Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ultrawide Zoom in a Compact Camera

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the melts-in-your-mouth-not-in-your-hand dept.

manavendra writes to tell us that Image-Resource has an interesting writeup on the recently released Kodak EasyShare V570 digital camera. The V570 is a dual lens camera that incorporates an ultra-wide angle lens and an optical zoom lens. The camera will feature 5 megapixel resolution, 5x optical zoom, in-camera panorama stitching, video recording, a 2.5 inch LCD screen, in-camera distortion correction, and picture blur alert.

42 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Interesting

    how about 3-D cameras?

    1. Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by pair-a-noyd · · 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.

    2. Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by LionKimbro · · 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.

    3. Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by plover · · 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
    4. Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Kadin2048 · · 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."
    5. Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by Kadin2048 · · 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."
    6. Re:Now that dual lenses seem to get cheap... by LionKimbro · · 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..!

  2. Interesting... by Dzimas · · 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.

    1. Re:Interesting... by MSBob · · 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.
    2. Re:Interesting... by Kadin2048 · · 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."
  3. What? by shobadobs · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    1. Re:What? by sirber · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      --
      Be or ben't
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Read the F--king Advertisement

      This is the Internet. You're allowed to say "fuck" here.

  4. Opera incompatibility. by Poromenos1 · · 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.
  5. Wow by Capt'n+Hector · · 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?
  6. Almost right by Jay+Maynard · · 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!
  7. For the rest of us get Autostitch by hotspotbloc · · 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
  8. Why new D-SLR announcements by yorkpaddy · · 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'
    1. Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by timeOday · · 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.

    2. Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by dada21 · · 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.

    3. Re:Why new D-SLR announcements by Skippy_kangaroo · · 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.

  9. Image Stabilization is a MUST by MBCook · · 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.
    1. Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by speculatrix · · 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!

    2. Re:Image Stabilization is a MUST by temojen · · 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.

  10. Re:more importantly by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "you are" or "you're".

    --
    I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
  11. Re:Quality? by Generic+Guy · · 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 - }
  12. Hardly surprising.. by viksit · · 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.
  13. Easy solution by temojen · · 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.

    1. Re:Easy solution by dangitman · · 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.
  14. Ultra Wide? by MartinB · · 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

  15. no need for Windows or Wine by r00t · · Score: 3, Informative
    panotools is plain old C, and hugin is a GUI for it.

  16. Re:nicely designed casing too by MSBob · · 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.
  17. NOT an "Ultrawide Zoom" by Colgate2003 · · 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!

  18. You've got two sensors: use them both! by Colgate2003 · · 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!

  19. Many times,10x optical zoom lets you get the photo by Futurepower(R) · · 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.

  20. Re:Many times,10x optical zoom lets you get the ph by Anne+Honime · · 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.

  21. As an alternative... by Tolomak · · 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.

  22. Not useful? Try moving objects behind a fence! by funkdancer · · 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
    1. Re:Not useful? Try moving objects behind a fence! by GregWebb · · 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!

  23. not so by penguin-collective · · 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.

  24. tell your mom: more glass by YesIAmAScript · · 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
  25. used to use an SLR, quit... by YesIAmAScript · · 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