Beyond Megapixels - Part III 231
TheTechLounge writes "Beyond Megapixels - Part I & Part II have both been posted here at Slashdot, and now it is my pleasure to bring to you Beyond Megapixels - Part III. This is the final part of this series of editorial articles examining current digital photography hardware. In this segment I will be focusing on function, filetypes, and features."
I've advised several friends on digital camera... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't talk pixels, talk optics.
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:3, Insightful)
10x what? 28mm (equiv)? 35mm? 38?
That's quite a difference. And the wide angle is more important than the zoomfactor anyway, in 9 out of 10 cases.
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:2)
GTRacer
Olympus C-XXXX (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The C-3000 doesn't have interchangeable lenses. (Score:2)
No, it is not a 'digital SLR'.
Happy now?
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:5, Informative)
I'd LOVE a digitam cam like that,...
Digital SLRs are available starting at US$899 (list) for the Canon Digital Rebel/300D/Kiss Digital (the name varies by region).
Visit here [dpreview.com] to learn more.
SteveM
Even cheaper "The other digital SLR" (Score:2)
The disadvantage of the SD9 over the 300D is that the camera does not have as high an ISO support, and the camera does not do in-camera JPG. But it produces great images, just take a look at the SD9 users gallery on pbase [pbase.com]. You'll also get more advanced features like mirror lock-up
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:2)
dust collects on the imager.
Think about it.
Film is constantly fresh out of the can.
The CCD on the other hand - just sits there and wahtever parks on its surface stays there and creates obstructions until its cleaned.
Cleaning risks the entire camera - since imagers are also easy to crack.
So keeping the chamber sealed with a fixed lens - and attachments to alter range - has an unanticiated benefit.
AIK
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:2)
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:2)
I plan to buy the Canon 300D soon. Though it is a somewhat crippled (with some uncrippling hacks available) version of the 10D, it is still an exceptional value.
*The HP Photosmart doesn't belong on the list. It's not actually a SLR so I am not including it in my count. Looks like an error in the site's database.
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:2)
You won't be able to adapt a generic zoom lens to work on a consumer camera like the s602z, the fact there's that fixed lens already on the front means any extra lenses need to take this into account when considering their optics or the focal length is all wrong.
If you're thinking of playing with extra lens' beyond the two Fujitsu sell for the s602z series you'd be better looking at something like the Canon EOS-100D (Digital Rebel outside of the UK, I believe) which has been specially designed to accept an
Re:I've advised several friends on digital camera. (Score:2)
But yes, you're right, the Rebel would be a MUCH better choice since its compatible with ANY Canon EF lense (so pretty much every modern Canon Lense). Its absolutely the best prosumer camera for the buck right now. For anyone who doesn't believe it, just take a look at some of the pics [dahphish.org].
The other two: (Score:5, Informative)
Beyond Megapixels [slashdot.org]
Beyond Megapixels - Part II [slashdot.org]
nitpick (Score:2)
Shouldn't this be:
TFAR - The F...... Article Readers
Linux and RAW. (Score:5, Informative)
Have a look at my pics [umtstrial.co.uk], too.
Re:Linux and RAW. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Linux and RAW. (Score:2, Informative)
The cool thing about the RAW format is that you can then apply all the transforms the camera is doing, but with a more powerful computer, meaning you use, hopefully, more powerful, but more demanding algorithms. You can still refer to your camera to get the actual sett
Re:Linux and RAW. (Score:2)
ICC color profiles (Score:5, Interesting)
calibrated image * deviceprofile = output
High-end cameras can attach or apply various sensor profile transforms to the actual sensor data, leaving the pixels in a factory-average sRGB, such as AdobeRGB colorspace. Some can even apply or attach custom tone curves or custom colorspaces if you put the profiles on the memory card.
I haven't used Sane in a while, but it would also need a sensor profile capability.
Since the 2.0 release of GIMP, it has been making small steps leading up to support for attaching color profiles, but not actually applying color profiles.
I've heard that some people on the Xorg team have been considering the full scope of solutions for this problem, but I would rather they just hit the 90% mark with one feature: load an ICC display profile and program a single head on the video card to apply that transform for all X output on that head. Let's not wait for the whole thing (how to profile, how to work multihead, how to manage multiple profiles, etc.) to spring out of the head of Zeus.
CUPS or some other printing subsystem should be able to take ICC printer profiles also, and prefix printer jobs with those profile transforms where appropriate.
Then you'll see a LOT of people in the photography world erase their Windows and their Photoshop, and join the marketplace vote against product activation.
Re:Linux and RAW. (Score:2)
Beyond megapixels (Score:5, Informative)
Skip forward to last month, and I bought my third digital camera. There were 3MP, 4MP and 5MP models within my price range, but in the end, I settled for a 4MP model with a great lens, full manual control and some nifty other features (a Canon Powershot A80, I'd recommend this model to anyone after a fortnight of snapping with it). It produces 2272x1704 images, quite a lot bigger than I'm ever likely to need.
Why Megapixels? (Score:5, Interesting)
They will print it using a seriously good printer on great paper, and charge a pittance for it. Some shops (and websites) also allow me to design a nice hardcover book full of my photos and text, which makes a great present for friends and family.
But the requirement-limit is at, what, between 3 and 5 megapixels. Using more is useful for cutting images and having only a small part printed, but this happens rather rarely.
Instead I want the following:
* a good optical lens (come on, an f of 2.8 is not that great, unless you live in a really sunny country) with a solid optical zoom (who CARES about digital zoom?).
* Use standard AA rechargable batteries - they are cheap, hold a heck of a charge by now, and are easily replacable - with plain batteries if necessary.
Keep in mind that these things have to be replaced every now and then, and a propriatary one isn't cheap.
* Use CF cards. Cheap, fast, big, and under steady development.
* Allow me to access the camera via USB as an external drive, without needing some kind of stupid program.
* Reasonably small, so I will usually carry it with me in my pocket instead of leaving it at home due to bulk/weight.
Currently, I use the Canon A70/A75/A80. I can recommend them all, except for the lens (2.8, but this currently is standard, except for the great Olympus 5050 with 1.8), and the interface (I have to pop out the CF to read it - I'm not using some kiddy-aimed windows program here).
Not too expensive, either (nope, I have no connection to the manufacturer).
Ciao,
Klaus
* Tip: Buy a used postscripting laserprinter with >= 600 dpi. Dirt cheap, toner lasts forever, you'll love it. And no drivers needed, ever.
Re:Why Megapixels? (Score:2)
Sample Pics 1 - may appear dark on non-Macs with bad graphics cards [mac.com]
Sample Pics 2 - may appear dark on non-Macs with bad graphics cards [mac.com]
Re:Why Megapixels? (Score:2)
Actually, 2.8 is fine on a camera that gives acceptable quality at ISO 400. The lens I use most on my Canon D30 is a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and it's fine for available-light shooting indoors. In fact I don't recall when I last used the flash on that camera. Outdoors I drop to ISO 100 or 200.
Re:Why Megapixels? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a lot more to a lens than the F-stop . . . 2.8 is pretty darn good in a lot of the pro-lense market for SLR's. Getting larger aperatures than this often causes significant distortion in the lens . . . hence the super-expensive cost of the really fast lens, or in the case of a lot of consumer level digital cameras, crummy optics that result in a loss of sharpness . . . this is going the way of the megapixel wars . . . uninformed consumers think that larger aperature and bigger zoom = better camera . . . typically the truth is larger aperature and bigger zoom = crappier overall sharpness and more lens distortion . . . which amounts to crappy looking pictures.
Personally, I'll take my Nikon Coolpix 5000 with its slower lens (3.3) over just about any faster lens consumer digital camera any day . . . I know that the optics aren't perfect, I bought it 4 years ago, but even by today's standards, the optics are a lot better than most consumer digi-cams I've seen. And I'll take my Digital SLR over that . . . any day.
I'll tell you why (Score:2)
zooming in on the details.
If the sensors were all the same that might work (Score:2)
In short, relying on just the MP count is not really going to help anymore, especially now that companies
Re:I'll tell you why (Score:5, Informative)
There is also the matter of the Foveon "X3" chip - it's got only about 3.5 megapixels but each pixel records the red, green, and blue coming to it rather than the traditional sensors that will only record one of the colors (the final image is then an interpolation). The manufacturers say this is equivalent to 11 megapixels, but I don't think it's quite that good - certainly comparable to 6 to 8 however.
Re:Why Megapixels? (Score:2)
2. These Canon cameras use PTP. Doesn't act as a USB drive, but isn't proprietary either. Gphoto can read from them. No need to get a CF reader.
Re:Why Megapixels? (Score:2)
Actually, I preferr to use the CF -> PCMCIA adapter for reading CF cards. I have a 256M card I keep in my digital camera, and often never empty it, I'll keep the pictures on the card so that I never forget. And while there are some nice USB2 card readers out there, PCMCIA's bus speed (which doesn't even compare versus Cardbus, and I don't recall the USB2.0 speeds) is far, far superior than my laptop's USB1.0 speed.
Downloading 200M of images, takes quite a bit over USB,
Re:Why Megapixels? (Score:3, Informative)
The ink is only that expensive if you buy the original cartridges from your printer manufacturer. The printer manufacturers strive to make their cartridges incompatible with everything else, but for most ink printers you can get a decent continuous flow system. This way you buy only ink, which costs an order of magnitude less per liter th
Re:Why Megapixels? (Score:3, Informative)
Small is good - camera's not much use if you can't be bothered to carry it.
Smaller isn't always best. By reducing the size and weight, you sacrifice stability - a larger, heavier camera with a well-made grip will be easier to keep still in a wider variety of situations. Larger size also allows for faster lenses, all of which makes it easier to take good available light pictures in low light conditions. The greater stability also helps when you add a hot shoe flash or filters/lenses.
The bottom li
Previous Stories (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?director
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article.php?director
Ah yes, I can feel the Slashdotting coming on now =)
The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:5, Informative)
I am what you would consider a serious amatuer photographer. (Note that's not seriously amatuer.) I like taking nice photos and blowing them up/enlarging the best of them to frame and hang on the wall. I've even had one professional gig where I got paid for taking official photos at a wedding. A few extra bucks for me and some decent photos at a cheap price for the couple.
Here is my perfect camera:
1. Six Megapixel. You can print out an 8X10" photo at the same quality as 35mm film. More is better, but does an amatuer really need any more than that?
2. An SLR. This is a single lens reflex. It focuses the image onto the focusing screens by using the light coming through the lens (what you see through the view-finder is what you get) and has interchangable lenses.
3. Has a nice optical zoom. How many X makes a nice optical zoom? I suppose that's up to the individual, but I think 10X or more. More is always better when it comes to optical zoom.
The Canon Digital Rebel seems to be the perfect camera for me. The price is still a bit out there, in the neighborhood of $1000, but I'm sure it will come down as time goes on. I'm thinking we are nearing the end of the major advances in digital cameras. Not that we can't improve them, but they are practically at the quality/price levels of film cameras. You can get a cheapie for less than $100 that takes "okay" 3 megapixel images. Great for 4x6 snapshots. You can also spend about $1000 for everything a non-professional could want. Any improvements beyond this are gravy and probably wouldn't profit the researcher or manufacturer much.
Oh! And ignore digital zoom. I wish it didn't exist. I can enlarge it on my computer after the fact and get the same effect.
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
In the past six years, I have ordered a print at that size only twice. And they were pretty blurry (taken with a mid-range compact camera) if you look at them from close by (what I usually don't do with pictures that hang on the wall).
An expensive camera does not give you good pictures if you don't know how to create a good composition.
Has a nice optical zoom. [...] I think 10X or more.
I hardly ever zoom in all the wa
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
Oh! And ignore digital zoom. I wish it didn't exist. I can enlarge it on my computer after the fact and get the same effect.
Not quite. The photometry of the photo will be based on the entire picture. If you take an un-zoomed picture and then crop it, the photometry will be off. Probably not by much, but it's still off. Digital zoom at least allows the camera to choose the correct settings for the image you have framed.
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
Are those the little gnomes in the camera painting the picture to the disk?
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:3, Informative)
In this context, it refers to how your camera, in automatic mode, calculates the appropriate shutter speed, aperture, and ISO level.
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
There are no good LCD viewfinders. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was in the camera market, I was going for either the Digital Rebel or the gigantic Sony 8MP thing...and eventually settled on the rebel. (Okay, its was the EF Lens capability that won me over). I find that being able to make image adjustments is a lot easier when I'm looking at exactly what will be photographed, instead of some downsized representation. That, and I take good pictures from anywhere in the ballpark with an additional zoom lens.
Granted, this works because I bought my camera to be a camera...not some kind of camcorder...which is one feature most LCD viewfinder cameras offer.
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
My Olympus C4040Z will drain a new set of 4 AA's within a few minutes if I leave the LCD on, so I do most of my composing in the tiny optical viewfinder.
It sounds like either your camera is defective or your batteries are garbage. My Olympus C-5050 can go for at least 2 or 3 hours on a single set of 2200mAh batteries, and my old Casio QV-2000 could last around 2 hours on a set of 1550s, all with the LCD on constantly. Even my Apple QuickTake 200 could get a half an hour or so out of a set of alkalin
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
Any lens that has more than 3x optical zoom will be making some heavy compromises to do so. You're up against the laws of physics here, if you want to fit such a lens into a portable package. You really would be much better off carrying several lenses (that's what SLRs are for) or two bodies with a different lens on each.
Canon makes a 28-300 lens for people who absolutely cannot change lenses in the field (for example, photojournalists in the middle of
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
In the digital world, if it's not an optical viewer then the image is being taken from the sensor, so "SLR" is irrelevant: what you see is what you get on all digital viewers -- they're using the imaging sensor.
10X or more
You're talking about going out to, say, 350mm. Good luck hand-holding that sucker.
I note you don't mention anything about dynamic range of different sensors, charge leakage to adjacent cells, white balance limitations, pincushion & barrel distortion and so on. You shouldn't b
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
That's true and not a problem when everything is still. However if you're either panning the camera around to catch something or the action is fast, how quickly the viewfinder responds become an issue. Also, with an SLR you don't burn any power running the viewfinder.
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
(since he had lenses for canon - no lens.
That puts the digital SLR surprising close to the high end consumer stock.
Very appealling.
AIK
Not sure this is "nearing the end"... (Score:2)
I'm thinking we are nearing the end of the major advances in digital cameras. Not that we can't improve them, but they are practically at the quality/price levels of film cameras.
Not so sure. For a long time I was convinced I'd get whichever Canon digital SLR dropped below a grand, to use with my set of old EOS lenses preferably. But you know, there's a huge difference in size from the Sony snappy we've picked up in the meantime and an SLR body. There are limits to what one can do with glass, but I'm go
Re:The Camera for a Serious Amatuer (Score:2)
Despite the fact it's limited to 3.2 megapixels in resolution (which means you can still print 8" x 10" pretty clearly with a good-quality printer), the PowerShot S1 IS has one thing that many people ignore: a decent lens system. With its true 10x optical zoom, this camera can zoom the lens at very high levels with very little optical distortion caused by the lens.
Yes I RTFA and find it a WOFT . . . (Score:2)
In all seriousness, the really odd bit about this article is that the author doesn't seem to know his audience . . . he writes about the most basic of features at a very high level fo
Re:Yes I RTFA and find it a WOFT . . . (Score:2)
Amen. From the article:
"There are two major factors that characterize a good focusing system: speed and accuracy."
Duh.
I'd like to know what he means by "accurate". My fir
That's all? (Score:4, Interesting)
I want to see some serious discussion about things like color gamut. The gamut of film (especially slide film) is much better than that of digital cameras. Is anyone working to improve the situation for digicams? There's a interesting looking article at extreme tech that talks about gamuts here [extremetech.com].
Basically current sRGB devices don't cover the full range of colors which the human visual system can percieve (nor does film, but film comes closer than digital). Think of deep violet for instance. You simply can't get those hues on a monitor, and so today's digital cameras just don't record those colors. However, it is likely that some day we will have monitors and hardcopy ouptut devices that perform as well as the human visual system. So ideally the pictures I take today would have the full range of color information, even if they're forced to display only a subset of those colors on current display devices. That way, in the future when "uberdisplays" are available, my pictures from 2000 will still look nice, and not washed out and cheesy like color photographs from the 60's do today.
If you widen the gamut of CCDs, you'll probably want to add a few bits to each color channel as well -- use 12 bit color instead of 8 bit for instance.
And as long as you're adding bits, the other thing it seems like digital cameras could possibly offer some day is point-and-click high dynamic range (HDR) images, say in EXR [openexr.com] format. Couldn't one build CDD sensors with automatic gain control (ISO) on a per-pixel basis, and then assemble the results into a HDR image? Currently the way to make HDR images is by taking several photos of the same scene and carefully merging them together, but that's pretty cumbersome.
With HDR images, you have much more flexibility to adjust the exposure and reveal detail in the shadows after taking the image.
What other cool things could digital cameras offer that would take us beyond simply replacing film cameras?
Some things addressed,. (Score:2)
As for the higher dynamic range, the Fuji SuperCCD does something
Re:That's all? (Score:2)
I'm not sure what those words mean, but who says the output device has to be RGB? For printers, for instance some newer models use 5 or 6 inks to achieve better gamut than can be reproduced with just the standard 4-ink CMYK.
And even for RGB monitors, if the chromaticities of the phosphors were wider separated, then you could get b
a 3:2 output (Score:2)
I've been shooting digital for a few years, and 4:3 STILL look ugly to me.
Please, add 3:2 outputs.
Re:a 3:2 output (Score:2)
-ben
(who is currently researching and trying to narrow things down between Canon and Olympus, while simultaneously arguing with myself about budget)
Flash Capabilities (Score:3, Insightful)
So here's my question and one of my big selection criteria: What non-interchangeable lens digital cameras are available with highly integrated and powerful external flash systems? All the usual requirement of a good lens, etc., also apply. Anybody have any experience/knowledge to share?
digitoys (Score:2)
However the right digitoy makes a nice light meter.
Re:digitoys (Score:2)
You may also be interested in the 16MP+ digital backs available for the Hasselblad H1. [google.com]
Needs (Score:2, Informative)
Pros will always need large megapixel cameras. Example: Group shots, even then the industry is still working out bugs. The Kodak DCS n14 ( 13.5 megapixel camera )is aweso
Re:My camera (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My camera (Score:5, Interesting)
But you may not be as happy to see that quality picture on a sports illustrated double spread for instance.
People still use film because there is still an issue with the merits of film/CCD/CMOS. Until film is well and truely surpassed by digital, expect to see the megapixels get.. uhhh . mega'rer.
I've recently got into SLR digital with a 10D. Along with that I got some 'L' series lenses, and I would expect my picture quality will steadily improve as the pixels go up. I'm looking forward to it.
What? Do you enjoy being able to clearly see an ant from taking a picture with your camera 12 feet above an ant mound?
Actually..... yes...
Re:My camera (Score:5, Informative)
Sports Illustrated accepts pictures from the Canon 1D (4MP) and the Nikon D1H (2.6MP). Nowadays its staff photographes are mostly using the Canon 1D-II (8MP).
But, the truth is, number of MP doesn't matter. What matters is the size of the photosites on the sensor. A digicam has little photosites 2x2 microns. To get a picture, you need high amplification, so you get noise in the shadows. You've got a cheap lens, so you get chromatic abberation in the highlights. On top of that, you get low overall contrast. A DSLR on the other hand has photosites 7x7 microns or 9x9 microns. No noise in the shadows at "low" ISOs (which are still higher than most digicams), no abberation in the highlights from those nice lenses, faithful colours overall.
I've recently got into SLR digital with a 10D. Along with that I got some 'L' series lenses
I've a D30 with L glass. It's simply not worth me ugrading to a 10D - the photos I get from my 3MP look beautiful printed at 12x8" (using Photoshop to interpolate as necessary). The way the human visual system works, contrast and faithful colour matters more than resolution. All the lamers who bought the Sony F828 have no idea what a mistake that was, they just want more megapixels to boast about - that 2.6MP Nikon completely blows it away.
Re:My camera (Score:2)
Bull. Although pixels are in a uniform matrix and film grain is randomly distributed, thus it takes a lower density of grain in the emulsion to achieve a particular level of visual quality than uniform pixels, that density still matters no matter how it is arranged. If it didn't, professionals would be using KodakDisc film instead of 120.
Yeah, there are many, many factors that go into making a good image, the greatest of which is the quality of the optics, b
Re:My camera (Score:2)
Re:My camera (Score:2)
Thanks! Most of the stuff there was shot on film, but some on the D30 and converted to B&W in Capture One.
For draft prints I use an inkjet (Canon i475), just so I can hold them up on the wall and see how they'd look. For "real" prints, I upload a maximum quality JPEG to Photobox [photobox.co.uk] and they do the print on a Fuji Frontier on Crystal Archive paper.
Re:My camera (Score:5, Insightful)
So yes, 2.0 is enough if all you're doing is posting the images online or archiving them for the heck of it, but when it comes to really putting them to work, whether it be printing just for at home framing or for professional work, you'll quickly see the need for those "hyped" high megapixels.
Re:My camera (Score:4, Informative)
I've had full page shots from my 2MP Powershot A60 printed in real, live magazines. They work FINE for 8x10 or 8.5x11 for that matter.
The parent poster is correct. 2MP is more than enough for most people. I never recommend more than 3.2 - 4MP for most anyone who solicits my opinion. Unless someone is looking for room to crop an image, anything more is usually a waste of flash memory.
Re:My camera (Score:2)
Yeah I know this breed.
Probably sells commodities to rednecks.
Serious printers understand what it takes to get the most from their press. and they probably don't own a fax machine or a 2mp camera - certainly not as part of the copy generating process.
Johnny come lately - anyone can buy a mac and be in the printing busines types - the kind that think design is best accomplshed by making sure no two consecutive phrases share the same font (o
Re:My camera (Score:3, Informative)
I agree that for most people 3-4MP is good for most people... most people take pictures that are blurry/horribly underexposed. For these people it really doesn't matter what kind of camera you give them, their pictures will always come out crappy (Even if they had a $3k DSLR) because t
Re:My camera (Score:5, Informative)
Displays have approximately 100 DPI (dots per inch) of resolution. Printing on a cheapie inkjet has 300 DPI. Printing on a high-quality but still consumer-level laser printer tops out around 1200 DPI. Each time you double the DPI, you need 4 times as many pixels to attain it.
Re:My camera (Score:2, Insightful)
Technically true, but misleading. Displays have 100dpi at 24 bits per "dot" (pixel) for a possibility of any of 16.7 million colors per pixel; printers have (approximately, since black is basically equivalent to adding the other color
Re:My camera (Score:2, Informative)
On my screen I have 1280x1024 pixels. Every pixel is formed from 3 elements: red, green and blue, but they're small enough so that a yellow pixel appears really yellow to me.
Now, printers print using Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and black. Most cheap printers can't mix colors, which means they have to combine them by dithering. And to make matters even worse, they can't control the intensity. If you have a color printer, try printing colored text. Often it looks pretty ugly
Re:My camera (Score:2, Informative)
My main camera is a 3^H6 mp Fuji S602Zoom with a big lens, a threaded ring, manual control of everything, a 1cm macro mode, and raw (well, tiff) image output.
I think that while the average point-and-shoot person will not need more than 2 mp, they probably will want a smallish optical zoom and reasonable lens quality.
I would benefit from my camera taking true 6mp shots (Fuji's hexagonal multi-sensor-per
Re:My camera (Score:2)
I'm actually glad all the super mega-pixel cameras are out now. I'm hoping that it will drive down the cost of the 3-4 megapixel SLR's on th
Re:My camera (Score:5, Informative)
Let's take a 2 megapixel image for instance. 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels. An 8 inch x 10 inch print of that photo would print at a resolution of 1600/10=160 ppi (dpi) across, and 1200/8=150 ppi (dpi) down. That is low quality, approximately half of what you see in a typical magazine, and is definitely noticable.
Beyond that, I was recently at my cousin's graduation and commissioning into the army. His family brought their $250-$300 3 megapixel camera and I had my 5 megapixel Sony DSC-F717. The difference is astounding, and the megapixels have only minor significance. Because the basics of photography are not even addressed on their camera (color balance, focal length, exposure time, etc) their images in the darkened ceremony did not come out at all, whereas mine came out great as I adjusted the shutter speed, the exposure values and other settings that they had absolutely no control over.
For point & shoot, put on the web or e-mail, no, it doesn't really matter, but a good camera at 640x480 compared to el 'cheapo camera at the same resolution is quite significant.
Re:My camera (Score:2)
It isn't noticeable unless you put the 8x10 as close to your eyes as a typical magazine, wich doesn't happens often. If you just put the photo on a desk, you won't see any difference over 300dpi.
Re:My camera (Score:2)
As standard print sizes continue to grow, image quality becomes more important (not less). Casual snapshots far too easily make themselves historically relevant.
Re:My camera (Score:2)
Re:My camera (Score:3, Insightful)
And well, as some people say, higher resolutions can be useful when you want large prints of
Re:My camera (Score:5, Informative)
I mainly shoot 35mm although I do some 6x6cm. I also have a 6.3mp DSLR.
Megapixels are important when it comes time to print. The issue is that a lot of people use their digicams to display images on the web and never make prints. For profoessional uses, prints are very important as well as having high quality sources for reproduction magazines and other publications. While 2mp may be good for the web, I find the prints lacking. Some people may not be able to tell the difference.
Before I got a digital camera, I had someone send me a sample portrait from their 3.0 megapixel camera. They claimed they were able to make 32x24" enlargements that looked great. I printed an 8x10 on my fairly good inkjet and I was dissapointed by the results when compared to both my scanned film (from a pretty good film scanner) and prints I've made in my darkroom. The amount of detail lost in things like the eyes were unacceptable to me. It's how when CD's first came out, they stripped out frequencies they thought were outside the human hearing range but people thought they didn't sound good until they added them back in.
NOw with the 6.3 camera, the results are better but I still like traditional prints from a good negative film, printed through a good lens. The camera also has better metering and white balance features than previous cameras as well. One of the main limitations of most digital sensors in my opinion is that they still use a Bayer pattern. If Foveon can ever reduce their noise issues and get a larger sensor with more megapixels I think that will be orders of magnitudes better. Comparing the current foveon output shot in it's ideal conditions versus cameras with more megapixels provides a stunning difference in the clarity of the photos. There is less interpolation as each sensor registers red, green and blue instead of just one and relying on interpolation.
What I like about digital is the convenience of getting from the camera to my proofing system in a short amount of time. With film I have a quicker turn around time than most since I can just load my film on reels, turn on the machine (as long as I have chemicals still in it) and have my film ready to scan in less than an hour. Though I then have to scan. I still prefer the quality of the prints though from my hand enlargements, especially when it comes to black and white.
When I need to make many copies of a print at a time, traditional methods still win out in terms of speed. After coming up with the right exposure and color filtration, which is quick and easy with a good color analyzer, and determining my dodging and burning strategy, I can turn out prints much faster than my inkjet. The difference in cost also favors traditional printing.
My point, yeah I don't believe megapixels are everything but more data isn't bad since with most newer cameras and sensors, the push for more megapixels also includes better in camera software, better light sensitivity with reduced noise levels, etc. There still needs to be a lot more done in the digital world but it's getting there.
Re:My camera (Score:2, Funny)
Re:My camera (Score:2)
I have yet to try this with my Canon G3
Re:My camera (Score:2)
I don't understand the whole hype about MEGApixXels.
<snip>
I have a 2.0 megapixel camera... I've -never- seemed to need a new camera after this year of having owned it. Pictures are pretty clear, they're great for vacation...
You've got a great fun camera! Perfect for what you are doing with it. I can't see any need for you to replace it, until it gets lost, broken, or worn out. Or your growing photographic skills begin to push against the camera's limitations.
With your current camera, you should
Re:My camera (Score:2)
I can tell the difference very easily between a 2 megapixel and a 5 megapixel. You can clearly tell the difference between 5 and 10
Resolution is the first noticeable difference.
But also whats important is color, clarity and sharpness.
Both improve dramatically with higher megal pixel CCDs. And most cameras use a single CCD for RGB, which creates even more color problems.
Ideally we would all want a camera that has a CCD for each color,
Re:My camera (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My camera (Score:2)
The question is price.
Will high end digital cameras become the Ferraris while low end 2mega pixel ccd cameras remain the hondas?
Will the higher end technology "Trickle down" Or will the mass market of mom and pops who simply point and shoot, say "we dont need another one"
Which would perhaps create a huge problem for folks like me who w
Re:My camera (Score:2)
Depending on what a person is planning to do
Re:My camera (Score:2, Informative)
Once you start printing larger sizes, the megapixels start to matter, but not necessarily as much as other factors like the glass. What good are twenty megapixels if the lens isn't up to the task? The more you do with the
Re:You know (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean sloshing chemicals around in a closed tank? I didn't find that very interesting :-) Making prints was a different ballgame though.
If you want the ultimate B&W print, I don't think you can beat all-chemical process.
But making color prints was a real pain in the butt. I did prints from color negatives and Ilfochromes from slides, but most of the time I ran out of patience before getting everything just right. Sending the images over the net to a printing service, where they are printed straight onto photographic paper, and sent to me via the post, is so much easier and produces so good results that I don't want to go back to the color chemicals ever again.
--
Re:You know (Score:2)
I don't want to go back to the color chemicals ever again.
When were you doing this? Its been at least 15 years since anyone serious about color work touched chemicals. You feed your prints through a machine that processes the paper for you. With color printing, there's no reason to vary anything in the chemical treatment of the paper unless you enjoy frustration.
Re:You know (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:You know (Score:2)
Re:You know (Score:2)
So he can pour them down the drain for you? Not having the chemicals to dispose of does seem just a wee bit easier, yes.
Re:Megapixels & digital zoom (Score:2)
You're well out-of-date (Score:3, Insightful)
Three MP, or something like 3.2, is now below $300, more like $250.
The mid-range models are now at four -- that's the current standard, more-or-less, for solid point-and-shooters.
Personally I know from experience that if you're going
Re:Megapixel (Score:2, Insightful)
2.0 megapixels may be fine for you, but if you want enlarged colour prints, good luck.
And that's not really the point of this (extremely brief) article anyhow - it's not the number of pixels you have so much as how you use them (or what physical size within the camear they happen to be).
Re:What clever function? (Score:2)
The