's actually quite practical, I use this program all the time:
http://hugin.sourceforge.net/
You identify the static reference points, and the program is actually quite clever in finding the other corresponding points after you have picked one or two. You do this for all of them, choose your point of reference, done. It even reads the field of view information from the EXIF header of your digital camera.
A nice review can be found here http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=05/08 /22/148209&tid=75
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-04 00:13 · Score: 1

Very cool -- although I'm not sure that what that software does is exactly what I was thinking about. Perhaps it (or one of its components) do it and I'm just not seeing the capability demonstrated in the review. I suppose to do the panorama it has to be doing it in two dimensions.

I was thinking if you took several pictures of a mountain, for example, from various sides and heights, and wanted to create a 3-D model of the mountain, you'd need to be able to deduce the camera's position relative to the mountain in three-dimensional space based only on the visual information in the photo. This for a human isn't particularly hard to do; you use things like shadows and key features, but for a machine it might be tough especially without manually-defined reference points. Although based on reading the papers in another reply to my post (LionKimbro's) apparently this has been pretty well figured out, which I find very impressive.

I'll definitely give that Hugin software a shot though, I've been looking for something to create panoramas. And I'm very curious to see how it does at automatically defining the reference points. And it's open source and runs on my Mac and on Linux -- can't beat that.

At any rate, I've definitely been pleasantly surprised to see how far the state of the art has progressed beyond where I thought it was. Thanks for the link!

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Henk+Postma · 2006-01-04 06:04 · Score: 1

No problem. The caveat is that you have to take pictures at different angles, keeping the camera at the same location. I guess I now understand you were talking about taking pictures at physical different locations _and_ angles. Yes, then it's harder.
One thing to keep in mind when using hugin, is that if you dont keep your camera at the same position when taking different angle shots, objects very close by get distorted. Far away it's not so much of a problem and its quite fool proof. Check out some pictures I took of our new house http://www.its.caltech.edu/~postma/house/index.htm l. The panoramic ones are the first few.
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-04 15:17 · Score: 1

That's pretty impressive. I have some old film negatives that I took by putting the camera on a tripod and rotating it, and just mounted the prints very carefully with a razorblade so they looked psuedo-panoramic, that I'll have to scan in and give a try.

How does it do with interior panoramas? Have you tried standing in the center of a room and doing a full cylindrical 360? I'm curious how it looks under real-world, non ideal conditions. I know some realtors that would probably be impressed by something like that.

Any idea how it compares to the in-camera stitching that some of the new digis do?

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Henk+Postma · 2006-01-05 05:36 · Score: 1

I have some old film negatives that I took by putting the camera on a tripod and rotating it, and just mounted the prints very carefully with a razorblade so they looked psuedo-panoramic, that I'll have to scan in and give a try.

That works well if all the pictures are of stuff relatively far away, but you'll notice some horizon distortion for instance. Hugin/panotools warps the whole picture digitally, projecting onto a cylinder or sphere, so you won't have this problem. You may want to scan the individual pictures you took, and stitch them digitally in Hugin/panotools, will be much nicer. Another advantage is that the joints between the pictures will be smoothed out, so it will look much better.
How does it do with interior panoramas? Have you tried standing in the center of a room and doing a full cylindrical 360? I'm curious how it looks under real-world, non ideal conditions. I know some realtors that would probably be impressed by something like that.

I haven't tried 360 panoramas indoors. I _have_ tried standing in the corner of a room and taking a full shot of the room like that, and that works really well. Just remember to rotate the camera only, keeping the focal plane in the same position. Particularly important for indoor shots is to use the same white balance, shutter time etc for all your shots, otherwise it's going to look funny. So either don't use automatic mode, or depress the button half way while pointing at the same area for every shot, and then pan over to the position that you want to take a picture of and take your picture.
For a 180 degrees shot in front of our new house, look here. You'll notice some brightness variation, and small stitching errors, because I wasn't too careful.
Any idea how it compares to the in-camera stitching that some of the new digis do?
Never tried this, which cameras do this?

Interesting... by Dzimas · 2006-01-02 11:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Anyone else notice that this thing's design harkens back to the wooden boxed Kodak Brownie cameras that were introduced (along with 120 roll film) in about 1901? I wish Kodak much success with their digital innovations -- it's been a bloodbath (technologically and from a dollar & cents/employment perspective) at their company for the last couple of years.

Personally, I'd like to see them create a hybrid analog/digital sensor that combines the best of the film and digital worlds. It would avoid the nasty blowouts that digicams are succeptible to, while adding the benefit of digital speed to the analog image capture process.

Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 11:38 · Score: 0

Digital speed? What speed do you speak of?
Re:Interesting... by MSBob · 2006-01-02 12:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

As an (unhappy) owner of DX6490 I can tell you exactly why Kodak is in trouble. It is a camera built for nobody. Some of its features belong in an entry level DSLR while it targets the know-nothings. However, it's quite a challenge to get a decent photo out of it in a point-and-shoot mode. On the other hand, nobody who knows anything about photography will not be willing to put up with the lack of manual focus, lack of RAW format or no manual white balance adjustment.
Why did I buy their camera? Because I'm stupid. Knowing nothing about photography at the time I went to the local mum and pap photo place and asked for advice. They sold me a crap camera that happened to be expensive. I vow never again to rely on anyone else's word when making a significant purchase or buy a Kodak product.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Re:Interesting... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2006-01-02 13:05 · Score: 1

Knowing nothing about photography at the time I went to the local mum and pap photo place and asked for advice. They sold me a crap camera that happened to be expensive.

To riff on that a little - that is exactly why B&M stores need to fear the net. If you are going to get rip-off customer service from the expensive places, you might as well get customer non-service from some generic place online that charges half as much.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Interesting... by dangitman · 2006-01-02 13:08 · Score: 1

You poor thing. I like Kodak film and their pro imaging materials. But they make the worst point-and-shoot cameras on earth. When I worked at a camera shop they tried to get me to push those things because they get good deals with Kodak. But it turns my stomach to pick those horrid things up.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:Interesting... by Dzimas · 2006-01-02 13:10 · Score: 1

The speed with which you can capture an image, manipulate it, and distribute it.
Re:Interesting... by Dzimas · 2006-01-02 13:13 · Score: 1

Kodak outsources the production (and possibly the design) of its cheapest cameras. My wife and I purchased one a few years ago because it was just about the only affordable digicam available. It (and all its breatheren) had defective battery management that made it impossible to use in the real world.
Re:Interesting... by RancidPeanutOil · 2006-01-02 13:16 · Score: 1

Actually, the market for Kodak cameras are people who know slashdot readers (and other snobs). My wife and I got a Kodak for her sister. Her sister knows nothing, and thinks cell-phone cameras are Hawt. I scoff at the camera, an overpriced, poorly designed gadget that looks pretty. I won't buy a digital camera until I can afford a Hasselblad digital back. I play around with it, laugh at the lack of RAW, bitch about the poor choices for flash, the lousy autofocus, poor interface with cascading menus to nowhere, terrible self-timer, and the ridiculous extras (for the target market), like ISO settings. Stupid, stupid, stupid. So that's super fun. Snobs like nothing better than to mock inferior equipment that's overpriced. Then, the best part, her pictures come back horrible, with bad exposure, and blur, and red-eye, and the pictures I take look pretty great (in comparison). But she still can't tell the difference. That's still a picture of her nephew, and she took it - she doesn't even see the blur or the over-lit living room or how washed-out he looks. So we're both happy, hers a healthy but uninformed happy, and I'm all smug. Kodak really makes perfect cameras. They are truly built for nobody, but very different people can enjoy them. Sorry about your experience, but might I suggest regifting it?
Re:Interesting... by penguin-collective · 2006-01-02 13:35 · Score: 1

Personally, I'd like to see them create a hybrid analog/digital sensor that combines the best of the film and digital worlds.

Fuji has been shipping sensors with special photo sites for highlights for several years now, and most of their consumer cameras have them. Several new sensor technologies are also in the works to give even greater dynamic range and from a single exposure.

With a regular sensor, you can combine multiple exposures of a scene digitally to get a very large dynamic range.

Ultimately, there is no "best" of the film world anymore; digital has pretty much surpassed film in every respect, including quality.
Re:Interesting... by Joe+Decker · 2006-01-02 13:46 · Score: 1

It would avoid the nasty blowouts that digicams are succeptible to,
Not that different than slide film, actually, and with many digital cameras you get the benefit of knowing you've blown the shot at the moment you've taken it. But, agreed, I wouldnt' mind a little more dynamic range in my capture.

--
I'm a nature photographer.
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 14:12 · Score: 0

This isn't a uniquely Kodak problem. I bought a Canon Powershot because I knew nothing about digital photography at the time. The thing weights far too much, the picture quality is terrible because there is so much noise, it takes forever to focus, so much so I find it unusable for pictures of people, and I could go on. Almost all brands in the digital camera market produce some lousy cameras because there're alot of first time buyers out there.
Re:Interesting... by plover · 2006-01-02 14:18 · Score: 1

I vow never again to rely on anyone else's word when making a significant purchase
That's a touch strong. Perhaps you should alter your vow to never rely on just one (commissioned) person's word. Shop around. Ask around. Surf the web, but keep in mind that lots of the review sites that float to the top of Google are written by astroturfing salesmen, designed you lure you into buying those same crappy cameras anyway. It takes a while to find the trustworthy sites -- "camera reviews" in Google just won't cut it anymore.
or buy a Kodak product.
Can't argue that one! Personally, other than a 1930's era Brownie that I grew up with in my toybox (and a slightly more modern Instamatic 126 cartridge point-n-click from 1972) I've never even considered Kodak for cameras. I always figured you had to buy a Japanese or German camera to get a good one. Films, papers, chemicals, I have no problems with any of Kodak's darkroom products. Strange how I came to that sort of decison when I was so young.

--
John
Re:Interesting... by MSBob · 2006-01-02 14:21 · Score: 1

the Kodak I own is no speed demon either. Between the time the thing saves the previous picture to memory, the time to refocus (in a Kodak that means re-hunt the focal point), the exposure measurement and the shutter lag you're talking 10 seconds+. So much for a "Kodak moment" unless the "Kodak moment" is a picture of a snail on crutches you're not going to have enough time to take the shot.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Re:Interesting... by Joe+Decker · 2006-01-02 14:25 · Score: 1

With a regular sensor, you can combine multiple exposures of a scene digitally to get a very large dynamic range.
So long as nothing is moving, like say, the people in the picture, flowers, streams, or the camera. (Yes, I know some of this can be worked around, and I do a bit of it myself, but it turns out to be not-helpful at least as often as it turns out to be helpful.)

--
I'm a nature photographer.
Re:Interesting... by asavage · 2006-01-02 14:54 · Score: 1

What is worse then not having a RAW format is the highest quality is way too low. For a 5 MP camera, pictures should be over 3 MB not 700KB-1.3 MB.
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 15:07 · Score: 0

Alright... Granted I know nothing about photography myself, and from what you say it does indeed sound like the feature set on this camera is a bit silly... But why would you declare you'll never buy another Kodak camera again? I mean, this camera was purchased on very bad advice... How do you know that a Kodak camera that better fit your needs wouldn't actually have been a great buy? Obviously you need to do better research next time. And I wouldn't purchase from that same camera shop ever again (they obviously just sold you something expensive, rather than something you could actually use). But to swear off an entire brand based on a single bad purchase on a bad recommendation from a bad camera shop seems a bit silly to me.
Re:Interesting... by joshv · 2006-01-02 15:08 · Score: 1

Actually, I regularly do this with one exposure. I take the RAW image, create two different exposures from it, one for the highlights, one for the shadows, and blend them together. It can be a very effective technique, as the RAW image has at least one extra stop of dynamic range over a jpg.
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous+Luddite · 2006-01-02 15:10 · Score: 1

My HP945 is no better speed-wise.

Once you've filled the camera's onboard memory (approx 5 shots), you might as well set the camera down and go make a sandwich. Even with a 60x write SD card, it's damn slow. I like the camera, I think it was a good deal for approx $350 US, but it's damn slow. Slow to focus and slow to write to the card...

I think any of us who has bought a camera for less than $800-$1000 has to expect some drawbacks though so I'm not too pissed about it.

--
http://request-header.info
Re:Interesting... by Joe+Decker · 2006-01-02 15:16 · Score: 1

Yep, most of my blends have required more than an extra stop, probably just the nature of my subject material.

--
I'm a nature photographer.
Re:Interesting... by bogie · 2006-01-02 15:22 · Score: 1

Spot on. Kodak has been getting slammed for years for WAY over compressing its photos. A 4MP cam putting out 400KB files? Forums all over are ripe with examples of jpegs artifacts. I'm sorry but in anything above a $50 camera I should not be seeing artifacts. Its the only brand I know of that has this problem and its embarassing. Its a dam shame because otherwise Kodak's have pleasantly punchy colors and good sharpness. In good conditions they can take some nice shots. But compression problems, a general inability to focus in less than perfect conditions and a weak White balance system continue to plague what could otherwise be very solid cameras.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:Interesting... by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-02 15:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

You know, as cynical as that is, you're quite right.

Kodak isn't the only company that's doing this either; there are a lot of "entry level" digitals that are basically aiming for the group of people who are moving up (or over, one might say) from disposable film cameras. There are a ton of these people around. They honestly don't care about quality in the same way that even the most novice photography student does: if the image is recognizable, and doesn't have hideously obvious defects like big dust specks (and maybe not even then), they don't care. They've been buying, using, and throwing away plastic-lensed disposables that are nothing but some 400 or 800 speed film with a shutter and a strobe light -- probably not much better than a box with a hole in it -- for years, and they're happy with the results.

What they really want from a digital camera has nothing to do with quality, it's immediate gratification and the ability to share pictures. Why do you think that Kodak's digitals have HUGE displays on the back? Because that's what a lot of people care about: they want to take a picture and then be able to show it off to their friends. For some, they may not even really look at the photo once they take it off of the camera; it's something taken in that moment, for use the moment later. The next thing people want is to be able to share (via email) pictures, and perhaps print a few off here and there, so those are the next easiest functions to do.

The quality of the image -- once you get above a certain point, which I think is about 1024x768 pixels -- doesn't matter to a lot of people. The reason people buy multi-megapixel cameras (aside from the fact that they "want the best" without knowing why, which is probably the dominant reason) is so they can zoom in on things in the frame later. Megapixels are like megahertz were a few years ago: people have this dim understanding that they should be buying more, but no idea why. However they do it anyway.

Kodak's cheap digitals are perfectly designed for a certain kind of person. They let you take an image, show it off to people on the big built-in screen, shove it into a dock and email or save or print it. For 90% of the people who buy them, that's all they ever have to do. If you want more from a camera, don't buy one of the entry level models!

There was a time when the fact that a camera was digital implied that it was somewhat high-end. That era is over, and you can't blame Kodak's engineers (whether they were in-house or outsourced) for designing a camera that matches its target market.

I think that what will eventually spell the end of the true entry-level digital cameras is when cellphone digitals become easier to use. Right now they're too complex for most people. I know quite a few people who have cellphones with cameras, but don't use them because they don't want to figure out how. There isn't (on most phones I've seen anyway) just one button that you can press to take a picture. On mine, it takes four (Camera->Capture->Store->In Camera), and that's three too many. And getting the pictures off requires having Bluetooth working and manually selecting the files -- no iPhoto/Picasa integration. Once the phone manufacturers make it easy enough for a braindead person to use (and this includes the sharing end, not just the picture-taking end), I think the demand for cheap dedicated still cameras will decrease sharply.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Interesting... by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-02 15:46 · Score: 1

I think that dynamic range is a shining example of a casualty of the "megapixel wars." Companies are competing to turn out more and more pixels per square millimeter of sensor, and per dollar, but there doesn't seem to be much effort going into sensor design: improving the range or experimenting with new designs.

Having more pixels is important, but if you know how to compose your shot (so you don't have to do a lot of zooming and cropping later), having a 3MP camera with a lot of dynamic range would be far preferable to a 6MP camera without the range. The difference in the quality of the photos would be palpable also. However, manufacturers don't bother going down that road because nobody wants to be the only brand on the shelf that's one "MP" lower than the others.

I used to sell digital cameras (non-commissioned) and my personal favorite brand was Minolta. I liked them because they had a fast shot-to-shot time and much better zoom than the competitors at the time; however they had somewhat less megapixels-per-dollar than the competitors. I pretty much had a set speech to explain why, for an average person making small prints, a 3.2MP camera with a 6x optical zoom was not inferior to a 4MP camera with a 2-3x optical zoom.

Similar to how microprocessor companies ignored many possible avenues of improvement, preferring to drive their clock speeds ever higher until they hit a wall, camera manufacturers are going to max out their pixels before bothering to do anything about dynamic range or adopt three-chip (or Foveon-type) color.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Interesting... by rebelcool · 2006-01-02 16:23 · Score: 1

the camera on my sony ericsson t616 is pretty easy. (assuming keyguard is off), you press the button with the camera printed on it to switch to compose mode, then the same button again to take the picture.

the phone is a 3 year old model now though, so its quality is pretty poor.

the biggest design flaw with it is that the plastic lens is a dust magnet. in no time, its completely covered in pocket crud making the pictures even further unusable, and the lens is recessed so it requires a q-tip or some such to clean.

--
-
Re:Interesting... by penguin-collective · 2006-01-02 16:45 · Score: 1

As I was saying, if you need high dynamic range for moving images, you can get a Fuji S3 Pro. The point is: there is no real need to use film anymore.
Re:Interesting... by dbIII · 2006-01-02 17:10 · Score: 1

spell the end of the true entry-level digital cameras is when cellphone digitals become easier to use. Right now they're too complex for most people
Check out the low end phones with digital cameras instead of the high end ones with lots of options. I've seen a four year old use one frequently after being shown how to do it once by an eleven year old that had never read the manual. Some phones take the shot with two actions (single arrow button to photo mode, OK button to take the shot).
Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 17:29 · Score: 0

Kodak's problem (and Olympus) is all their P&S cameras fall into that bracket. Other companies like Sony and Fuji are aiming alot of their models higher and raking in the second-time buyers.
Re:Interesting... by Basehart · 2006-01-02 18:10 · Score: 1

I liked the look of this camera at first glance, but if the control surfaces on the back are anything to go by this camera is a POS.
Re:Interesting... by tkw954 · 2006-01-02 19:03 · Score: 1

You bought it because you know that Kodak is a trusted brand name in the photography business. Unfortunately, they're trusted for producing good film and chemicals, not cameras.
Re:Interesting... by Kadin2048 · 2006-01-03 00:08 · Score: 1

While I understand your point and think it's probably quite valid, for the record I've seen quite a few 11-year olds do things that I would probably tear out my hair trying to teach to my (boomer-generation) parents. :)

Obviously my phone -- a Motorola Razr -- probably isn't the best metric for ease of use. However, I still think phone manufacturers could make strides getting on par with digital cameras. Perhaps taking the pictures has gotten easier, but I've yet to see a camera that would mount out-of-the-box as Mass Storage to upload the photos to a computer. Perhaps this has been done also; if so I wish they'd advertise it more. Using standard (SD/MMC) cards would be a plus also.

--
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Re:Interesting... by bint · 2006-01-03 03:00 · Score: 1

I think that what will eventually spell the end of the true entry-level digital cameras is when cellphone digitals become easier to use.
Have you tried the Sony Ericsson w800 (or 750)? Open the lens cover and press the camera button. Getting the pictures off the phone is the same hassle as with digital cameras, though. Bluetooth ought to be available everywhere.
Re:Interesting... by twodot72 · 2006-01-03 04:01 · Score: 1

I have a different experience. I'm quite pleased with my DX6490.

It's easy to use, which I wanted. It has got a 10x optical zoom, which I was looking for. And the pictures look good, I have not had any serious problems with jpeg artifacts etc. I would have liked a raw or at least less compressed format though, and anti-shake since it is hard to get sharp pictures using the zoom. Also, it is a bit weak in low-light conditions (but as far as I've seen that's true for many if not most digital cameras in this range).

It's not a high-end camera though, but it is (or was, I don't think this model is produced any more) not advertised as such either. If I ever get more serious about photography I'll get a more advanced camera. For now, this one is perfect.
Re:Interesting... by renoX · 2006-01-03 09:00 · Score: 1

While you're right in your description of newcomers to digital photography, I think that it won't stay that way, even with many millions of pixel, I'm not really satisfied with my digital camera: too many fuzzy photo, bad light sensitivity, bad latency, too long between two shots, 3* zoom etc..

I expect than in a few years, when people want to buy their second digital camera, they'll get much more sensitive to these issue than resolution which after a point doesn't really matter, now some issue may not be solvable such as having a bigger zoom in a small form factor but I hope that others will be..
Re:Interesting... by dbIII · 2006-01-03 11:45 · Score: 1

but I've yet to see a camera that would mount out-of-the-box as Mass Storage to upload the photos to a computer
Good point - that same easy to use camera phone required a lot of mucking around with an IR dongle, two types of cables and two versions of the software (downloaded over dial up) before it could communicate with a computer.

What? by shobadobs · 2006-01-02 11:25 · Score: 4, Funny

It would be nice if this advertisement included a price. And why no coupon?

Re:What? by sirber · 2006-01-02 11:27 · Score: 2, Informative

$399, and it's written in the article ;)

--
Be or ben't
Re:What? by McGiraf · 2006-01-02 11:29 · Score: 1

($399 estimated street price)

from the article ...
Re:What? by McGiraf · 2006-01-02 11:32 · Score: 1

i just heard a big wooooosh .........
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 11:33 · Score: 0, Informative

RTFA (Read the F--king Advertisement): "$399 estimated street price"
Re:What? by deuist · 2006-01-02 12:15 · Score: 1

The price is $399. I don't know about a coupon.
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 12:57 · Score: 5, Funny

Read the F--king Advertisement

This is the Internet. You're allowed to say "fuck" here.
Re:What? by i_am_not_a_bomba · 2006-01-02 13:29 · Score: 1

Yes, you would think that if CmdrTaco and co are going to whore themselves and the site out like this they could at least organise special prices and deals for their readers.

Then i guess its just easier to take the advertisers money and do nothing.
Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 23:26 · Score: 0

well, fuck then!

Quality? by sirber · 2006-01-02 11:25 · Score: 1

I hope Kodak increased the picture quality. The previous models I had quality was bad. It was like painting for some pictures...

--
Be or ben't

Re:Quality? by Generic+Guy · 2006-01-02 11:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

I hope Kodak increased the picture quality. The previous models I had quality was bad. It was like painting for some pictures...

Really? That's a shame because I always thought the Kodak cameras took great pictures with good color accuracy.

I have a DC240, wonderful and simple to use from the 1.1Megapixel days. It suffered a break in the "battery-tray" retension mechanism (darn plastic instead of metal), making it pretty much un-usable, but otherwise a lovely camera. I also had a CX3700 which I thought took wonderful , sharp photos, but my wife could never get anything in focus and subsequently smashed it into a billion pieces (she claims it was an accident).

I just got my mother a C300 because it is cheap and dirt-simple to operate. Takes nice photos (seems a little pink, but it may be her printer). Plus the C300 can take regular AA batteries, since Mom will never remember to charge this thing.

I'm sorry you have had bad luck with your Kodak. I've normally been impressed with their offerings.

--
{ - Generic Guy - }
Re:Quality? by Matt_R · 2006-01-02 15:11 · Score: 1

I have a DC240, wonderful and simple to use from the 1.1Megapixel days
My DC210 was a great camera, I was taking much better photos with it than my friends with their new 4MP Canon's (they didnt give it time to autofocus, but my DC210 was fixed focus heh).
I upgraded to a DX5430, and it took wonderful photos too.
I've now got a Canon EOS 350D/RebelXT, and wouldn't go back to Kodak (or any other compact camera)
Re:Quality? by Kris_J · 2006-01-02 16:00 · Score: 1

The DC240/DC260/DC265/DC290 models were the pinnacle of Kodak digital cameras. After them Kodak completely lost its focus on useful hardware and started rolling out web services and gimmicks.
That said, I'm very happy with my new A$140 fixed-focus 4 Megapixel point 'n click Kodak. The optical zoom on my DC260 still makes it preferable for anything more than a couple of meters away, but for mindless snapping the cheap new Kodak is quite good. You can see an example of what I was able to take with three cameras at a recent yaughting event here.
Re:Quality? by David+Off · 2006-01-02 20:07 · Score: 1

The problem with the recent Kodak 'bridge' cameras seems to be JPEG compression levels. The images are overly compressed which is ok if all you want is a 7x5" print but not good for other work. The cameras could probably spit out quite good RAW mode images if there were such an option.

Opera incompatibility. by Poromenos1 · 2006-01-02 11:27 · Score: 5, Funny

Slashdot is broken. I am using Opera and the ad is bleeding in the article.

Oh, wait...

--
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.

Re:Opera incompatibility. by CottonThePirate · 2006-01-02 13:18 · Score: 1

You know as long as this is just an ad site now, you can visit my site for some photographic information. Nikon equipment reviews . It's still in beta, a lot of articles are place holder, but the ads are up! Go click on them! Let the /. pyramid marketing scheme work for you! :)

Wow by Capt'n+Hector · 2006-01-02 11:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

Cool design. Looks like a tribute to the twin-lense reflex era. Check out this Kodak TLR camera from 1957:

Kodak57b.jpg

--
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?

Re:Wow by bhima · 2006-01-02 11:38 · Score: 0, Offtopic

I do believe these technologies are completely unrelated...

However I understand that Leica has a digital rangefinder soon to be released, which possibly will worthy of our praise. Unfortunatly their current digital twin reflex is little more than an child's toy.

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 11:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"Looks like a tribute to the twin-lense reflex era."

Er, uhm, no. The second lens in a twin lens reflex is for the viewfinder, not to provide a second, different lens for the film as is the cae with the new Kodak camera.
Re:Wow by McTaggart · 2006-01-02 15:52 · Score: 1

Epson has tried the digita; rangefinder idea before with the R-D1. Evidently it didn't do too well, but there wasn't much hype about it.
Re:Wow by MotorMachineMercenar · 2006-01-02 21:59 · Score: 1

"Er, uhm, no. The second lens in a twin lens reflex is for the viewfinder, not to provide a second, different lens for the film as is the cae with the new Kodak camera."

That's why the grandparent called it a "tribute," not a remake.

--
"We have an A-Bomb...what more do you want, mermaids?" --I.I. Rabi, speaking in defense of Robert Oppenheimer

Too perfect... by davecrusoe · 2006-01-02 11:32 · Score: 1, Insightful

Too perfect. Distortion correction? Stitching? So not only does the picture lack the qualities of film (such as grain) - now it even corrects my creativity! Pah, film is so much more fun. Digital? The digital race: well, how normal can we get?

Re:Too perfect... by temojen · 2006-01-02 12:05 · Score: 1

My camera corrects distortion by having good enough optics to not have significant distortion in the first place.
Re:Too perfect... by Eccles · 2006-01-02 12:35 · Score: 1

It's ok, I'm sure you can add grain effects with Photoshop!

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Almost right by Jay+Maynard · 2006-01-02 11:34 · Score: 2, Informative

The camera looks nice. and that they went to Schneider Kreuznach for their optics is a major plus. Unfortunately, the total lack of an optical viewfinder is a major drawback. The problem with LCD-only viewfinders is that they're useless for trying to take a picture in an area dark enough that you need the flash to make the picture: even though the picture will work, you can't see to compose it.

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!

Re:Almost right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 12:02 · Score: 0

That's only insightful if you've never used a Sony digital camera. Optical finders are better in bright sunshine, in fact. Why does Kodak need a Schneider lens badge? It's just another gimmick, it means nothing.
Re:Almost right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 12:09 · Score: 0

Not to mention that from what I've seen (which, granted, hasn't been for bit) they are pretty low-res and -- and this is a KILLER drawback -- lag horribly.

(This is based off of what I've seen in camcorders and one of the last-generation Sony Cybershot flagship products (close to $1K at purchase price).)
Re:Almost right by Stone316 · 2006-01-02 12:16 · Score: 1

True but I have taken about 8000 pictures with my digital camera over the past few years and I have rarely used the viewfinder. For me it wouldn't be a con.

--
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Re:Almost right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 12:23 · Score: 0

Bullshit.
Schneider Kreuznach, Carl Zeiss and Leica are just name on shitty cameras from Kodak, Sony and Panasonic. It's just not like the real thing (and don't cost the same).

Ah, and kodak cameras are always the most crappys when we talk things like micro contrast, lens sharpness. (and too much overprocessing to make the photos look like a Disney anime)

Kodak never did any great cameras. When they are not doing some cheapy, even with big money they manage to make their cameras so fucked up no one wants it. See the Kodak DCS SLR/c, professionnal price, but not professionnal quality at all. And they are so bad in making cameras they bought the body from sigma (Sigma, an hobbyist camera maker) and just throwed a noisy sensor into it. And they call it "professionnal" grade camera.

Oh, and i remember back in the days where they tried to fuck the customers with non standard format like the 620.
Or selling a too much highly priced format (in regards to its bad quality) the APS.

I hate Kodak. They are the most over-hyped camera makers of the world. They make shit and the customers kiss them in the ass. When i see such things, i understand greatly why Contax is dead and Leica will go six feet under too.
Re:Almost right by MSBob · 2006-01-02 13:00 · Score: 1

and that they went to Schneider Kreuznach for their optics is a major plus.
Trust me it isn't. S-K lens is mediocre at best. Way below even the cheapest junk that canon or nikon make.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Re:Almost right by cetan · 2006-01-02 13:34 · Score: 1

You need to buy a better digital camera. I have no problems in low light with framing the LCD. Cameras that don't gain-up their LCDs should be avoided.

--
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Re:Almost right by Jay+Maynard · 2006-01-02 14:33 · Score: 1

I use the optical finder in my Canon S410 exclusively, even in the darkest rooms. I quit trying to use the LCD screen on digicams way back with a Minolta Dimage V, which was what convinced me that LCD "viewfinders" were worthless in low light.

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:Almost right by Jay+Maynard · 2006-01-02 14:35 · Score: 1

I have two digicams I use regularly these days: a Canon S410 and an Olympus E-10. Both work better in low light with the optical viewfinder than the LCD.

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:Almost right by Jay+Maynard · 2006-01-02 14:42 · Score: 1

Leica will go under not because there are folks that make crap, but because the stuff they make is hideously expensive. Note that I didn't say overpriced, just hideously expensive. Priced an M6 lately? Or an R8? Yeah, their stuff is generally good, but it's an order of magnitude more expensive than the market will bear.

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:Almost right by Viceice · 2006-01-02 16:53 · Score: 1

you have to realise that in this camera, an optical viewfinder is more engineering trouble then it's worth. As it is, in a conventional point and shoot camera the view finder and the lens connected to the CCD are 2 different sets of optics. The view thru the viewfinder is only an approximation of what the CCD actually sees, where as the LCD picture is WYSIWYG.

Now, it's hard enough to get the 2 sets of optics to sync so that you don't take a picture with someone's head cropped off, I'm sure you can see how much harder it'll be to get the viewfinder's optics to sync with 2 different sets of lenses. Even on the digital side, the engineers at Kodak decided to use 2 CCDs instead of creating an assembly for a single CCD to switch between the 2 lenses.

And yes, viewfinders are useful, but only on SLRs like your E-10. But then, on a proper dSLR, you can only use the viewfinder anyway.b

--
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
Re:Almost right by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2006-01-02 18:31 · Score: 1

Major drawback is not the right word. Not for this camera's target market.
Re:Almost right by san · 2006-01-02 19:09 · Score: 1

WTF are you talking about? Scheider lenses are in the same category (or better) as Zeiss: they've been making lenses for Rollei since forever (the one in my early 60's Rolleicord makes it easily beat any digital camera that costs less than a car --- in all aspects of image quality). They also make some of the best large format lenses that money can buy; look here for a modern normal lens.

Why do you think they can get away with charging $2500 for a normal lens (about 50mm equivalent for 35mm photography) that the buyer needs mount onto a lensboard himself?

These lenses make Canon's and Nikon's offerings (with maybe a few exceptions, like Canon's 200/1.8) look like the cheap, mass produced crap they are. Which, BTW, is fine because I also want to be able to actually buy a few lenses.
Re:Almost right by lurker412 · 2006-01-02 19:32 · Score: 1

My experience with a Canon A75 P&S is just the opposite. The LCD is nearly useless in very bright light, especially when the source is behind you--which is typically where you want it. In the dark, the LCD does just fine for getting the composition right.
Re:Almost right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 22:09 · Score: 0

Try a Sony. They work IN THE DARK.
Re:Almost right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 22:28 · Score: 0

The E-10 is a DSLR, not really a 'digicam'.
Re:Almost right by Jay+Maynard · 2006-01-03 00:37 · Score: 1

Not gonna do it. I don't like Sony's propensity toward using proprietary, single-source storage media.

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:Almost right by Jay+Maynard · 2006-01-03 00:39 · Score: 1

It's a digital camera, isn't it?

In any event, that it's an SLR is exactly why I bought it. SLRs have lots and lots of advantages, and being able to see what you're doing in any light the camera will make a picture in is just one of them.

The only reason I got the S410 is that the E-10 won't fit in my briefcase.

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:Almost right by Jay+Maynard · 2006-01-03 00:41 · Score: 1

Okkay...so just what illuminates the scene so there will be an image on the LCD in the first place? If you need flash to take the picture, then you'll need that kind of light to see what you're doing, too - or if not that, you'll need at least some supplemental light. BTDT.

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
Re:Almost right by TRS80NT · 2006-01-03 00:58 · Score: 1

You're right about the low-light uselessness of an LCD viewfinder. As other responses have noted, they also tend to fade to uselessness in bright situations. I also find that with my current glasses prescription they are useless for manual focusing or even framing.
The only time I use mine is when I have to have the camera in some awkward high or low position in order to get the shot I want.

--
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Re:Almost right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-03 03:48 · Score: 0

For some strange reason "digicam" now is supposed to mean "point and shoot digital camera." I don't understand it either, and I refuse to use "digicam" because of it.
Re:Almost right by theJML · 2006-01-03 06:29 · Score: 1

If this is really a huge issue for you (and I can see where you're coming from) then just get a Digital SLR. One viewfinder, perfect shot everytime. And you can have any lens you want (or can afford) and swap it out. And you'll get better quality shots out of it... Sure it may cost a little more, but buy it once, buy it right, or don't buy it at all.

--
-=JML=-
Re:Almost right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-03 08:05 · Score: 0

With the digital crap generation i think there is less and less people interested in using a high grade camera. It's just a trend.
Leica survived a century, why they are dying *NOW* ?
Re:Almost right by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-03 08:13 · Score: 0

"(the one in my early 60's Rolleicord makes it easily beat any digital camera that costs less than a car --- in all aspects of image quality)"

BULLSHIT.

I'm ok if you are saying a Rolleiflex beats the ass of the digital era, but there is NO WAY a rolleicord could do such a thing.
Rolleicord are crappy cameras, they got some attention because of the name Rollei, that's all. That's not a true Rollei state-of-the-art camera.
More on the digital versus argentic film here :
http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/clumps.shtml

A good medium format or large format can beat consumer DSLR, OK. No way a rolleicord can do this. No way can do any 24*36 SLR that don't cost a car also.
The cheapest way to get the best quality available for the consumer is to use an old large format camera. A 1500 $ large format camera can beat a 15 000 $ Hasselblad ensemble or a costly digital back.

Oh and i think when he's saying Schneider Kreuznach sucks he means just the ones in Kodak. Because that's not a true Schneider, just like Zeiss in Sony cameras are just label, not true Zeiss optic, neither is the Leica in Panasonic.
Re:Almost right by Jay+Maynard · 2006-01-03 11:20 · Score: 1

I probably will get an interchangeable lens DSLR at some point. The E-10 is great, and I'll never sell it (sentimental reasons: I bought it at B&H Photo on the first day they were open after 9/11), but it only gets out to 35mm equivalent (I don't have the wide angle converter, and that's only good for 28mm anyway).

I think Olympus has missed the boat with the 4/3 system - nobody else is building hardware for it, despite their early plans - so I'll have to switch systems. (Olympus is on record as not planning to build a digital SLR with an OM-series mount, which means my extensive OM system is obsolete for that purpose.) I haven't decided whether to go with Canon or Nikon; Canon's lens selection will be more versatile, due to their shorter back focus distance, but my father has a fair amount of Nikon gear. In either case, though, I'll have to spend big bucks for a body with a 24x36 sensor, or else spend big bucks on a real wide (the 12-14mm lenses that do it for the small-sensor DSLRs ain't cheap either).

--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!

5x optical zoom? by zebadee · 2006-01-02 11:36 · Score: 1

Now I know the dual lens part is the newsworthy component here, but I also though it would be neat having a consealed 5x optical zoom as described in the post. Unfortunately it seems it only has the compact digital camera industry standard of 3x.

10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by Futurepower(R) · 2006-01-02 11:38 · Score: 0

We've found that a minimum of 10x optical zoom is nice. Photos are much nicer when the subject fills the frame.

There needs to be an external flash for many photos, and that requires an external flash connector. It's much better to bounce the flash off the ceiling than to aim it directly at the subject.

Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by vapspwi · 2006-01-02 12:25 · Score: 1

>>We've found that a minimum of 10x optical zoom is nice. Photos are much nicer when the subject fills the frame.

It's very difficult to find a 10x optical zoom in a compact digital camera (the sort that's suitable for carrying around in a pocket or around your wrist). Yeah, it's nice to have as much optical zoom as you can get, but above 3x or so, you start trading off the overall size of the camera with the amount of zoom you're getting.

I've been rather impressed with the performance of my Canon S70, which has a 28-100mm range (the wide end, while subject to a bit of distortion, has been VERY nice for scenery shots and getting photos of buildings and things without having to cross the street) and a 3.6x optical zoom in a relatively compact package.

JRjr
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by Anne+Honime · 2006-01-02 12:49 · Score: 1

10x zooms are crap (all of them). You can't expect to have a sharp picture with this. Never forget the 2 rules of photography : if the picture is bad, you were not close enough (Capa) and everything farther than 500 yards from the car just isn't photognic (weston).
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by WalksOnDirt · 2006-01-02 12:54 · Score: 1

I like mine too.

I'm really disappointed that RAW support was dropped for the S80, which is otherwise a nice improvement. Not that I'm in the market for a new one yet.

--
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by dangitman · 2006-01-02 13:23 · Score: 1

We've found that a minimum of 10x optical zoom is nice.
10x zooms are horribly ineffecient. They aren't good at gathering light, so the camera has to increase gain and noise. They also distort badly, in different ways over the range of the zoom.
What would be better would be compact cameras with interchangeable lenses. Like the Leica rangefinders. But that's expensive and impractical for most users - leave that to Leica.
There needs to be an external flash for many photos, and that requires an external flash connector. It's much better to bounce the flash off the ceiling than to aim it directly at the subject.
At this point, why not just get a real SLR camera, rather than trying to turn a point&shoot camera into a fully featured camera? Most of these compact cameras are ripoffs. You will get much better value out of an entry-level Nikon SLR that is built to last for years, and can take any kind of lens or attachment.
Why fuss trying to get good results out of a point&shoot. I reckon they should make "mini-SLRs" instead. With the tiny size of modern sensors, a Pro SLR could be made very small, yet still be comfortable to use.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by cetan · 2006-01-02 13:39 · Score: 1

You have no idea what you are talking about. The Panasonic F20 has a 12x constant f/2.8 image stabalized lens. If you actually spent time using this camera, you'd know how powerful that is.

It's not the camera for everyone, no one camera is, but it's a good solution with a good feature set.

--
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 13:46 · Score: 0

10x zooms are horribly ineffecient. They aren't good at gathering light,

I donno, mine's pretty decent at f3.5, constant-aperture. Of course the drawback is that it weighs 3.5lbs.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by dangitman · 2006-01-02 13:58 · Score: 1

You have no idea what you are talking about.
Yes. I do. There are a few exceptions. But on the whole, most long-range zooms suck unless you pay the big bucks. I'll wager that even though you have constant aperture, you probably get quite a range of distortion, too. Most people don't notice this. Zooms are inherntly complex optics which are less efficient than an equivalent prime lens. I prefer to use prime lenses, because they have so much less distortion.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by dangitman · 2006-01-02 14:04 · Score: 1

I donno, mine's pretty decent at f3.5, constant-aperture. Of course the drawback is that it weighs 3.5lbs.
You are just demonstrating my point. A similarly designed prime lens would have a wider aperture, like 2.8 or 1.4. There's no way around the fact that adding glass and complexity reduces efficiency.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by dangitman · 2006-01-02 14:08 · Score: 1

P.S:
As I mentioned to the other poster, if your lens was designed the same way with the same materials and process - but it was not a zoom lens - it would have an even wider aperture. An equivalent prime lens would be more like f2.0 or f1.4.
I don't like sacrificing light gathering. It is essential under low light. f2.8 is not impressive to me - as I am used to working with f0.9 to f2.0 lenses. How do you ignore the rules of physics and say that a zoom lens is more efficient than an equivalent prime lens?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by joshv · 2006-01-02 15:18 · Score: 1

A 10x optical zoom on a consumer grade camera will be crap in anything but bright daylight. You need very high shutter speed to get a clear picture at that zoom level.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 15:48 · Score: 0

You're used to working with f/0.9 lenses? What lenses are those, and what SLR do they fit? Genuinely interested, thought the fastest production lens was Canon's f/0.95 'dream' lens of the '60s.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by cetan · 2006-01-02 15:58 · Score: 1

Yet again you talk with zero experience with modern zoom lenses. Sad, but not uncommon.

--
In Soviet Russia...michael would be rotting in Siberia!
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by roadrunnerro · 2006-01-02 16:10 · Score: 1

I think that quote doesn't apply at the zoo... IIRC the author of the quote was a war photographer that died following this credo.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 17:20 · Score: 0

And those were used only on the Pellix, whose pellicle mirror cut out a stop of light.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by dingDaShan · 2006-01-03 02:44 · Score: 1

Yes, a 10x optical zoom is nice, but it is not necessary. As a professional photog, I can say that there is more than 1 way to zoom. Simply moving towards an object is a way to zoom in, although the flexibility of being able to zoom in and crop with the camera takes precedent. Kodak's camera is not revolutionary, and is in fact another in a long line of average cameras. A DSLR is much more suitable to the purposes that Kodak is aiming for. I have a Nikon D70, and it has a point and shoot mode. Coupled with interchangeable lenses that allow one to have a low enough aperture to zoom in far without having too much camera shake, and it a killer combination. One of the problems of a 10x optical zoom on a point and shoot is that in order to zoom in that far, the camera must up the aperture so high that the shutter speed must be really low. With the target not in range of the flash, the picture will be underexposed or blurry.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by dangitman · 2006-01-03 10:04 · Score: 1

What the fuck are you talking about? Instead of trying to attack me - why not give me factual reasoning.
Are you saying there's no distortion in modern zoom lenses? I've used them all the time. It just seems your standards aren't high enough to notice. No zoom lens is free of distortion. When you do high-resolution panorama stitching like I do, lens geometry is essential. You get to notice this stuff when most people just overlook it.
Are you saying that modern zoom lenses defy the laws of physics? How could they let as much light in as a similarly designed prime lens?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:10x optical zoom. External flash connector. by dangitman · 2006-01-04 20:11 · Score: 1

Live beautifully with the super fast fantastic lens.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.

For the rest of us get Autostitch by hotspotbloc · 2006-01-02 11:40 · Score: 5, Informative

Autostitch is a free (as in beer) app that will stitch together multiple photos with no human intervention. Pretty nice stuff.

Autostitch home page:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca.nyud.net:8090/~mbrown/autosti tch/autostitch.html

Download via Coral cache:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca.nyud.net:8090/~mbrown/autosti tch/autostitch.zip

Autostitched photos on Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/autostitch/

BTW, it's a MS Windows app but works great under wine.

--
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST

Re:For the rest of us get Autostitch by SheeEttin · 2006-01-02 12:39 · Score: 0

it's a MS Windows app but works great under wine

The only time you should be using Windows is when intoxicated with something such as wine.

Why new D-SLR announcements by yorkpaddy · 2006-01-02 11:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why doesn't slashdot post announcements on D-SLRs. The D200, D50, and Canon 5D have come out in the past year and not a single annoncement. I want to hear what slashdot users have to say about these cameras, not cutesy point and shoot cameras. Once you use a digital SLR you will never want to use a point and shoot again. There is no delay between pressing the button and the shutter firing. The manual control is nice as is changing lenses, but the zero delay is the best part of these cameras.

--
"brxref .k.p ,.by xprt. gbe.p.oycmaycbi yd. cby.nci.bj. ru yd. am.pcjab lgxlcj" don'

Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by Rebelgecko · 2006-01-02 11:54 · Score: 1

They won't post announcements for them because Canon isn't willing to pay them enough.

--
CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by retrosurf · 2006-01-02 11:56 · Score: 1

I am your counterexample. I own a DSLR, to complement my two
35 mm analog SLR camera bodies and their small herd of lenses,
and I love and frequently carry my digital camera with integrated
zoom lens.

And there is a significant delay between shutter button press
and exposure on SLRs. The camera has to flip the mirror up so
that the film plane can be exposed. That the "flap, snick, flap"
is the sound of delay. If you want a camera with zero delay, you need
an TLR or a rangefinder, not an SLR. The shutter goes "ping".

"Point and shoot" is not the same thing as
a small, lightweight camera with a variable focal length lens
and autofocus functions. You can't beat them for price performance
or weight performance. This Kodak camera looks good.
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 12:40 · Score: 0

I hate when ignorants are speaking of things they will never understand.
First, "35mm ANALOG" is terribly wrong. Your olds cameras are argentic grain film, not analog. In fact, the sensors from digital cameras are analog, just that the signal goes digital.

Secondly, you are saying you carry a digital camera with INTEGRATED zoom lens and after you say you dislike SLR because of it's little delay (mirror-shutter-mirror)?
There is less delay in a SLR or DSLR than in a Bridge digital camera. (that may not be true with the next generation of bridge cameras with APS sized sensors)
Then, you are mentionning the TLR ? Hahahaha ! you are joking. You can't care of the shutter/mirror delay if you use a TLR, because focusing is a pain in the ass and the image in the viewfinder is reversed. How the hell a guy that's going to get trouble with this shit is going to care about the mirror SLR delay.
However, the Rangefinders are good cameras. But it's not the same price. Leica M cost more than Leica R.

Finally, bridge cameras just sucks. They got really too much digital noise, a 200$ film SLR makes better photo than a 700$ bridge camera. True DSLR are the best, however.
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by WeblionX · 2006-01-02 13:12 · Score: 1

Ah, I see you have the machine that goes "Ping!"

--
(\(\ (=_=) Bani! (")")
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by timeOday · 2006-01-02 13:37 · Score: 2, Informative

I think this camera is on slashdot because it's more innovative than those you mention... which is not to say "better."
DSLRs are not necessarily any faster than point-and-shoot cameras. Canon uses the same chip (digic-II) in most of its newer cameras, SLR or not.
The only good reason to get an SLR is if you'll be changing between lenses. Interchangability adds expense which goes to waste if you don't use it. If it's the 35mm sensor you're after, you can go for the Sony DSC-R1 which is the most camera+lens you can get for $1k.
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by dada21 · 2006-01-02 14:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I bought a $1000 gift card for $500 a few days ago. Tried to find some advice on a DSLR from a geek, no one had a worthy article!

Bought a D50, and am blown away with it. Far better than any digicam I've had, and half what I was willing to pay.

Highly recommended.
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by Armando_Mcgillicutty · 2006-01-02 14:26 · Score: 1

You call the time it takes the SLR's mirror to flip a "significant" delay? How fast does it have to be before it's not significant?
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 14:30 · Score: 1, Insightful

the SLR's are great, but they are way too big to carry for me. I travel for 3 months to 3 years at a time and as much as I would like one, I have enough gear for hiking in all sorts of conditions. One day, when I'm old and can't get around, I may get a SLR.
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by Skippy_kangaroo · 2006-01-02 14:36 · Score: 2, Informative

You are kidding right?

Have you actually used a Cannon point and shoot camera? They have high shutter lag even with their new Digic-II processors. DSLRs are invariably faster than PS cameras. Sure, Cannon used to be woefully slow and now are merely painfully slow, but they remain slower than DSLRs.

Bully for you if you think you are getting the DSLR quality in Cannon PS cameras and the only difference is interchangeable lenses. The rest of the reality-based world will think otherwise though.
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by joshv · 2006-01-02 15:13 · Score: 1

My Canon 20D goes from off, to taking a picture in about a quarter of a second. If I leave the thing on in 'sleep' mode, it will take a picture as fast as I can hit the shutter button. There is no perceptible lag. Camera speed is indeed one of the primary reasons to get a DSLR.
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by rts008 · 2006-01-02 15:45 · Score: 0

LOL! Perfect timing, so appropriate too!

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by tverbeek · 2006-01-02 16:33 · Score: 1

For Solstice I bought myself a new digital camera, and as an old 35mm SLR user who chafes at the lags and limitations of the point-and-shoot I've been using for digital stuff, I was tempted by digital SLRs. But the size and especially the cost ruled them out. I compromised with the Olympus SP-500UZ, a high-end p-and-s camera with enough manual overrides and a strong enough optical* zoom (10x) to satisfy me. It's still not as responsive and easy to control as my trusty Pentax ME super, nor as pocketable as the auto-everything digital it's replacing, but it'll do.
But one feature I still miss with it is the one this Kodak tries to remedy: real wide angle. I have a 24mm film SLR lens which I consider a standard wide-angle lens, and this 38mm-equivalent on my new digital is a bit cramped. I would have preferred a shorter zoom with the same 10x range (such as 25-250mm equivalent), particularly since the far end of 380mm-equivalent on the SP-500UZ is a bit long for hand-holding anyway. Instead it has an auto-stitching "panorama" feature, but I think I'll stick to Photoshop for that trick.
*If I ran the world, manufacturers wouldn't be allowed to call it "digital zoom"; they'd have to call it "automatic in-camera cropping", and only list optical zoom ratios on the box.

--
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by retrosurf · 2006-01-02 18:34 · Score: 1

The commenter to which I replied said "no delay". 50 or 60
milliseconds of mirror slap is "significantly" more than
"no delay".

I opine that 5 milliseconds is "not significant"
for most photographers. That would be the machine that
goes "ping" :-)
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · 2006-01-02 18:35 · Score: 1

An SLR with a big collection of lenses is nice, but you can't keep it in your bag all the time.
Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by Armando_Mcgillicutty · 2006-01-03 03:32 · Score: 1

Well I would opine that 50 milliseconds for any practical purposes might as well be zero delay, therefore it isn't significant to me or pretty much every other photographer except apparently you.

how do they do that? by HankB · 2006-01-02 11:46 · Score: 1

I have a Nikon CP 5000 that starts out at 28mm (35mm equivalent) and has an adapter that takes it to 19mm. And it's a huge piece of glass, about 3 inches across. That seems to be true of a lot of wide angle lenses. And that's optics. Based on the aparent size of their lens, the sensor must be incredibly small.

Re:how do they do that? by ForestGrump · 2006-01-02 12:14 · Score: 1

How? Simple. Really small sensor.

--
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.

Image Stabilization is a MUST by MBCook · 2006-01-02 11:50 · Score: 3, Informative

At this point, I think you are nuts to buy any camera (except perhaps a DSLR) that does not include Image Stabilization technology. My camera (a Canon Powershot S2 IS) has it and it makes a WORLD of difference in low light and when zoomed in. It help in normal situations too. Sony just released one of their ultra-tiny cameras with it (the first folded lens camera to have it, the DSC-T9), and many other cameras on the market have it.

My mother has a digital camera and she is constantly dissapointed by it. It is a nice camera, but like all digitials it seems to need more light to get a decent picture than a film camera with ISO 400 in it (boot the ISO to that on the camera, it still needs more light and the noise is horrendus). Having IS would be a HUGE help for that reason, and others (light camera + slightly shakey hands = blurry pictures). About the only time she gets good pictures out of it is in full sun (she could other times too with some learning and trial and error, but I don't blame her for not wanting to spend the time).

If the camera doesn't have Image Stabilization, skip it. Go to a store and try a camera with it on and off. The difference is amazing. You can see more about it if you read a review of the S2 IS or other cameras that have it.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.

Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by feijai · 2006-01-02 12:12 · Score: 1

At this point, I think you are nuts to buy any camera (except perhaps a DSLR) that does not include Image Stabilization technology.
Then you'll be happy to hear that the v570 does.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by speculatrix · 2006-01-02 12:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

many people have never read a book on how to use a camera - which usually explain how to stand, how to breath, or even how to hold a camera. Simple tricks such as leaning against a wall or fence, using a bean bag (or an item of clothing) to rest it on are very easy!
the best thing I bought in the last year was a monopod - cheaper than a tripod, and because it's much more portable than a 3pod, I tend to use it far more, and it really helps when recording video (so much so that people comment on it).
finally, in an attempt at humour, people with parkinsons really ought to stick to 35mm film cameras with fast lenses and short shutter speeds!
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by temojen · 2006-01-02 12:16 · Score: 1

Or just get one with a stop or two faster lens (smaller F number).
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by temojen · 2006-01-02 12:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Everyone should use cameras with fast lenses and fast shutters. It makes much nicer pictures. It irks me when I go to a camera shop and they describe the f3.5-4.5 kit zoom as a fast lens! argh! 1.4 is fast. 2.8 is fast for a 200mm lens. 3.5 is slow!

People look at me funny when I use my TLR on a monopod.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 12:32 · Score: 0

Yes, but it is listed under the video features.
Nothing about being able to enable image stabilization while in still mode.
I think that is what the gp was talking about.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by FRiC · 2006-01-02 12:44 · Score: 1

"Digital image stabilization" is not the same thing as the optical image stabilition on the Canon S2 IS or other manufacturer equivalents (Nikon VR, Panasonic OIS). It's just automatically increasing the sensitivity (ISO) when the camera thinks the scene is too dark.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by MBCook · 2006-01-02 13:43 · Score: 1

Either that, or it is like a video camera, where it chops off the edges of the shot and moves the frames so that things look smoother. The catch is you lose image quality because stuff gets cropped off. It doesn't work with still frames.
Optical image stabilization (having some sort of motor or whatever attached a lens element/mirror/sensor to compensate for physical motion) is what matters. It is too bad marketing people get to make all these dumb claims that just confuse people.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by Tim · 2006-01-02 14:17 · Score: 1

...or instead, you could skip the gimmicks, and just buy a camera with a decent lens.

Something that opens up to f2.8, for starters. There are actually plenty non-SLR digitals out there that have decent lenses -- they just don't tend to be the pocket-sized pieces of wunderplastik that look like credit cards.

The irony of image stabilization, is that on most consumer-grade equipment (even in the SLR world) it makes a shitty lens into an average lens at a cost that would have bought you a good lens. But camera companies learned long ago that features are more important than function....

--
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by joshv · 2006-01-02 15:05 · Score: 1

Or you get a camera with a usable 1600 ISO, and lenses that let in more light than can fit through a pinhole, and you are able to take pictures with reasonable shutter speeds in very low light. I'll pit my Canon 20D with a 50mm f/1.8 against any crappy consumer grade image stabilized camera any day.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by mplex · 2006-01-02 15:13 · Score: 1

With most SLRs these days, you can just bump up the ISO and still get good pictures. Besides, fast lenses are heavy.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by bogie · 2006-01-02 15:35 · Score: 1

Much of an equipment snob? You'll pit your 8MP DSLR against a sub $500 camera for low light capability?

What else to you want to compare? A porsche 911 Turbo against a Yugo?

We all know that DSLRs will always have cheaper digicams beat. That doesn't change the fact stabilization is a godsend for consumers and will become standard in the future. Nobody wants to carry around huge heavy expensive camera bodies.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by MBCook · 2006-01-02 16:12 · Score: 1

Why do you think I put "Except maybe a DSLR" in my post that you replied to? I know that on even a lower SLR (like a Digital Rebel, which is lower compared to a 20D) ISO 400 and 800 are very usable (and probably as clean as my 50 and 100). The only reason there was a "maybe" in there is because there are DSLRs that have Optical Image Stabilization so you get the best of both worlds.
But, did you REALLY think I was trying to say my $500 ultra-zoom camera was better than a $2000 DSLR? I would trade it in for a half-decent DSLR in a heartbeat. But for the money I had, it was a GREAT camera. And for the point and shoot crowd (which is what the Kodak camera here is aimed at), Image Stabilization is a FANTASTIC feature (which this Kodak, sadly, lacks).

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by Myself · 2006-01-02 16:46 · Score: 1

Amen! The 10x-zoom Olympus C2100UZ spoiled me on image stabilizers. I'm addicted to long zoom, and anything more than 3x is simply useless without stabilization. After the Oly's precariously placed mode knob liberated itself from the body, I got a Canon S1 IS, which lacked macro mode but served me well until the S2 came out.

Allow me to summarize my experience with the three models I know well:

The Olympus C2100UZ's CCD was cleaner, perhaps because it only boasted 2.1MP, each sensor element was larger and noise might've been less conspicuous? The huge lens's wide aperture meant short exposures in almost any light, which combined with the stabilizer to make tripods totally silly for anything but astrophotography. The images always had smooth tone, sharp edges, good contrast, and none of the grainy mess I've come to expect from the Canons. With the exception of the mode wheel, the Olympus body was solid, handsome, and simple, with thoughtful button placement and good balance. The fixed lens offers a standard 49mm thread for filters. The curious use of a second topside status LCD for certain settings was obviously just a film company showing some trepidation about the digital world. Software-wise, the interface was utilitarian and easy enough, but sluggish and lacking in creature comforts. Olympus' choice of the dead-end SmartMedia format was a giant misstep, followed by their choice of the dead-end xD format in more recent cameras.

The Canon PowerShot S1 IS is a totally different animal. With a motorized telescoping lens, it's downright petite compared to the Olympus's giant pop-can. How they wedged a stabilizer and a 10x zoom into that mechanism is anyone's guess. The aperture's a little narrower though, so the S1 frequently wants exposure times of 1/20 or 1/13 in typical room lighting, relying on the stabilizer for what should be easy shots. It's a very capable stabilizer though, and I can easily do 1/8 handheld as long as the subject's not moving. Unfortunately, there's a lot of grain and noise in the image even at these shutter speeds. Packing 3.2 MP into a small sensor makes it pretty cruddy, I guess. The interface is a dream to use, very responsive, with all the options you'd expect and very little clutter. The plastic body is less satisfying to hold, and doesn't fit the hand as well as I'd like, and some button placement is just baffling. With a CF slot that'll accomodate type-II cards and microdrives, Canon's doing some things right. The lens takes a moment to extend after power-on, and it doesn't present a standard thread for adding filters. An optional hood gives you such a thread, but negates the camera's compactness.

For the S2, Canon added Macro mode, which had been absent from the S1, and boosted the 10x optical zoom to 12x. There's actually a "supermacro" mode too, in which the camera will happily focus on a fingerprint on the lens, if you leave one for it to find. Bumping the sensor to 5 MP didn't noticeably increase the noise, but the files tend to eat storage, so get a big card. The memory card format changed from CF to SD, not my favorite but at least it's still mainstream. Recording movies really tests the limits of the card, but to find this sort of movie capability you're generally looking at DV tape, not solid-state cards. Initially I thought the addition of stereo microphones was a gimmick, but while watching some movies I recorded at the airshow, I reconsidered! One could bootleg concerts with this camera. The S2's interface deviates little from the S1, but adds voice-recorder mode, so you don't need to take a picture just to enable the mic. Startup lens-extend time has been reduced, and I think it focuses a little faster too. Overall, I've been extremely happy with the S2.

To reiterate the parent poster's plea: Go to a store and play with some stabilized cameras! With no zoom, they make very little difference, but run that sucker out to 10x and watch your shaky, bouncy, trembling hands suddenly get very steady at the push of a button. I don't even carry a tripod in the car anymore, it's simply a waste of space.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by joshv · 2006-01-02 18:41 · Score: 1

Equipment snob? Hardly, I am talking about a $75 lens (50mm f1.8 II, best value for money you can find in a Canon lens). You can slap that on a Digital Rebel XT ($800 - less without the kit lens) and get effectively the same image quality I get with my 20D - and it will simply blow away anything a digicam with IS can do. Add to that the fact that the kit lens, as crappy as it is, beats the pants off of just about any built-in lens on anything but the fanciest pro-sumer digicams (which cost about the same as a Digital Rebel).
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by speculatrix · 2006-01-02 21:23 · Score: 1

agreed about misleading description of "fast lenses". anything below f2.4 is medium, anything below f3.5 is slow
disagree about fast lenses/fast shutters. motion blur can make a sports scene more interesting - a totally sharp picture can render it bland. conversely, a shallow depth of field can also be useful.
computer animation people have invested a lot in making realistic movies: without infinite depth of field, with motion blur, with lens flare etc.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 21:56 · Score: 0

F1.4 is nice; however, it's also a royal pain to focus. But, yes, I do miss having a 1.4 lens for taking pictures in ambient room light without a flash using 200 film. However, I generally have to use B/W film--room lights make the colors look too weird.
Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by moonbender · 2006-01-02 23:44 · Score: 1

That's still 3 to 4 times as much as I'd want to spend on a camera. Plus, it's way too bulky. So, doesn't meet requirements, much too expensive - great!

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.

Re:more importantly by ZeroExistenZ · 2006-01-02 11:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

"you are" or "you're".

--
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1

Hardly surprising.. by viksit · 2006-01-02 11:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

considering that in a recent shootout of cameras which I did to buy my new one, 4 out of 5 models had the above technology. Whats more, they were 7 or 8 mega pixel cameras. My final purchase was a Powershot SD550, which offers excellent manual features and compactness.. and the Kodak mentioned in the article doesn't beat that. My question - why would you focus on one model, which doesn't offer as much as some others do, and has all its features enveloped by others in the same price range anyway?

--
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...oh, wait a minute - he already does.

Easy solution by temojen · 2006-01-02 12:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Buy Kodak film, not Kodak cameras. Kodak has always made cheap (in both senses), low-quality consumer oriented cameras, good consumer film, and great professional film.

If you want a good camera, get a Canon, Olympus, or Nikon, never Kodak, Sony, or HP.

Re:Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 12:49 · Score: 0

If you want a good camera, get a Canon, Olympus, or Nikon, never Kodak, Sony, or HP.

The same is also true for other imaging devices, namely scanners and color printers. You can throw Epson into the 'good' bunch, too. Basically, if a company has a history dealing with cameras and imaging devices, they know what they're doing.
Re:Easy solution by Stevyn · 2006-01-02 13:08 · Score: 1

You're totally correct. Kodak makes film, chemicals, photo paper, and professional printers (the ones that use light sensitive paper and chemicals and cost tens of thousands of dollars). What they don't do well is make consumer products. I had a kodak digital camera and it was a piece of shit. I bought it because it was cheap so I was half expecting it to break, but even their expensive cameras aren't that good.

If I were to buy a digital camera and I wanted quality, I'd look to buy from companies that have been doing this for a while like canon, minolta and nikon. I'd stay away from hp, epson and kodak.
Re:Easy solution by temojen · 2006-01-02 13:11 · Score: 1

Kodak does have a history of making cameras though. cheap, easy to use cameras. They are very good at what they do, which is selling film and cheap cameras, not making good cameras.
Re:Easy solution by dangitman · 2006-01-02 13:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

I totally agree.
Does anyone buy Sony Cybershot cameras for anything other than the "cyber" name and the "kewl" streamilined shape? I guess the Sony brand is important there too.
I tried using one of their "space age" looking cameras, and the space age look totally detracted from usability. It made no sense. It was almost impossible to hold the camera in a normal human way. It made the camera shake badly and it was unusable for handheld telephoto shots.
How do products like these even make it to market?

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:Easy solution by temojen · 2006-01-02 13:25 · Score: 1
Kodak has made cameras since the 1880's, so it's not about time in market. Kodak has always put cost and ease of use ahead of quality. From the
- box camera (cheap and easy compared to a monorail view) to the
- Brownie (cheap and easy compared to a press camera) to the
- Instamatic (cheap and easy compared to a TLR or rangefinder), to
- disk (cheap and easy compared to 35mm SLR), to
- P&S digital (cheap and easy compared to dSLR),
Kodak has always made low-cost mass-market cameras of low quality. That is their business decision, and it works well for them. I choose higher quality cameras from manufacturers who market to professionals as well as home users, but I still use Kodak Portra and High Definition film as it's very good. I like cameras that focus, not relying on a small aperature and/or short lens.
Re:Easy solution by jpatters · 2006-01-02 13:36 · Score: 1

I would add Sigma to the good list. Their current 3.4 MPixel SD10 is getting a little long in the tooth, but it is as good as any 6 to 8 MPixel Bayer sensor camera due to the Foveon sensor that they use. Very solid camera, as well.

--
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Re:Easy solution by TubeSteak · 2006-01-02 15:59 · Score: 1

Kodak made the DC120, which (I think) was the first megapixel camera under $1,000.

They couldn't build them fast enough, that's how quickly they were being sold.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Easy solution by x0 · 2006-01-03 04:58 · Score: 1

Kodak has always made cheap (in both senses), low-quality consumer oriented cameras
This is completely untrue. Kodak made some of the first production digital SLRs back in the early '90's, like the EOS DCS-1 (based on the Canon EOS-1) up to the recently discontinued Pro SLR/[n|c] models of last year. Until the release of the SLR 14n, most of the Kodak SLR digitals were $10K to $15K.
They heyday for Kodak digital was likely the DCS-760 (based on the Nikon F5), with the DCS Pro 14n and latter models not being as well received. Fill Factory made the sensors for the 14 series SLRs and Kodak had many issues with color fringing and CA. The SLR/n and /c were a bit better, but the Canon 1Ds and 1Ds Mark II were vastly superior...)

--
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Re:Easy solution by renoX · 2006-01-03 09:11 · Score: 1

> Does anyone buy Sony Cybershot cameras for anything other than the "cyber" name and the "kewl" streamilined shape? I guess the Sony brand is important there too.

I have one, I wanted an Ixus and got a cybershot as a gift instead probably because of the higher resolution (7Mi pixel instead of 5Mi) and probably because of the brand.
I don't have a problem with the usability but I find it not very good in low light condition (fuzzy images) :-( now I'm perhaps not fair because I was used to 35mm cameras before..
But my stepsister has an Ixus 50, I've used it only a little but it seems to work better in low light condition, not as good as 35mm of course, but better than the cybershot..
Re:Easy solution by temojen · 2006-01-04 07:54 · Score: 1

Kodak has always made cheap (in both senses), low-quality consumer oriented cameras
This is completely untrue.

I did not state Kodak has always made only cheap, low-quality consumer oriented cameras. Their breif experiment with marketing dSLRs was an exception to their usual practice, and there was little kodak in the dSLRs besides the label (body design, lens mount and firmware by Canon, Lenses by Sigma, sensors by someone else, logic by someone else, probably assembled in taiwan).

nicely designed casing too by ilmdba · 2006-01-02 12:18 · Score: 1

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NPICS1/kodak_v570_ 34.jpg

looks like something you'd find laying around a star destroyer or something.

(or an imperial ice cream sandwich!)

Re:nicely designed casing too by MSBob · 2006-01-02 12:47 · Score: 4, Funny

Rather like something that was very cool circa 1986. This looks like the designer was hibernated for 20 years and they just thawed him to design this camera.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.

Ultra Wide? by MartinB · 2006-01-02 12:18 · Score: 2, Informative

23mm? Ultra Wide? Not even close. Call me when you get below 15mm. My 18mm is just about wide enough for normal use as a wide-angle (albeit on a Canon D10, which has the usual DSLR 'small CCD' problem, so lenses get a wee telephoto boost, so it's about the same as a 23mm lens with on a film body)

--

The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's

Re:Ultra Wide? by Colgate2003 · 2006-01-02 12:46 · Score: 1

An 18mm lens on a 10D gives a view equivalent to 28.8mm on a 35mm camera. That is a HUGE difference from 23mm. A 23 mm lens gives about a 76 degree angle of view, while a 28.8mm lens gives 64 degrees

Oh, and 15mm on a 35mm camera is just about the limit for wide angle with a Canon lens. There is an incredibly expensive 14mm lens available, and everything else is a fish-eye. The lens on this camera is "23mm equivalent," not 23mm. It is actually a much shorter focal length on the small sensor in the camera. this is impressive. I can't think of any film point-and-shoots that had a 23mm lens!

While not 20mm ultrawide, this is definitely ultrawide for most users.
Re:Ultra Wide? by Hast · 2006-01-02 12:59 · Score: 1

As someone who has a 10-22mm (about 16-35 35mm equiv) for a 20D I can say that while 23mm certainly is wide, it ain't no ultrawide. I wonder how they solve the flash with a wide lens though. The build in flash on a 20D can't handle that wide. And you really need a separate flash to get good quality.

For those who own a dSLR I recommend getting an ultrawide lens (there are good third party ones too). It is seriously the most fun I've had with a camera! The pictures just tend to give you a lot more "oomph".
Re:Ultra Wide? by radish · 2006-01-02 13:08 · Score: 1

I also have the 10-22 and even the 550EX has trouble lighting the scene at the edges. With real wideangles you need either natural light or several sources. But get a real flash - the built in is really just there for emergencies not regular use. It has saved me on a couple of occasions though!

--
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Re:Ultra Wide? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 19:19 · Score: 0

Sigma makes a 12-24mm Canon mount lens. It certainly isn't the sharpest lens, but is amazingly distortion-free for the $600 or so it costs. It is also the ONLY 12mm lens you can get in a 35mm autofocus mount.

Not only does it make a great wide-angle on a 10D or 20D (like 19mm on a full-frame camera), it makes an INCREDIBLE wide-angle on a 5D or 1Ds. That's right -- it's a full-frame rectilinear 12mm zoom lens.

dom

Figures... by Monad+is+Missing · 2006-01-02 12:19 · Score: 1

I just bought the old model, the V550, a few days ago, as an anniversary gift for my wife, and now they come out with one that has TWO lenses. Shoot, my wife would have been so impressed...

Ok we got nice features... by krunchyfrog · 2006-01-02 12:22 · Score: 0

...but does it run Linux?

--
printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
-- myself

You know ... by A+nonymous+Coward · 2006-01-02 12:23 · Score: 1

Station wagon equivalents per fortnight.

--
Infuriate left and right

no need for Windows or Wine by r00t · 2006-01-02 12:32 · Score: 3, Informative

panotools is plain old C, and hugin is a GUI for it.

Wayne's world... by isny · 2006-01-02 12:35 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Wayne and Garth: Unnecessary zoom!!

digital SLRs can be awful by r00t · 2006-01-02 12:49 · Score: 1

Even if the digital SLR is better, it may be a far worse value. It's seldom 5 to 80 times better. which is the normal price difference.

Maybe the Slashdot editors like to go hiking. It's no fun to carry something heavy and fragile.

Maybe they like to have a camera with them much of the time, perhaps in a diaper bag. Again, it's no fun to carry something heavy and fragile.

Maybe they live in a high-theft area. Something expensive will get stolen.

Maybe they have kids with greasy fingers. (could be a nephew or little brother)

Maybe they have kittens or puppies.

Maybe they can't take good pictures in any case. Why waste money on a camera if you don't have the photography skill to make it matter?

pixel size by r00t · 2006-01-02 12:55 · Score: 1

That's your problem. You need fewer pixels, a bigger sensor chip, or both. A bigger lens wouldn't hurt.

Unfortunately, these are nerd specs. They aren't available with rugged little pocket cameras. You have two choices:

buy a big heavey expensive fragile digital SLR
go to Mars and steal a rover camera

Re:pixel size by Joe+Decker · 2006-01-02 14:29 · Score: 1

The real "heavy expensive ... digital SLR"s aren't particularly fragile. They're just expensive enough that one wants to treat them that way anyhow, but I've put my 1Ds through an amazing amount of abuse with no troubles at all.

--
I'm a nature photographer.
Re:pixel size by Explo · 2006-01-03 17:04 · Score: 1

I agree on this one. I think that most DSLRs are far more sturdy than average point'n'shoot cameras, excluding perhaps likes of Canon 300D and 350D.

--
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.

NOT an "Ultrawide Zoom" by Colgate2003 · 2006-01-02 12:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

The headline is deceiving. This camera does not have an ultrawide zoom. It has a 37-117mm equivalent zoom lens in front of one 5MP sensor with a second, 23mm equivalent prime lens in front of another 5MP sensor. There is no way to take a picture with an equivalent focal length between 23mm and 37mm (a difference of 25 degrees in angle of view).

So, this is really a fairly normal pocket camera with an "ultrawide mode" accomplished by adding an entire second imaging system to the device. That's pretty big news in itself, isn't it? Two 5MP sensors in your pocket!

Re:NOT an "Ultrawide Zoom" by dangitman · 2006-01-02 13:34 · Score: 1

If they both worked together, that would be way cool. Take an overview shot, with a detail shot at the same time. Use stitching software to blend them, or just use on a website with "click to view detail" or automate one of those "picture in picture" technical illustrations with an arrow pointing to the srea the detail is taken from.

--
... and then they built the supercollider.
Re:NOT an "Ultrawide Zoom" by ricky-road-flats · 2006-01-03 02:00 · Score: 1

"...is no way to take a picture with an equivalent focal length between 23mm and 37mm (a difference of 25 degrees in angle of view)."
A quick R of TFA shows this to be not quite true - it has a mode where it can zoom between the 23mm and 37mm. OK, it does it digitally which isn't ideal, but it does do it.
Re:NOT an "Ultrawide Zoom" by Colgate2003 · 2006-01-03 02:46 · Score: 1

Digital zoom does not count. Digital zoom is nothing more than cropping the edges off of the picture. This is something that can be done better and more precisely later with just about every image editor in existence.
People don't realize how much resolution you lose to "digital zoom" or cropping. A 10x digital zoom does not result in a picture with 1/10th the information. Because magnification relates to the linear size of an object in the picture while resolution relates to the area, a 10x zoom gives 1/100th of the information found in the original. Suddenly a 5MP camera with a 10x digital zoom doesn't sound so good when you realize that pictures taken at maximum zoom will be 0.5MP images.
Re:NOT an "Ultrawide Zoom" by ricky-road-flats · 2006-01-03 03:10 · Score: 1

I know digital zoom is crap compared to optical zoom - I happen to have digital zoom disabled on my camera. We are NOT talking about 10x zoom here, I don't know the maths but 23-37 mm isn't a huge way.
If you're geniunely bothered by digital zoom to that degree, then either don't use it (the default on that camera) or get a DSLR with proper lenses.
10x digital zoom is a ludicrously extreme example which doesn't apply here, even though I agree the results would be awful. For a USD500 camera you can't (yet) expect the world.
Re:NOT an "Ultrawide Zoom" by Colgate2003 · 2006-01-03 04:03 · Score: 1

That wasn't meant to be an attack on your comment. I was making more of a general comment on digital zoom and how it should not be considered a "feature" on digital cameras. The difference between 23 and 37mm equivalent view is about 125,000 pixels (if I did the math right) on a 5MP camera. Not a big deal, but also not worth letting the camera do for you.

While "10x digital zoom is a ludicrously extreme example," it is unfortunately a reality on some cameras. I feel that digital zoom is a trick played on the public by the camera companies. I am genuinely bothered by it. Therefore, I do have a DSLR with proper lenses to cover the equivalent of 28-480mm. I also have a tiny pocket digicam with the digital zoom permanently turned off.
Re:NOT an "Ultrawide Zoom" by Colgate2003 · 2006-01-03 04:08 · Score: 1

Sorry, but I did do that math wrong. 23 to 37mm should be a loss of about 615,000 pixels, or 12%. More significant, but not extreme.

Re:more importantly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 13:04 · Score: 0

Also, punctuation and capitalization are key to effective commucations skills.

Kodaks are a great camera! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 13:05 · Score: 0

I can see Kodak becoming a leader in the digital camera arena. Perhaps I am one of the lucky ones, but over a year ago I bought one of their higher end Point and Shoot cameras, the Easyshare DX7630, and it takes some of the most fantastic pictures I have seen with a camera in this price range. I bought it for $350 with a $50 mail in rebate. 6.1 megapixel. It simply rocks. Some people complain that there are too many features for this camera, but it is a GREAT, inexpensive camera to get your feet wet while learing what ISO setting are, shutter speeds, F stop, Exposures, and a whole battery of other settings. This was a lot better than going out and blowing $1000 dollars on a digital SLR like I wanted and then dinking around with it for 1 1/2 years while I figure out what to do with it.

Now you can also get a handful of filters for this camera as well. It also makes certain shots come out fairly well, like the UV and Polarizing filter. It's also a great point and shoot. 4 frame action shot. Super Quality Macro shooting. And Absolutely great Video. I have a 512 meg card for my camera and it will NOT pause recording for 1 hour. That's right. 1 hour of 25fps recording at 320x240. Not bad at all.

So if you have a problem with a camera, then you should have done your research instead of asking Ma and Pa what they thought because when you find the right camera at the right price you can't go wrong.

Pete

Re:more importantly by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 13:07 · Score: 0

Actually, he really meant the opposite of "my a fag".

You've got two sensors: use them both! by Colgate2003 · 2006-01-02 13:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd love to see a camera like this with the option to take a picture using both imaging systems at the same time. Imagine having a wide-angle "context" view for each picture you took while on vacation. A 117mm telephoto shot with an embedded wide angle view giving almost 5x the viewing angle to give context to the detail shot. This wouldn't be useful all of the time, but it would be interesting to have. You could always take the wide shot at a lower resolution when it wasn't the main view the photographer was interested in.

A second option could take two 5MP photos and interpolate the two images together to provide an extremely high-resolution shot, corrected for any lens defects or flare. Take a 23mm shot with every longer shot and use the area of the 23mm shot that mirrors the longer shot to enhance the image quality. You would get more help at wider angles than at telephoto, but you would gain detail with any shot.

This would be less useful, for the majority of snapshooters who end up having to crop way too much from their photos, 23mm shots could also include a slightly closer view from the other lens to eliminate some of the inevitable quality-degrading "digital zooming."

With two sensors, you are ignoring one of them every time you take a picture. Use both!

Re:You've got two sensors: use them both! by Armando_Mcgillicutty · 2006-01-02 14:35 · Score: 1

"With two sensors, you are ignoring one of them every time you take a picture. Use both!"
There's where I think the problem would be. Adding a 2nd sensor would increase the price, and most people wouldn't justify the extra cost over a similar model with one sensor.
Who knows though, Now that I've said that, they'll probably introduce a dual-sensor camera within the year.
Re:You've got two sensors: use them both! by Armando_Mcgillicutty · 2006-01-02 14:38 · Score: 1

Well... so much for that thought.. I just noticed that the thing does have two sensors... surprise for me.

you probably have a decent camera by r00t · 2006-01-02 13:12 · Score: 1

Manual focus may be useful, but it's one more seldom-required setting to bump by accident. You probably have a focus-lock ability. Focus right on the object, lock the focus, then move as desired for artistic composition.

White balance adjustment in a camera is kind of silly unless you expect to go direct from camera to printer. The "correct" white balance is a fiction anyway; human eyes adjust to surrounding conditions and there are artistic considerations as well. It's better to keep the camera uncomplicated. You adjust things as desired with Photoshop or Cinepaint.

Lack of RAW format is more troubling. Be sure to check for a debug mode. Some cameras keep the RAW format as a hidden option. Supposing you really do lack this, it's not as bad as it looks. JPEG compression, camera motion, focus error... it's all kind of the same thing, basically equivalent to having a lower resolution than advertized.

Remember, simplicity has value. One day you might be taking photos while wearing mittens. You might be taking photos while riding a motorcycle. You might have to take a photo very quickly or miss the chance. A no-fuss camera is hard to really screw up with.

Re:you probably have a decent camera by MSBob · 2006-01-02 13:19 · Score: 1

You might have to take a photo very quickly or miss the chance.
Except that the camera is the slowest thing in the world. Its shutter lag is enormous and it focuses very slowly too (hunts focus a lot).
Manual white balance is nice if you don't have RAW format available. They do include three preset options to do this through the menu. But those three presets are rarely right.
Oh and it has a 10x zoom with no image stabilisation which makes this camera tooootally useless at the highest focal length unless you lug the tripod everywhere.
This camera has a laundry list of features that are coupled in such way as to make most of the useless. This camera can thus only serve as a point'n shoot and not even a very good one at that.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.

Re:so... by ickleberry · 2006-01-02 13:26 · Score: 0

like the white-balance encryption?

What are you talking about? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 13:27 · Score: 0

The camera you bought does not have dual lenses, or an ultra wide lens. The SD550 on the wide end is 37mm (35 equiv) which is pretty pathetic. I consider 35 barely wide, 24 wide, and 20- ultra wide. The camera in this slashdot posting is actually quite cool and uniq.

--Anon

Re:What are you talking about? by viksit · 2006-01-02 14:09 · Score: 1

Um.. I'm not sure what *you're* talking about.
Uniqueness I agree on - but would you actually use something which has close to no manual features to take ultra wide zoom shots, when you can have excellent control with a Single Lens Reflex?

I wouldn't. I'd much rather use a Nikon D-70 or equivalent to do so...

--
If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...oh, wait a minute - he already does.

Not very hard at all. by grahamsz · 2006-01-02 13:35 · Score: 1

I've made red/green stereoscopic images with a webcam before and they come out pretty well. You just need two images of the same scene, each about 3 in apart. Colorize them appropriately so that they each show up as white through the appropriate glasses lens. Then you overlay them and you're done.

It might be a little tricky to get two DSLRs that close, and of course they'd need to have the same lens, but i might give it a shot sometime soon.

Re:Not very hard at all. by bhmit1 · 2006-01-02 14:26 · Score: 1

It might be a little tricky to get two DSLRs that close, and of course they'd need to have the same lens, but i might give it a shot sometime soon.

Most people I've seen with these setups place the cameras bottom to bottom to get them close enough. You just have to rotate the pictures in different directions. The same lens is half the problem, getting the same focus, white balance, and exposure is the other. Having cameras where these things are all manual makes this much easier.
Re:Not very hard at all. by OwnedByTwoCats · 2006-01-03 08:12 · Score: 1

My grandfather had a stereoscopic film camera. Two lenses, side-by-side images on the film. A real "takes you there" experience when viewing the slides.

So a digital stereoscopic camera would have two lenses (linked, if they're zoom lenses), and two sensors.

Oh, I notice now that that isn't what you meant when you said "two lenses". Oh, well; I want to talk about my grandfather anyway. I miss him. (He died in 2002. No idea where the camera went, or the slides...)

Many times,10x optical zoom lets you get the photo by Futurepower(R) · 2006-01-02 13:38 · Score: 2, Funny

We are very happy with our Olympus camera with a 10x optical zoom. Many times if you don't have 10x zoom, you just can't get the picture.

You said, "... if the picture is bad, you were not close enough...".

New rule of thumb for photographers: If you got eaten by a lion, you were too close.

Panasonic DMC-FZ20S by Futurepower(R) · 2006-01-02 13:48 · Score: 1

MOD PARENT UP!!!

I spent a lot of time reviewing the Panasonic DMC-FZ20S. It's awesome. A friend has one, and his photos are excellent.

Re:Many times,10x optical zoom lets you get the ph by Anne+Honime · 2006-01-02 14:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

We are very happy with our Olympus camera with a 10x optical zoom.

Don't get me wrong : you're perfectly entitled to be happy with your zoom ; but if you had a chance to compare your pictures with some of the same subject taken with a high end glass, then, you'd probably change your mind about them. And I'm quite an oly fan myself, btw. But I expect first from a glass to have straight lines being, well, straight on all the range, and I still have to see a 10x zoom achieving that.

Many times if you don't have 10x zoom, you just can't get the picture.

The more I look at pictures books and portfolios, the less weight I carry with me : most of the internationaly well known pictures were taken with a basic lens, generaly 35mm (24x36 eq.) or 50mm. Now I just take a 28 mm, a 50, and a 135. It just does the job. I admit that if I were shooting wildlife animals, I certainly would have a good 300, but big tele / zooms are nothing if you can't shoot indoors without a flash.

good idea, but... by themysteryman73 · 2006-01-02 14:30 · Score: 0, Offtopic

How am I supposed to set a super wide image as my desktop?

Honestly, though, what mainstream customer will find a use for ultra-wide photos? People like my mum certainly wouldn't - she doesn't even like the idea of widescreen TVs.

Re:good idea, but... by AEther141 · 2006-01-02 15:56 · Score: 1

I'll assume you're not trying to be funny here, because if you are then you've failed badly. "Ultra Wide" refers to the angle of view, not the aspect ratio. The aspect ratio will still be roughly 4:3 and fit on your monitor, but the camera will capture more of what you see in both axis - think the opposite of zooming in. Photographs with a very broad aspect ratio are referred to as panoramic.

Personally I think this is a step in the right direction simply for featuring a prime lens. Were someone to produce one of these infinitesimally tiny digital compacts with a fixed, sharp 50mm f/1.4 equivalent lens, a fast engine like DIGIC II and a good optical view(or range)finder they'd have Cartier-Bresson rising from the dead to buy one. Seriously, I can't see why clunkers like the R-D1 make it to the market when there'd be so much potential for a tiny camera aimed at pros to provide those of us who've gone all-digital with something to fill the Olympus Trip shaped holes in our glove boxes and overnight bags.
Re:good idea, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 15:57 · Score: 0

Don't confuse wide angle with widescreen or wide aspect ratio!
Re:good idea, but... by Sigg3.net · 2006-01-03 03:53 · Score: 0

Seriously, I can't see why clunkers like the R-D1 make it to the market when there'd be so much potential for a tiny camera(...).

You're absolutely right. R-D1 was totally obsolete after R2-D2 came, which had built-in holographic support.
Too bad you can't mute it, though.

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research

As an alternative... by Tolomak · 2006-01-02 14:57 · Score: 2, Informative

Consider the Ricoh Caplio GX.

28-85mm Optical Wide Zoom, 5 Megapixels, 2 AA batteries, has manual mode, and is compact so I take it with me everywhere (it survived backpacking and mountain biking); I have it for a year and a half now and I'm very happy with it; it's noticeably faster than the SONY P71 I had before and takes beautiful shots (use a tripod in low light though).

It was ~$350 but it's not available in North America, you'll have to order from Europe (cheaper) or Asia.

Not useful? Try moving objects behind a fence! by funkdancer · 2006-01-02 15:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

I took photos just the other day of a large cat animal in Melbourne zoo. Moving around with some urgency, being behind thick security fence and not too well lit, all you'd get is the wire fence with something furry behind.

My D70s's manual focus mode made light work of the problem though, and the fact that what I see [through the viewfinder] is what I get [well given a quick enough shutter speed] was a massive benefit that let me take some good, sharp photos even in such difficult conditions.

My previous camera was a Nikon 990, and although great when I bought it I'm not going back to non-SLR again.

As for non fuss, the green, default auto mode really only gives you one option: Click & shoot. If you are able to ignore all the other buttons that are disabled in this mode, it could really not be too much easier.

--
ISO certified == THX certified

Re:Not useful? Try moving objects behind a fence! by r00t · 2006-01-02 17:45 · Score: 1

That sure sounds like "seldom-required" to me. Do you regularly take photos through fences? That would be mighty weird.

I didn't say it would never be useful. I'm just not sure it is worth the extra mechanical and interface complexity. Ideally, you can quickly operate a camera while wearing mittens. Ideally, you don't have to worry about tossing it into a backpack full of junk.

The middle ground is focus-lock. It probably would have worked for you. You'd need to focus on something as far away as the animal. That's awkward, but you had a pretty weird problem there.
Re:Not useful? Try moving objects behind a fence! by mogwai7 · 2006-01-02 19:24 · Score: 1

In case you don't know, a good way to shoot though a fence is to have the aperture wide open, and get as close as possible to to an opening in the fence. The fence blurs away nicely, almost to the point where you can't see it in the picture. :)
Re:Not useful? Try moving objects behind a fence! by melekzek · 2006-01-02 19:29 · Score: 1

Not necessarily. Unless you do not have manual focus control, the camera might choose to focus on the fence, hence nicely bluring the background.
Re:Not useful? Try moving objects behind a fence! by GregWebb · 2006-01-03 01:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

I do pretty regularly. I'm a motorsports fan, and unless you can get very high to shoot over the top or a pass to get on the other side of the fence, you're routinely shooting through chain link fence to get the cars. Just an enthusiastic amateur but I've got a few thousand such photos filed away from film and digital :-)

Not that this is a particular problem - just get relatively close to the fence and don't shoot on f/16 or higher and you won't even _see_ the fence in most enclosures.

The other obvious example is zoos and wildlife parks - almost by definition you have to shoot through fences but you can still get some great photos of the animals with creative framing.

(FWIW I now shoot a D70 too and it's great for this, gives me all the control I know how to use and a little more too. Lovely camera!)

Greg

--
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Re:Not useful? Try moving objects behind a fence! by mogwai7 · 2006-01-03 01:57 · Score: 1

I was not saying that manual focus was not necessary, just giving some extra advice. To me, the more manual things available on the camera the better. :)
Re:Not useful? Try moving objects behind a fence! by Carnildo · 2006-01-03 07:21 · Score: 1

That sure sounds like "seldom-required" to me. Do you regularly take photos through fences? That would be mighty weird.

I regularly take photos in forests, and the auto-focus on my camera will invariably pick the nearest tree to focus on, even if that tree is near the edge of the image.

--
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.

not ultrawide, not ultrawide zoom by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 16:29 · Score: 0

Firstly, 23mm is not ultrawide, its wide. Secondly, the subject implies an ultrawide zoom, whereas it is in fact, a wide with a different zoom. The subject should actually address the more impressive fact that the camera is dual lens, dual CCD. There are other full-on 24mm zooms out there already (Nikon Coolpix 8400 I believe).

not so by penguin-collective · 2006-01-02 16:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

On the other hand, nobody who knows anything about photography will not be willing to put up with the lack of manual focus, lack of RAW format or no manual white balance adjustment.

People who know something about photography know that it is about making compromises; they often have multiple cameras and pick the best one for each job.

The V570 looks like an interesting camera; if image quality is at least decent, it will probably be quite popular, since you can't get a 23mm (equiv) lens in any package 5x the size and weight. Whether it has RAW, manual focus, or manual white balance doesn't matter.

Re:not so by MSBob · 2006-01-02 17:28 · Score: 1

I was talking about my DX6490 and NOT the V570.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
Re:not so by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-02 17:44 · Score: 0

It's a real compromise when you're landed with a camera that can't take a good picture under any circumstances!
Re:not so by kmak · 2006-01-03 02:59 · Score: 1

Exactly. I'm not a professional photographer (or close), and I've taken quite a few classes back in college. (which on slashdot, allows me to have an opinion!)

I have a Canon Rebel to take pictures during hiking, or for more formal events like weddings and such (but only if they make me!) I also have a Canon SD550 which I'm in love with, because I can put it in my pocket, and take pictures wherever I go, and whenever, because I always have it with me, without carrying around tons of equipment!

Could I bring a Rebel to parties and get away with it? Probably.. but you got to use the right tool for the job!

--

I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.
Re:not so by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-05 11:34 · Score: 0

There is no such camera; people take great pictures even with Holgas and pinholes.

So? by p3d0 · 2006-01-02 17:48 · Score: 0, Troll

What is remarkable about this?

Did Kodak pay for this advertisement?

--
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....

Not convinced about Canon by Jamie+Lokier · 2006-01-02 17:56 · Score: 1

I had a Canon Powershot A40, and the colours were significantly more washed out and the image noisy compared with the Fuji Finepix I had before it. Just one data point, but it's enough to make me want to look elsewhere than Canon for my next one.

-- Jamie

tell your mom: more glass by YesIAmAScript · 2006-01-02 19:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

All digital cameras aren't alike any more than film cameras are.

If you find your camera needs to much light to take a picture, then you need to get a camera with larger glass. More glass means more light taken in. More light taken in means better picture without jacking the ISO.

People think they can buy a pocketable digital camera and take pics with it they would have tried to take with a 35mm camera which is much larger.

I don't have a problem with image stabilization, but it's not going to take the place of larger glass. Why? Because image stabilization only works on non-moving objects. Yeah, you can take a picture at 1/15th of a second instead of 1/60th and still have it turn out, if the subject isn't moving. But if it is, it'll be blurred, and IS won't fix it.

But, larger glass would let you get the same number of photons in 1/60th of a second as the other (IS) camera does in 1/15th of a second. And that's effective for both moving and non-moving objects.

Additionally, the larger glass makes your flash more effective, but IS does not, as no matter how long you keep the shutter open, the flash is only on for 1/000th of a second or something.

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95

Re:tell your mom: more glass by Explo · 2006-01-03 17:16 · Score: 1

I don't have a problem with image stabilization, but it's not going to take the place of larger glass. Why? Because image stabilization only works on non-moving objects. Yeah, you can take a picture at 1/15th of a second instead of 1/60th and still have it turn out, if the subject isn't moving. But if it is, it'll be blurred, and IS won't fix it.

I mostly agree. However, the panning image stabilization mode is occasionally useful, if your subject is e.g. a boat, car or something such that its 'shape' does not change while moving. In the panning mode, the IS detects the direction of the movement and only cancels shake that happens in other directions. Obviously this does not work for all moving targets (the arms and legs of a runner will indeed still get blurred), neither do all image stabilization implementations have such mode. Thus, the larger aperture also remains desireable.

--
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.

used to use an SLR, quit... by YesIAmAScript · 2006-01-02 19:27 · Score: 3, Informative

I have friends with D1x, 20D, 300D, 350D, D100 and D70s. I've used most of those. dSLRs are nice. The noise levels are amazingly low.

But I stopped using SLRs. Why? Too large. The best shot isn't always the one with the lowest noise level, with the longest zoom or even the best composure. But it is always a SHOT YOU GOT. And I just found that an SLR was too large, I couldn't carry it often enough. I was getting great shots when I got shots, but I was missing tons of shots because I had to leave the SLR behind and I didn't get those shots at all.

As to delay when pressing the button, you need to investigate recent P&S cameras. Recent P&S cameras have shutter lags similar to dSLRs, and actually, there's no reason they can't do better than dSLRs. Because a dSLR has to raise the mirror before it can start the exposure, and a P&S doesn't. That's additional lag right there.

Sony has been making P&S cameras with up-to-date chips and thus virtually no lag for over a year now. They've rolled their entire line to use such chips a while back and some are on the 2nd generation of these chips. Canon, on the other hand still sells crap like the G5 which use old chips that are slow to start up, slow to take shots, slow to display shots.

Go to dpreview and read the reviews of recent good cameras like the Sony DSC-V3 or the Canon SD### (like 550) series. Shutter lag in P&S cameras is way down. And if the market demands it, it'll go even lower.

Oh, and Sony has near-full manual control on all their cameras and full manual control (minus setting manual white balance in degrees K) on the higher-end (typically larger) models. Again, the DSC-V3 is a great example. And most of the other manufacturers also have full manual controls on their high-end P&S cameras.

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95

Re:used to use an SLR, quit... by sweetnjguy29 · 2006-01-03 04:24 · Score: 1

I recently bought the family a Canon SD-500. Works like a charm. Not only is it great for point and shoot photography, it has lots of manual and special controls. Very low shutter lag. And it is small enough to carry around on my belt with the optional case.

And I agree wholeheartedly that the best shot is the one you got. There are so many interesting things to take photos of...and if you don't have your camera with you, you miss the shot.

I've also learned that a long zoom is a crutch...115mm (3X) is sufficient! And don't forget to use the macro of your digital camera!

Slit scanning by slim · 2006-01-03 03:23 · Score: 1

Stitching is all well and good, and I've used it with some success, but there are definitely circumstances where I'd prefer the old-fashioned slit scanning approach to creating panoramas, where moving subjects will be warped (often in interesting ways) rather than duplicated and ghosted around stitch seams.

I've recently been experimenting with doing the digital equivalent of this by ripping a slice from each frame of a panning video. The results can be nice but resolution is limited by the comparatively low resolution available from consumer video cameras (even HD).

It'd be really nice if one of these manufacturers made a camera with a mode which would capture a single pixel column at a time, at a high refresh rate, appending the capture to an image as it goes. You don't need a tripod or a motorised rotating mount to get results (I'd even argue that the results without are more interesting), but I bet the enterprising manufacturer could sell such accessories to people who bought the camera for other reasons.

You can homebrew a slit-scanning camera out of a hand scanner, but it would really be nice if the functionality was built into a compact general purpose digital camera.

Depends on what you shoot. by Explo · 2006-01-03 10:29 · Score: 1

Personally, I have found manual focus a very useful feature even on a Canon EOS 20D, which has significantly better autofocus performance than any P&S I've seen so far. Sure, it works nicely on daylight or during dawn/dusk. However, I kind of like available light / night photography and in those situations, there often isn't enough light for AF. In those situations, it's handy to just preset the focus distance to a suitable value with manual focus.

Sure, I won't use it daily, but it's still something that I wouldn't want to live without and prefocus + focus lock isn't a 100% replacement for it in my case.

--
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.

Slashdot Mirror

Ultrawide Zoom in a Compact Camera

248 comments