Beyond Megapixels 438
TheTechLounge points to this "first of a three-part series of editorial articles examining current digital photography hardware, as well as the author's views of what is to come." It boils down to the excellent point that pixel count alone is not the way to evaluate digital camera capabilities.
Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
This seems analogous to consumer computer makers moving away from advertising GHz and MB.
It's what you (can) do with it that counts.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
He told me that APS was just crap...and to avoid it like the plague.
He also said there was some thru the mail company, seattle film, or something like that. they would send people film, you send the film to them for processing. The quality on the film sucked because it was some different technology, and that you were locked into their scheme because you couldn't get it developed anywhere else..
Grump
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Informative)
yep. they basically sold 35mm movie film in 24 frame strips. movie film doesn't have the same high quality requirements as still photography film because any problem in a frame is corrected 1/24th of a second later.
movie film is therefore much much cheaper per frame than good photographic film. so they were making out like bandits when they hooked someone. and because it doesn't use e-6/c-41 chemicals you had to get it developed either at a motion film lab (not likely) or with them.
btw, movie film also has a really short shelf life unless kept in special volts at exact temperatures. this is true even AFTER the film is developed!
seattle filmworks was one a very nasty scam for several decades. a few years ago they finally switched to (really crappy) c-41 film.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ordered it, they'd send you back a bootable floppy disk that would run a slide show of your pictures. Something not many people did back in 1994.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Some digital camera still don't product pictures that look as good as 3x5 film prints, so they are still chasing higher megapixels for that perfect image quality that they desire.
And with APS or 35mm, people didn't have the capability to crop and enlarge from the comfort of their own home, now resolution matters to them if it means being apple to crop grand ma out of a wide shot and print out a perfect looking picture at home.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that demonstrates the problem here perfectly. People are chasing bigger MP, not because 2 or 3 MP wasn't sufficient to give decent looking snapshots, but because they are trying to print those snapshots at home and then comparing them to professionally printed photos from film.
Send your photos off to a professional company, and pay them 20c per photo to print them on their $10,000+ professional laser printer instead of pissing about with your $100 inkjet that is probably costing you more than 20c per picture in overpriced ink cartridges anyway. Then you will see that even 2MP gives at least as good results as a compact film camera, and 3MP with a decent lens probably comes close to a 35mm SLR.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do I do my own printing? A $10,000 printer at a camera store is only as good as the person operating it. If I screw up my prints I have only myself to blame. For serious work I want at least a 6x6 cm negative, which is about equal to 64 megapixels.
For snapshots of people - which are never going to be enlarged bigger than 5" x 7" I suggest an inexpensive Argus D450 35 mm point and shoot with an aspheric plastic zoom lens, built in automatic flash, motor drive and a 10 year warranty. The camera, which came with 2 batteries, and a roll of Kodak 400 speed color film sold for $17.53 (including tax) at the local Wallmart. For this type of photography I don't know of a digital camera which can come close to it for the money.
Do I own digital cameras? Yes, but I don't think they are quite ready for primetime yet.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)
Whether digital or film is cheaper depends a lot on how many pictures you want to take and how many prints you want to make. A cheap film camera is probably a good choice if you're going to take a roll of snapshots once a year at Christmas and share one set of prints with your family. But if you want to take a few thousands photos a year and share them with everyone you know, the digital will pay for itself in reduced film, developing, and printing costs in fairly short order.
Digital also has some real
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Interesting)
With film enlargement, the choices of paper and film are what impacts the quality the most. I would agree that the current digital workflow rivals film for quality and blows it away for control, but traditional enlargements can and do frequently look better. I personally find HP's greens a little sickly.
I don't trust any inkjet manufacturer when they claim their prints are archival just yet. Check back with me
Re:Professional Printers.... (Score:4, Interesting)
And not counting the cost of equipment, expect to pay $0.25 per sq. ft. for wet prints. It's going to be a lot more than 5 years before somebody has an inkjet process that can spit out 2000 4x6 archival prints in an hour for less than a nickel a piece.
aQazaQa
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
i mean, 1600x1200 is only 2MP, and that's freakin' huge. the only reason i'd need something like 8MP (~3200x2400) would be if i was taking pictures of blueprints, bond-style, or needed a picture to be blown up to letter-sized proportions or large
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a Canon PowerShot A60 -- I chose it over other brands because I really like how my Canon Rebel EOS works and the A60 is very similar. 2.2MP isn't a hell of a lot, but it's enough to get 5x7 prints and have a chance in hell of it looking close to what I can get with a regular camera.
I completely disagree with your statement that digital cameras aren't used for prints -- I take a bazillion pictures, throw them up in 720x480 for the web for grandma and grandpa and then they tell me specifically which pictures they'd like prints of. I take the original 2.2MP JPEGs and give them to my film guy -- he touches them up and makes real 4x6 or 5x7 prints for me. They look fantastic and everyone's happy.
True, the bulk of my pictures stay in 720x480 but it's really nice to be able to get a 5x7 out of it should I want it. The amount of time I want 8x10s is next to nil; I go to the same photographer and get really good digital pictures taken in that case. (He's all but completely moved to a full digital studio.)
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Informative)
More then speed is price per picture... When I go to a wedding with a digital camera, I usually end up with hundreds of 4MP pictures. I couldn't do that if I was buying film and paying for processing and developing for 12-15 copies of the top 20-30 pictures to send out to the family when they keep one or two pictures.
With digital, I can take hundreds easily, p
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, when I brought the prints to a store to get them dry mounted and I told them they were digital, the response was "THESE are DIGITAL?" The fact that the enlargements were done with a photographic process vs. a printing process certainly helps. The 4x6 prints I get look just as good as anything I've gotten from film, but, as another poster stated, you can't get that kind of quality from your $99 inkjet.
Check out http://www.adirondack-park.net/trip2003/ [adirondack-park.net] if you want to see the pictures I've gotten blown up (and a lot of others); they're all from a 13,000-mile trip around the U.S. last summer. The ones I've gotten at 16x20 are Bryce Canyon [adirondack-park.net], Crater Lake [adirondack-park.net], the mountain next to Mt. Dana in Yosemite N.P. [adirondack-park.net], and the Grand Tetons [adirondack-park.net].
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Informative)
compare the physical size of a 640x480 image on your screen to the physical size of a standard print.
If I want a good picture for viewing on monitor I want it to be at least that big (probably bigger since it's easy to make it smaller if needed but you can't make it larger (without loosing quality)).
granted. i don't want to have to resize an image to look at it quickly. i suppose that thumbnail viewers are the obvious answer, though, to me, a photograph is a photograph.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
How was this guy stupid? He knew what he wanted to do with a PC and wanted the salesman to recommend a basic system for his tasks. Sounds like an average consumer with reasonable expectations. He seems much smarter than some guy who wants a 4GigaHurts machine with 2 GigaBites of RAM and 200 Gig hard drive so he can "surf the web faster" on his dialup and "print photos faster" on his ink jet.
Going back to cameras, 4 megapixels are good enough for most people to replace their 35mm cameras. Since 4MP cameras are still expensive, there is the perception more is better. But soon 4MP cameras will be $100, and people will realize 12MP cameras are not worth their dollars for what they use. Just give it some time.
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no camera expert, but it seems to me the biggest selling point of APS was how idiot-proof the format was. No 35mm film loading difficulties, no guesswork about how many shots are left on the film, and so forth. The quality didn't match 35mm, but that was never the point. Then along came digital photography and suddenly APS' niche vanished. It was an idea that came too late to catch on, I
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is that APS failed in part because it lacked professional viability. There being no commercial use for the product, the consumer use was stifled.
I wholly agree that pros can handle 35mm cartridges - hell they can handle 110 - 220 rolls most of the time. The problem is in the sybiotic relationship betwen consumers and pros.
Pros prove the viability of the system. Galen Rowel climbs a rock in yosemite and takes this awesome National Geographic cover on a 35mm Ca
Re:Why were MP ever such a big deal? (Score:3, Insightful)
and rightly so. it is by far the best value in small film cameras. the is no other pocket size camera (aside from $1000+ rollei or leicas) that has a 2.8f lens and that can focus in COMPLETE darkness. not to mention having pro/amateur features like half shutter to pre-focus, reframe, release.
fantastic camera.
It always... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It always... (Score:2, Insightful)
simply stated
Re:It always... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:It always... (Score:2, Interesting)
The example he gives of buckets of water is flawed, since falling rain isn't *focused* like light is. Light entering a lens is just being focused on a smaller area. Sure the area is smaller, but it's also brighter.
A larger sensor just requires the projected image to be spread out further. Of course, maybe if you got too small, you'd run into the same limits optical
Re:It always... (Score:5, Informative)
A smaller sensor is more noisy and more prone to chromatic abberation. Which is why my old EOS D30 with a large 3MP CMOS sensor produces better pictures than Sony's F828, which crams 8MP onto a tiny CCD. 3MP prints great up to 9x6" and is uable at 12x8". It's difficult to get a good print off a CCD camera above 7x5". Larger images don't need to be distorted as much by the lens to be focussed down onto a larger sensor, and that matters. More photons per unit area matters for faithful colour reproduction.
But like another poster said, most of these images are destined to be viewed only on screen, so most of the resolution is wasted. About the only thing it's useful for is giving the freedom to crop.
larger sensor = better S/N (Score:5, Informative)
Well, it's fact. The larger the surface area of each cell, the better signal to noise ratio you will get. CMOS yields better quality than CCD, as well- although the margin has dropped as CCD sensors and the electronics behind them have improved faster(due to everyone and their grandmother working with CCDR sensors) than CMOS.
This phenomenon can be seen clearly in both the non-CMOS 14 megapixel Kodak 14n, or the Sony F828, which has a VERY tiny 8 megapixel CCD sensor. Both are horrendously noisy at their lowest ISO settings.
My Canon 10D has better noise characteristics at about 400 ISO than my Canon G1 had at 50 ISO, and 400 is about the limit I feel is appropriate for an 8x10. For images resized to 800x600 for, say, large images linked off a website, ISO 800 or 1600 still yields pretty decent images. The example he gives of buckets of water is flawed, since falling rain isn't *focused* like light is. Light entering a lens is just being focused on a smaller area. Sure the area is smaller, but it's also brighter.
Light is focused, but it's also made up of particles. Further, the smaller the sensor, the smaller the lens. The smaller the lens, the less light is gathered.
Smaller sensors also require much more precise optics and focusing systems(or smaller apertures, limiting light input even further). Tiny sensors are also very prone to flare.
Re:larger sensor = better S/N (Score:4, Informative)
A lens designed for a 35mm film camera will project a focused image onto the film plane. The image will be circular. The rectangle of the 35mm film frame that you are exposing will barely fit within the circle (i.e. the corners of the film frame will just be touching the edge of the circle).
On a dSLR, like the Nikon D70 (referenced in the article), the sensor is smaller than the film frame of the 35 mm camera, and as a result the sensor fits more easily into the boundaries of the image circle formed by the lens.
Because of this, the effective field of view changes. The area of the D70's sensor is roughly 2/3 that of a 35mm film frame. As a result, the D70's "crop factor", or its "focal length multiplier", is around 1.5x. Attach a 50mm lens to the D70 and the field of view captured by its sensor will be roughly equal to that which a 35mm camera would capture using a 75mm lens, because the D70 is only capturing a smaller area of the image.
Clearly, there is less light hitting the D70's sensor with the same lens / same aperature as compared to a 35mm film frame. However, the density of the light falling on the D70's sensor with the same lens at the same aperature is exactly the same as the light falling on the film in a 35mm camera. The difference is that the D70's sensor is gathering less of the lens's total image. Take a shot at f2.8 on the D70 set to ISO 200, and you should get the same exposure as the same shot at f2.8 on the 35mm camera with ISO 200 film, since the density of the light striking the sensor / film is the same in both cases.
What is most interesting is that lenses tend to produce more distortion toward the boundary of the image circle (i.e., at the corners of a 35mm photo). On the D70, using a normal 35mm lense, the image is captured from the center of the image circle, resulting in less distortion from the lens.
At the same time, Nikon has produced lenses specifically designed for the D70's sensor size. These lenses are smaller than the equivelant lens for a 35mm camera. The reason? These lenses only need to produce a smaller image circle than a 35mm lens, one that barely encompasses the sensor size of the D70 (and would not fully encompass the 35mm film frame). They are only capturing the light necessary to create an image circle of that size. Therefore, the outer edges of the lens elements that would be needed if the lens were made for a 35mm camera can be discarded, resulting in a smaller, lighter lens.
Larger photo sites do require more light than a smaller photo site to achieve the same exposure. But again, it is the density of the light that evens the playing field. A photoreceptor site of 4 nm^2 will gather 4 times the light of a 1 nm^2 photoreceptor site. Suppose a maximum of 250,000 photons are collected by the 1 nm^2 photoreceptor, and the 4 nm^2 site collects a maximum 1,000,000. Now, suppose with current technology I can accurately count the number of photons collected by a photoreceptor to within +/- 1000. Obviously, 1000 is a larger percentage of the 1 nm^2 photoreceptor's 250,000 capacity than it is for the 4 nm^2 receptor's 1,000,000 capacity - hence the 4 nm^2 receptor's accuracy is much greater than the 1 nm^2's.
In any case, don't take my word for this, I'm not a rocket scientist or anything. But these guys [space.com] are.
Re:larger sensor = better S/N (Score:3)
The article argues that a smaller CCD chip will have more noise problems than a bigger one. It's not obvious to me that this is true. What one needs is more light-gathering power -- a wider aperture. Whether a lens with a given aperture focuses it's light down to a smaller or l
Re:It always... (Score:4, Informative)
Once an aliased image is captured by the CCD, no amount of image processing can remove the artifacts. That is why high end digital cameras like the Nikon D1 contain an optical low-pass filter between the lens and the CCD that purposefully degrades the quality of the lens assembly.
Re:It always... (Score:5, Informative)
This depends on the shape of the CCD active areas that are used to capture photons. In the "worst case" where the receptors are essentially discrete points on a grid, an optical blur is needed so photons that would otherwise land in between the sensors have a chance to be captured. In practice, I would guess that the sensors cover about 50% of the usable area, so the remaining 50% must be made up with low-pass filtering to avoid aliasing. (Think of filming headlights; if they're in focus they'll be two discrete points of light, but as you defocus the lights will expand until they overlap.)
A similar problem also comes up in motion video; the aperture is typically open 75% of the time, then closed 25% while the film advances. This results in motion aliasing such as helicopter blades and wagon wheels spinning backwards, etc. Digital video may be able to substantially reduce this problem, but ironically most people have grown accustomed to it, to the point where non-aliased video simply doesn't "look right."
The Foveon approach is a step in the right direction for image capture, since the Bayer interpolation from most other cameras is prone to all sorts of artifacts. Perhaps a camera could be built that would expose the same CCD array through red, green and blue filters in sequence, then apply software to compensate for slight motion between frames.
Similarly, imagine a camera that would expose the CCD for 1/10,000 of a second, then 1/1000, then 1/100, then 1/10, and combine the resulting frames into a single high-dynamic-range image. When the sun is millions of times brighter than the shadows, [0..255] simply isn't going to do justice.
In my opionion, the next few years of digital photography is going to be mighty interesting.
wait wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
at least it looks like bigger is still better, the sensors the author likes are physically larger.
The Megapixel illusion (Score:3, Informative)
With digicams, megapixels only matter (these days) for large prints, especially since most monitors these days are used at 1024x768, which is ... 768 kPixels :).
How about using SNR ? I know it's difficult to compute, but reviewers could use VHQ analog film, film-scan it and compare the output to digital output.
Re:The Megapixel illusion (Score:5, Insightful)
With a high megapixel camera I can take a picture of a statue from far away, get home and crap 3/4 of the picture out and still be left with a picture that's high quality enough for a print.
I have a 2 megapixel camera and it's good (not great) for 3x5 prints but I am not able to crop any of my picture or the quality loss is evident in prints.
Re:The Megapixel illusion (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Megapixel illusion (Score:3, Informative)
I would be very happy if camera vendors and review sites started prominently listing sensor surface area as prominent figure of merit.
One, any camera supporting EXIF will likely include sensor dimension information in every photograph. Two, looking at the stats listed on www.dpreview.com, this sort of information is readily accessible. Just because c|net doesn't list it for the point'n'shop consumers, doesn't mean you can't make YOUR purchasing decision with that information.
Tell that to the average person... (Score:5, Funny)
I hate people
Consumer ignorance is one thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kjella
Re:Tell that to the average person... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, yeah, knowing they have a at best a crappy 600dpi printer on their desk, they're being idiots, but not complete idiots as in both theory and practice, an 8MP image would look almost as good as a 35mm print... of course, their idea of "35mm print" is also "using a 3mm lens on a $10 disposable camera using $2 film" so, suffice it to say, their idea of "film quality" is already pretty sad.
Sigh...
Re:Tell that to the average person... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you get a lab to print your JPEGs, they're probably going to use something like a Fuji Frontier, which uses lasers to print onto photographic paper like Fuji Crystal Archive. This is professional-quality printing, and side by side is noticeably better than what even a good home inkjet can do. A Frontier prints at 300 DPI. Tell 'em that anything above 1800x1200 pixels is wasted anyway!
For me, its the optical zoom ability (Score:5, Informative)
For example, this picture I took with my decent megapixel digital camera, my first time using it [utulsa.edu] was a terrible disappointment because it was a great shot ruined just based on my not having the proper optical zoom capabilities.
(And my mistake in buying a camera that I thought would be top of the line, and stupidly didn't notice the difference between digital and optical zoom, this being my first move off of traditional cameras.)
Digital Zoom (Score:2)
The only reason to use the built-in digital zoom instead of zooming in photoshop is when you're using JPEG. If you use lossless compression or no compression at all photoshop is (probably) better.
the results you aren't pleased with.. (Score:3, Informative)
although most cameras are purchased prior to an impending expected use, is it fair to blame a camera the first time you used it? most photogs know they need to use a camera for a while before they can expect the best the camera can produce.
Re:For me, its the optical zoom ability (Score:3, Insightful)
unfortunately, i haven't seen many (if any) cameras with an optical zoom capability higher than 3X. they'll advertise the "859869X digital zoom" all day long, but digital zoom is an absolutely worthless feature, in my opinion.
i imagine they make such a big deal of it in order to attract the dolts that number-shop.
-mike
Re:For me, its the optical zoom ability (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything longer than 3x optical zoom requires some optical tirickery, which results in a) higher price if done right or b) lower quality if it's done cheaply. And beyond that, the more glass = slower lens f-stop, means more need to use flash (and shorter flash when you do) or it means having to use a higher IS) equivalent, which means more noise on your pictures (think gain-up).
Re:For me, its the optical zoom ability (Score:4, Informative)
Re:For me, its the optical zoom ability (Score:5, Informative)
The shutter was open for 1/8 second. Usually the most stable hands can only hold a camera still for 1/focal length. ie, for a standard camera you shouldn't shoot any slower than 1/30 of a second.
Having a longer focal length would have exacerbated the problem. What you need here is a greater light sensitivity (higher ISO). A higher ISO would have allowed you to shoot with a faster shutter speed.
I would suggest reading up a bit at www.dpreview.com [dpreview.com] or www.steves-digicams.com [steves-digicams.com] before buying a new camera.
If you want to see my credentials for making this comment take a look at: http://www.pbase.com/efatapo [pbase.com]
Identify a standard (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe we could translate it into ISO instead?
Re:Identify a standard (Score:3, Interesting)
Mars PanCam (Score:3, Insightful)
something I don't understand (Score:3, Interesting)
if we are so 'green aware' why don't inkjet printers ever have green ink?
Re:something I don't understand (Score:2)
you're forgetting that light and pigments combine differently to produce certain colors.
-mike
Additive vs. subtractive color (Score:3, Informative)
Re:something I don't understand (Score:3, Informative)
Well, some of the more specialist photo printers that contain more than five colours of ink do now include a greenish shade of ink. The main reason though is that most hues of light can be simulated by mixing varying intensities of red, green and blue. This is an additive model where 100% of red, green and blue is white.
For prints however, a subtractive model is used - what you are actually seeing when you look at a print is a t
Bayer patterns are RGBG anyway (Score:3, Informative)
Some more advanced patterns use RGBY, where Y is munged Red and Green data- it's backed out in the sensor calculations.
The fastest (ISO rating) sensors use CMY (but I forget if its doubled M or doubled Y, or even if the last one is G for colour accuracy).
Ask yourself why- cyan is the opposite of red- how is cyan made? Magenta(R+B) and Yellow(R+G). Only the 'red' can pass thru, thus 1/2 the light is lost.
Sadly the matrix th
Practice (Score:2)
Rus
MP matters to a point (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course you also need picture quality. But it really doesn't matter how good the colors are if you're only getting a postage stamp image.
I have a 2.0 megapixel camera which I intend to replace eventually. Not because of the pixel count, but because of the image quality. I have a few pictures where a small branch got just a bit into the frame. The camera focused on that little branch and blurred the rest of the picture. There's no manual focus so all I can do is watch what's in the view carefully.
It also doesn't react intelligently to low light. Although with a bit of modification I can turn that into a feature as I can take time lapse photos to get good pictures in very low light.
As with all things, you need to pick the versions with the features you need.
Ben
2 things to look for before MP (Score:4, Insightful)
Quality of Glass
Then look at MP and other features (including price/battery life other doodads)
e.
1 mp camera on Spirit (Score:5, Informative)
From the article: "NASA's Spirit Rover is providing a lesson to aspiring digital photographers: Spend your money on the lens, not the pixels. Anyone who has ever agonized over whether to buy a 3-megapixel or 4-megapixel digital camera might be surprised to learn that Spirit's stunningly detailed images of Mars are made with a 1-megapixel model, a palm-sized 9-ounce marvel that would be coveted in any geek's shirt pocket. Spirit's images are IMAX quality, mission managers say. "
spatial resolution vs. temporal resolution (Score:4, Informative)
I've done experiments with my 3MP camera, taking multiple shots from the same angle and layering them in photoshop. The enhanced resolution can be downright breathtaking, but the practice is only practical for still lifes and landscapes. What are you going to do with that 1MP camera when you want a high resolution image of janie's first smile?
Re:1 mp camera on Spirit (Score:4, Informative)
The lens is nice, and being fixed-focus and fixed-zoom helps with the quality over a consumer-grade camera, but the tripod is more important.
It's the same as in computers in general... (Score:4, Interesting)
Look at screens. Graphics cards have improved massively (electronics), screens (optics) used to be 1024x768 quite a while back, and typically aren't more than 1600x1200 now. The LCDs will hopefully change that though, since they're much more scalable (make more pixels) than a CRT (move beam faster).
Same with digital camera. The back-end is getting much cheaper, multi-MP CCDs and other electronics, but good optics in the lens is still damn expensive.
I read a piece recently about HDTV cameras. There were rumors that a certain camera would be sub-10.000$. The official comment basicly said "we can't tell you the real price yet, but you're smoking crack. the lens alone is in the 7-9.000$ range".
That being said, most digital cameras today should be just fine, if you don't try to take "impossible" pics. If the sun is saturating the CCD, it won't happen. If there's light casting ugly shadows, fill it in or you'll never get rid of them. There's a lot more bad photography than bad cameras...
Kjella
It's the lens (Score:3, Insightful)
Manufacterers like kodak and hp don't have a lot of experience in camera design and that's why they're so cheap compared to a good nikon or canon digital SLR with much much better lenses.
As in anything with computers, you get what you pay for, the problem has been though that most people compare cameras based soley on the number of pixels.
Sigma SD10 (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a comprehensive review [dpreview.com] of Sigma's camera.
Mars rovers (Score:2)
Pixel count is less 3rd on my list... at best (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course if you're just taking snapshots to send to grandma then forget everything I've just said
It is the LENSES dammit. (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, the additional detail is nice. But to be really usable to blow images up (which is probably the only reason for going higher than 4-5mp), the following problems have to be solved.
1. Noise has to be reduced. Especially in dark pics. Less of a problem now, but still an issue. Of course, if you're taking a 8mp camera and printing out an 8x10, you probably won't be complaining. Zoom in to 300-400% and you will be easily able to see it (and all the stuck sensors, but that is another story).
2. The lens is good enough to resolve that detail.
No, your made in china $5 lens will not be good enough. There is a reason professional film cameras have "big ass lenses".
Megapixels aren't the end... (Score:4, Funny)
Snap (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Snap (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Snap (Score:3, Informative)
It's still not the same - particularly with the lower end digital SLRs.
While the single-picture lag may not be so great, the key number is buffer size. The 300D, for example has a buffer size of 3 i
Re:Oddly, there is still a delay difference (Score:3, Insightful)
What may have happened to these shooters is the Canon shutter "bug" that many sports pros complained about: the 1D lag varies randomly between 70ms and 80ms (10ms of variability), which may mean difficulty getting the timing right for pros who shoot high-action photography and need to be able to anticipate the exact moment to press the shutter. To my knowledge, the forthcoming 1DII is supposed to reduce thi
Re:Snap (Score:3)
Re:Snap (Score:3, Informative)
My first test printing comparable images from drum-scanned film and directly from the 1Ds showed far better results at 24"x16" prints from the 1Ds--and then I realized I'd been shooting
As an ex-commercial photographer (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I hope future articles touch on is ergonomics. Unlike SLR's, which have had the same basic layout since the Exaktaflex, digital cameras are a hodgepodge of knobs, buttons and dials, laid out (apparently) at random at times. And the difference in features between cameras of the same pixel size can be stunning.
When people as me what's the best camera out there, I usually tell them find one that they find first easy to use, is a camera-brand (better glass), and has a decent image size. No amount of features will make up for a missed photo due to fumbling with a camera, and what's important to me (manual controls, accessory shoe, RAW/TIF, etc) may not be important to them.Re:As an ex-commercial photographer (Score:5, Interesting)
Things I wish manufacturers did:
1. Store data in RAW format. (Thanks to Sigma for pushing this.) This get rid of the useless "low/medium/high quality" switch on the camera. There goes one pointless switch.
2. Store all data at the highest resolution. Get rid of the "small/medium/large" switch. If I needed to store more pictures on my card, I would have bought a higher-capacity CF drive. I can get 4GB models now. That should be enough to store hundreds of pics. Another pointless switch, gone...
3. Get rid of in-camera white-balance setting, and do this on the computer or laptop or even palmtop to simplify the camera and force the complexity outside. (Again, thanks to Sigma) This can be done on the computer if needed with the RAW file. Most amateur users have NO idea what the hell white-balance means anyways. A third pointless switch gone..
4. Get rid of the Priority switches- Aperture, Shutter, Etc.. Instead, allow the user to adjust the Aperture & Shutter on a lens ring. The ring can also have a setting for Auto. This can also be done for focusing with a Focusing ring. There- 3 buttons eliminated just like that.
5. Get rid of on-camera flashes settings (Keep the wimpy on-camera flash if you must, but leave it on Auto always, and auto-disable when external flash is connected) Pro photographers would have an external flash anyways, and any flash settings can be made on that. Another switch, gone...
There's so many useless switches on a modern Digital SLR that can be completely thrown away and still provide all the functionality anyone would want.
Some people may want all these useless features.. for them the camera vendors can have their own special overfeatured model. I would rather have one that's simple and obvious... The first Digital SLR vendor that comes out with a Camera that DOESN'T include an INSTRUCTION MANUAL, I'm buying.
Re:As an ex-commercial photographer (Score:3, Interesting)
I think all high-quality cameras now can store RAW image formats.
2. Store at the highest resolution. Well, maybe, although it's a great way to save memory which ain't cheap or as large as I'd like to have it yet.
3. If you can shoot in RAW mode then you don't need the camera to do white-balance and you can do it in the computer where you have the horsepower and GUI to do it right
Depth (Score:3, Interesting)
Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
A bad lens will produce a bad image regardless of the image sensor. Sometimes an image sensor will not have enough resolution to detect the distortion due to chromatic and spherical aberrations. But when the same manufacturer slaps a new sensor on last year's lens, the new sensor can pick up better on the aberration and the pictures end up looking lousy.
Another feature to bear in mind is hardware {optical} zoom. Don't buy a camera without it and don't reject a camera for not having software {digital} zoom -- your favourite graphics editor can do this for you.
Cheap image sensors are invariably noisy. Big pixels can hold more initial charge, therefore can accept more light in the course of an exposure. The sensor will only be saturated in really bright light, and the amount of charge remaining on the pixel {which is a measure of how much light didn't hit it} can be measured more accurately: one "unit" on the ubiquitous 0-255 scale represents many electrons. But more silicon costs more money. Small pixels don't have the same capacitance, so can't accept as much light before becoming saturated -- you have to run a shorter exposure. And the number of electrons per ADC count is smaller. The net result of having a higher density in the image sensor is that even in bright light, the resulting pictures will look a little bit as though they were taken in poor light. Of course, you can remove the noise by downsampling, but then you lose the benefit of the higher-res sensor.
And what's with the confusing term "digital SLR" ? As far as I can see, all digital cameras with LCD viewfinders are by definition SLRs, since the same lens is used for viewing and taking the picture.
Re:Obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
Dynamic Range and the SIZE of the CCD!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Greater dynamic range will give you better details in your shadows and highlights. This is very important for the serious photog, although probably not important for snaps of your kid's Bar Mitzvah.
The other thing that matters is the actual size of the CCD. Manufacturers are using various technical tricks to squeeze out more pixels from the same size CCD, and the results are sometimes pretty bad. The worst problem I've seen was purple fringing in bright red objects that were backlit. Totally ruined an otherwise beautiful photograph.
The bigger the CCD the better.
Why digital camera? (Score:5, Interesting)
optical resolution is far more important (Score:3, Informative)
The article fails to address the issue of optical resolution, i.e. lens quality and aperture. Does the number of pixels act as the resolution limiter, or does the quality or size of the lens limit resolution? Many consumer cameras use poor quality small lenses, but boast of large numbers of pixels. Since CCDs are cheap and good lenses aren't, why not over sample the image enough so the consumer thinks they're getting a superior image, and has to pay more for flash memory? The number of pixels can be irrelevant for a camera with a small or cheap lens. Larger aperture lenses will always resolve better, as is the case with all imaging optics anywhere in the spectrum between telescopes and microscopes. Cameras are no different.
The reason professional cameras are better is not just because the CCD is larger. A larger CCD demands a larger lens. That is the difference.
Furthermore, sensitivity and CCD size may not matter at all! The problem of noise for smaller pixels is only relevant when the camera is capturing lower intensity images. Brighter intensities overcome the noise. Larger aperture lenses also collect more light and resolve better, reducing noise and increasing contrast.
What's even more important than pixels? (Score:3, Informative)
- The quality of the body and mechanicals. No point in getting a nice digicam or DSLR when it's going to break in six months/5,000 images.
- The camera's firmware. Canon Digital Rebel owners know what I'm talking about. While firmware won't make or break a camera it CAN have a big impact. If the camera doesn't let you do what you need to do, all the glass and megapixels won't mean poop.
- Many others have mentioned this: egronomics. If you're spending time trying to find the button that lets you do what you need to do then you've missed the shot.
- Control over the camera. I think this is actually a bigger deal than megapixels or glass. If you don't have the control over the camera that you need, then everything else doesn't matter. This is more of a prosumer concern than a "I just wanna take some pictures"-consumer. However, it does matter. That's why SLR's are popular - people want control.
More MHZ syndrome all over again? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now the same thing has happened with cameras. It's all about megapixels. Your average consumer won't do enough research to learn about how the camera works, all they know is megapixels.
But what can be done? Instead of producing higher quality optics such as that on the mars rovers(1MP mind you), we get more megapixels with crappy everything else.
misleading article (Score:3, Insightful)
Right as far as dynamic range and noise are concerned. Wrong as far as "detail resolved" is concerned. A small 8 Mpixel sensor, given sufficient light, will resolve more detail than even the largest 4 Mpixel sensor. Furthermore, in particular for digital SLR sensors, you are better off taking the higher resolution and smaller pixels and removing noise in software than to limit yourself by an otherwise equivalent lower resolution sensor.
Thankfully, some manufacturers have moved beyond pushing megapixels. Cameras that utilize Foveon's X3 sensor produce smaller images, but they are much sharper, as red, blue and green color channels are captured in every photosite, as opposed to the more standard use of Bayer interpolation.
]Foveon's images have not lived up to the hype in tests, and there is no reason to believe that they would. The Foveon sensor really does have 1/4 the spatial resolution of a regular CCD sensor. In return, it avoids some color artifacts and requires a bit less post-processing. But that turns out not to be a very good tradeoff.
Fujifilm is also taking things up a notch by adding a set of photosites just for the purpose of improving dynamic range with their SuperCCD IV SR sensors.
That was a nice idea. It's too bad that it makes very little difference in practice.
Basically, the same kind of people that used to endlessly tout the virtues of film and vinyl records are now out in force making similarly silly arguments about digital cameras.
Yes, you should remember that higher resolution does not guarantee better quality: a lot of factors need to come together. But high resolution also isn't intrinsically bad and low resolution is no guarantee of lower image noise either. Furthermore, companies like Foveon and Fuji are guilty of using inflated pixel counts to make up for what are actually low actual resolution in their cameras compared to similarly priced models--generally, their cameras are just not good deals.
If you want to know how well a camera works, the only way to do it is to look at tests and at real images. And within each market segment, both resolution and quality keep going up, and that is no accident.
And the reason why people want higher resolutions is no accident either: it permits cropping, image processing, big enlargements, and gives people far more flexibility for post-processing. And we can go way beyond 8 or 14 Mpixels before people's thirst for additional resolution will be satisfied.
Picture quality (Score:3, Insightful)
Five facts from a professional photographer (Score:5, Informative)
1. Image quality will be determined by the combination of how many pixels you capture (megapixel count/resolution) and the size of those pixels (sensor size/photosite size), with the weight of the influence going to the photosite size. Thus, resolution being equal between two cameras, the camera with the larger sensor size will give you higher quality captures.
2. Garbage In, Garbage Out applies to cameras too. This should be obvious. Make sure your lens is able to capture all the data you want to feed to your sensor. If you have a full-frame, 24x36mm 11mp Canon 1Ds (the current professional favorite, myself included), you are wasting it's resolution by putting a cheap lens on it. I've noticed, in fact, that even the highest-quality lenses tend to be unable to deliver enough detail to this stunning sensor, so a cheapo lens is going to f*ck you.
3. For professional use, film is now dead. Game over. I've done the head-to-head comparisons. I own medium and large-format cameras. I own a high-end drumscanner. I own a large-format printer. I've compared the quality from my previous breadwinning equipment (medium format film scanned by drumscanner) to my current breadwinning equipment (full-frame digital Canon 1Ds) and the digital kicks film ass. That's why it's my current breadwinner.
Seriously, I had 4x6 foot prints made (notice I said FEET, not INCHES) from drum-scanned 6x7cm transparencies, and from 11mp Canon 1Ds captures, and my own lab couldn't tell the difference. Bye-bye film. And the $10,000 price tag was paid for in film/processing savings before I even got the credit card bill. (for more about how cost affects quality, see below, #5)
4. The best camera for you is all about what you intend to do with it. A camera is just a tool. Pick the right one for the job. Because of this, most professionals have, on average, more than 3 different camera systems. So, decide what you want the camera for, and the rest of the decisions about it's suitability get easy.
The most important factor is usually not sheer resolution and image quality. It's about usability of design and ease of handling. If it were all about resolution then most photographers would be using 8x10-inch view cameras. But we realize that a stunning, mega-high-resolution image is useless if the important moment we wanted to capture was missed due to slow camera operation.
That's why most pros use medium format or 35mm, and most ams use point'n'shoots.
So, pick a camera that feels good, is understandable to operate, and doesn't get in your way. After these criteria are satisfied THEN you look at resolution/sensor size.
5. The single most important equation for making better photographs is (forethought x volume of action). In other words, think about what you want to achieve with your images, then shoot as much as you can, and hone your results. This is really where digital capture shifts paradigms. Once you go digital, ANY digital, your visual experiments cost you nothing.
With film, every time you want to try something new, you are still paying for film and processing (even if you own your own darkroom). This means, effectively, that film and processing are an economic tax on your creative growth.
So, as long as you stay focused on what you want to achieve (rather then just shooting because you can), buying ANY decent digital camera will yield you better results then sticking with film, and it's use tax.
Class dismissed.
color density (Score:3, Interesting)
it's not just the number of colors, btw; the average human eye, while amazing, is not going to notice the difference between two shades in a 16bit per channel image (my scanner is capable of 16bit RGB, i don't know of any non-scanning back digital cameras that can do the same) but can the CCD actually resolve those shade gradations to take advantage of all the bits? definitely not the case yet.
Marketing run amok. (Score:3, Interesting)
Focal length multiplier, DOF, and ISO/CCD issues (Score:3, Informative)
1. Almost all DSLR's have what is called a focal length multiplier - tends to be 1.3 or 1.5/1.6. This means that your "normal" 28mm lens ends up being a 42mm lens (for 1.5x focal length multiplier) - this has to do with the fact that the CCD chip is not "full-size". This is great for tele shots - i.e. your 300mm lens becomes 450mm ... but really sucks for wide-angle used - i.e. you need a 18mm lens to get a 28mm shot. All point-n-shoot digicams show the 35mm "equivelent", but in actual fact, that is NOT their focal length.
2. Related to the above is Depth of Field - especially with point-n-shoots, your DOF is much longer, so if you want to shoot a picture that is "tack-sharp" on the subject, but have a blurred foreground/background, that is more difficult - although on the other hand, you do have more DOF if you want that.
3. Another issue somewhat touched upon briefly is differences in the CCD size between point-n-shoot and DLSR's. With all else equal, the small the size of the imaging pixels, the more noise that can be present, and this tends to go up dramatically if ISO is turned up (first thing I do on a point-n-shoot is turn OFF the auto-ISO and force is to the lowest setting). I'm sure some will disagree, but I'd challange you to print, say a 10X15 print from one of the 8MP digicams compared to a DLSR, both shot in GOOD light (with lowest ISO). Yea, under photoshop, that DSLR shot is just super-silky smooth, but on the 10X15 print, I bet you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference. Having said that, crank up the ISO in your point-n-shoot to say, 800 (yes, even in the newest digicams), and it will look like CRAP - again, at outlined, because the sensor sizes are so darn small, whereas on the DSLR's, you can get away with this (and increase your shutter speed so you don't get motion blur) and the picture may be decent, especially with noise-reducting software/filters applied. From reading Part 1, THIS is the real emphasis of the article.
I've only scratched the surface here - the article talks about a lot of the above, but most of the Slashdotter's seem to have blown right by this stuff.
Hulkster
P.S. On those Mars pictures, YES, they were done with a 1MP digicam (with BIG sensors), but just about everything folks have seen is stiched togather, so you are (in some cases), seeing like an "effective" 50+MP shot - welll DUHHH it looks so good!
Re:Focal length multiplier, DOF, and ISO/CCD issue (Score:3, Informative)
The only way in which a 300mm
Cool flower shots (Score:5, Interesting)
Flower shots from my folks Garden [backplane.com]
All of these pictures were taken with my Canon-EOS10D, 420EX flash (used mainly for shadow fill), and Sigma 20mm 1:1.8 EX DG prime lens. The shots were taken hand-held in AP mode using F4.0-F16 depending on the conditions. This particular lens produces ultra sharp results at F4.0-F13 or so. The 10D (and 300D) use a 6 MPix low-noise CMOS sensor and you can see it in the above shots.
Insofar as all the discussion goes, from my point of view it all comes down to three things: Lens Quality, Sensor Quality, and Dynamic Range (of the exposure). SLR's like the 10D have gotten good enough that I don't use film any more. The lens quality is there (being an SLR and taking the same lens as the film EOS's), sensor quality is there, and while dynamic range still needs another 2-4 bits of resolution for my comfort it's still good enough for 99% of the shots I take. Film is dead, digital rendition at 11!
And I tend to agree with the few other obviously experienced comments (verses the bozo comments from people that don't know jack about taking photographs). You first need to know how to take a picture before you can take a good one. Then comes lens and sensor noise. A lens hood is important, and a good flash (articulated for bounce shots and also be sure to have a diffusor handy) is very important (even when you don't think you need it). For example, most of those flower shots I took were with flash+diffusor, even though it was a bright sunny day outside. The flash was used primarily to fill in some of the shadow (one way to correct for limited dynamic range but it also makes the shots look a lot better).
-Matt
Of *course* this is true! (Score:3, Interesting)
And of course realize that if you take printing out of the picture and just keep everything digital, then 1 megapixel is fine for 80% of all uses. 2 megapixels covers the rest.
The huge downside is more megapixels is that, well, the images are huge, so you spend more time tranferring them and backing them up, you get fewer images on a CD, you need larger and more expensive memory cards, etc.
Re:Troll? (Score:2)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ain%27t& r =67 [reference.com]
"But despite all the attempts to ban it, ain't continues to enjoy extensive use in speech. Even educated and upper-class speakers see no substitute in folksy expressions such as Say it ain't so and You ain't seen nothin' yet. "
I was using it in such a manner. I know it's no only poor English, it's not even horrible English, it's just not English. But people sti
Re:I'm ambivalent (Score:3, Funny)
Wedding photographers.
Re:I'm ambivalent (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But MP matters for size! (Score:5, Interesting)
Foveon cameras have one three-color sensor per pixel, but for PR purposes, they, too, count R, G, and B as separate pixels. For example, the Sigma SD-10 mentioned in the article has an imager 2268 x 1512 pixels, but is listed as a "10.8 megapixel" camera. For Foveon units, divide by 3.
Foveon cameras, since the R, G, and B sensors are at the same place, don't generate color artifacts at black/white boundaries. This eliminates one of the main effects that makes "digital" look worse than film. Of course, if you compress to JPEG, you get color artifacts anyway, but that's a JPEG problem, not an imager problem.
Re:Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sony f707 (Score:3, Informative)