Beyond Megapixels - Part II 135
TheTechLounge writes "This is Part II of a series of three editorial articles examining current digital photography hardware, as well as my views of what is to come. In this segment I will be focusing on build, size, weight and ergonomics of camera bodies, as well as the size, weight, function and versatility of the glass strapped to the front of it. If you haven't already, you may want to read Part I first."
There making cam's to "camp" (Score:4, Insightful)
I remember seeing this store clerk setting the display of new cam's; the clerk was handling them as if they were new born babies.
Then again one those cam's probably cost a months wage for the clerk.
Re:There making cam's to "camp" (Score:1, Funny)
All that a MILSPEC camera would be would be the same camera, but only $10,000 more. Its gotta be safe from whale sonar after all.
Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:5, Informative)
The sensor only receives the light that passes through the center of the lens, while the light on the outer region simply falls to the side of the sensor.
That's fundamentally wrong. A light ray that falls on any part of the lens can be refracted to any point on the focal plane. What gets focused onto the sensor in the center of the focal plane is not just the light that passed through the center of the lens, but part of the light passing through the entire lens.
The author is right that a range of smaller lenses would help reduce camera size, but with a smaller lens comes less light gathering ability and reduced ability to take advantage of depth of field when composing a photo, so smaller lenses would be a compromise in photo quality.
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:5, Informative)
He also stated that the 2/3" lens and DLSR lens at f/2.8 have the same light gathering ability. That's wrong. They have the same exposing rate ability but the SLR lens has greater light gathering ability because it exposes a larger image circle.
Frankly, everyone should ignore these articles. The author doesn't know enough about the subject to do anything but damage.
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:5, Informative)
". . . by utilizing the interchangeability of the lenses on a DSLR, you open yourself up to the use of dozens of lenses appropriate for all kinds of various uses and prices from around $60 up to, and in excess of, $8,000. For photographers switching from a film SLR to a DSLR of the same brand and mount, this means your investment in lenses does not go out the window."
KFG
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:4, Insightful)
The happy medium? Cameras with an APS sensor size, which allow the use of the old lenses, but with a different effective focal length than when used with 35mm. You don't have to throw out all your old lenses, but because of the different performance characteristics they'll have when used with D-SLRs, you'll probably want to upgrade them in the future. You're happy because you can still use all your old lenses, and the manufacturer is happy because you'll probably buy new ones in the not-so-distant future, not to mention the fact that you also bought the camera.
Do I think this is the primary reason for manufacturers using APS-size sensors vs. 35mm? No, but I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of it.
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:2)
The APS sensor size was a compromise for manufacturability and image quality. Existing lenses have issues with corner resolution and full frame sensors are very costly to make.
Nope. (Score:2)
The EOS 1Ds, full frame sensor, 11 mp, costs $7000.
The Eos 1DMKII, 1.3x smaller sensor, 8mp, costs $4500
The Eos 10D, 1.6x smaller sensor, 6.3mp, costs $1500.
Now if each wafer costs X dollars to make, and (pretend) have a fixed number of bad sensors due to crystal defects per wafer, which is the economically feasible solution to produce a consumer oriented camera?
Your pros will pay for the biggest sensor.
Your
Re:Nope. (Score:2)
Perhaps you should go re-read the last line of my post. I'll quote it here for your convenience:
"Do I think this is the primary reason for manufacturers using APS-size sensors vs. 35mm? No, but I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of it."
Heh Missed it. (Score:2)
Helps, of course, to read everything 3x and not be in a hurry.
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:2)
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:2)
If you start with the lens, then how do you conclude that the lens is poorly matched to the camera? There is no doubt that the lens came first, so that's why I take issue with the author's "insight".
Nikon re
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:3, Interesting)
He is actually correct. F/2.8 is essentially light gathering ability over area. Not total light gather ability. No matter what size sensor you put there within the image circle it is effectively F/2.8.
But it ends up being a waste of lens with smaller sensor. You can use a much smaller lens and deliver the equivalent light to the smaller image circle.
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:5, Informative)
Light gathering ability of the lens, however, is not per unit area. It means the total ability to gather light. Therefore a lens that covers a wider area at the same f-stop will have greater light gathering ability than its competitor. Whether that larger image circle is actually used is beside the point. The author was incorrect stating that the two lenses have identical light gathering ability. He would have been right had he said "exposure ability".
Two cameras with different sensor size but identical ISO's and f-stops will require the same shutter speed for proper exposure, but the camera with the larger sensor requires more light to expose due to its larger imager area. Where does this extra light come from? Not from increased exposure time since the shutter speed is the same. It comes from the lens delivering more total light. This occurs because its lens actually has a larger physical aperture to achieve the same f-stop and the larger aperture allows more light through the lens. The "luminous flux" is unchanged, however, because it's spread over a larger area. How does the lens get away with this? The larger sensor area requires a longer focal length lens for equivalent perspective and f-stop = (focal length/physical aperture). It's all cleverly hidden in the math. Perhaps a little too cleverly.
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:2, Informative)
Having a lens gather more light and spill it beyond the sensor is wasted and the main point of the article. The point is putting a larger than needed lens with a larger than needed image circle is only a waste. When you could build a smaller lens with a smaller image circle with the exact same specs.
This why Nikon is building a line of lenses for the smaller APS image circle
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:2)
If you start out with the assumption that the imager size is always the same, then you would be right to assume that the larger image circle is wasted. The whole point of the article would be wasted as well.
DSLR makers started out with the lens so the image circle was fixed. Their challenge was to produce the best digital camera they could within the constraints of t
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:2, Insightful)
Dead Right! (Score:2)
1) Bigger is better (duh)
2) Smaller sensor needs smaller lens (duh)
3) ????? (awaiting the third part)
Techincally (now talkign about the parent) your 2nd statement is incorrect. IF the SLR lense focused that same amount of light onto a smaller circle it would be faster. But they still put forth the same number of photons per unit area.
And to get on about le
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:1)
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:5, Informative)
The sensor only receives the light that passes through the center of the lens, while the light on the outer region simply falls to the side of the sensor.
This is actually true, due to the nature of focusing a round image from a round lens onto a rectangular sensor (the round plug into the square hole, if you will). Either outer parts of the circle will fall on the focal plane that is not convered by the sensor or the sensor will have areas not exposed to the image (circle fitting entirely inside the rectangle).
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it's kind of both. You need to think beyond those over simplified line drawings of a pinhole camera with a tree or vertical arrow as the "scene". A circular lens will create a circular image on the focal plane, which is where the sensor or film will hopefully lie, and since the sensor is usually rectangular part of that projection will indeed be "discarded".
However, for a point in the center of the image, reflected light from that point source will almost certainly be striking the *entire* front element of the lens, and being refracted back onto the sensor where they ideally will focus on a single point again. Instead of a single line from a point on the subject to a point on the sensor, you need to think of two conical objects (yes, 3D) joined at their equal sized bases (the lens).
The fact is that there are a lot of photographers that don't understand the finer points of optics, or need to for that matter, and are under the illusion that DSLRs are only utilising the superior glass in the center of their lenses. Given that many of them have only just grasped how the field of view crop actually works, and that it's not really the "zoom multiplier" marketing told them it was, I can't say I'm surprised. If anyone knows of a web page that explains this in laypersons terms, I'd certainly appreciate the URL though!
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:2)
35mm film is also a rectangular format.
A DSLR focusses the exact same picture on the sensor as a regular SLR would focus on the (greater) 35mm film area. That's the clever thing about these DSLR lenses - you get to keep your existing lenses AND they work the same way!
Some digital cameras are NOT designed to work with regular lenses, but can use
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:4, Insightful)
I wonder why they don't use a built-in lens to undo the ~ 1.5 'magnification'.
Re:Actually you are incorrect (Score:3, Informative)
A properly designed lens for the smaller image circle will be smaller lighter and put the same light on the sensor. The larger lens is wasting light since a large percentage is dumped outside the sensor.
And while I wont argue the where the light rays come from, the effect remains the same. The outer edges of the image circle is where the performance is worse. Softness, Chromatic Aberration and Vignetting are al
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:1)
KFG
Re:Mod Hanway down, he has it wrong. (Score:1)
Re:Mod Hanway down, he has it wrong. (Score:2)
Thus empiricly - you are right - a majority of the light passes through the primary lens in a somewhat focussed manner.
If the fStop if higher, the light can be thought of as focused throughout.
Therefore the degree to which the outside of the lens is important changes with aperture, and I believe with focal distance.
Still, if you make a smaller lens then you are to some extent moving the
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:2, Informative)
Think of a limiting case. If you had a lens element in contact with the sensor, that lens element would have to be larger for a larger sensor.
Re:Article is Wrong on Lenses (Score:4, Informative)
In order to reach the film/sensor, a bundle of rays must pass through the pupil aperture, aka the "iris". Consider the bundle for the mile marker post #123 on the extreme right-hand side of the scene. For the 35mm camera, the aperture is bigger (e.g. 1.5x as big), hence the bundle of rays accepted from that milepost is bigger, hence the actual amount of glass it traverses is bigger. If the aperture and hence bundle of rays is too big, and the field angle at the edge of the sensor is too large, part of that bundle will be shadowed by the lens hood and you'll have vignetting: again not so much of a problem for DSLRs (but a real problem for wide-angle lenses)! This is a real physical effect.
Yes, the front surface of the lens accepts light from mile post #123 over its entire diameter, but most of those photons are rejected by the aperture stop (i.e. they fall on the iris pupil and never makes it through). For a given FOV, the aperture diameter is *smaller* for DSLRs, simply because the focal length needs to be reduced.
The bottom line is standard 35mm lenses are overdesigned for DSLR usage, accomodating a larger pupil aperture than needed for a given field of view. Less of the lens really is used, and luckily, all problems of chromatic and spherical aberration increase drastically with field angle: in this case sticking to the "center of the lens" should be thought of the angular sense, and really does improve the image quality. The flip side of this is that DSLRs will be more forgiving when it comes to lens quality, since they don't stress the off-axis performance as much.
If you don't believe me, take a very wide angle lens on you 35mm film camera, open up the aperture as wide as possible, and take a highly-contrasting scene. Notice how the center of the image is sharper and more color-accurate? Get out your scissors and cut out the central 1/2 of that picture. You've just replicated what a DSLR at the same lens settings would have produced. Nicer looking, eh?
By the way, the terminology "equivalent focal length" when applied to DSLR lenses is a complete misnomer: see this comment [slashdot.org].
pixels?!?!?! Bahhh!! PINHOLES (Score:2, Funny)
*All* we had was a pinhole. That's all we ever had. We were even darned lucky to have the pin from aunt Emma to make the pinhole with! Life was hard, and we were GRATEFUL.
Why don't you whippersnappers grab a 'toid and make a Pintoid [merrillphoto.com]
Return to where your roots are, don't be deceived by megapixel this and megapixel that. It's a myth anyway. If film was good enough for your grandpa, and your parents, it's good enough for you.
Re:pixels?!?!?! Bahhh!! PINHOLES (Score:1)
The really cool part was getting to stand on your head to look at the picture on the back wall.
KFG
Re:pixels?!?!?! Bahhh!! PINHOLES (Score:1)
You were lucky, we used to dream about having a pinhole. We had to make do with square.
Dphc? (Score:3, Interesting)
Digital pinholes... thermal noise? (Score:2)
There are tools like Pixelzap [tawbaware.com] that do darkfield subtraction which can help with the pixels that are always noisy, but since thermal noise is random, there's always some to contend with. How would a digital pinhole camera deal
Re:Digital pinholes... thermal noise? (Score:2)
What is this article trying to say? (Score:5, Insightful)
But this one? What is he trying to say? It almost seems as though the article is missing several pages...
And a DSLR with a whole new series of lenses, presumably on a different mount? Not likely! In such a scenario anyone who eventually upgrades from a 10D-level camera to a full professional DSLR would be stuck with replacing all lenses as well. From the user-standpoint that obviously sucks, and from the camera maker standpoint there is no "brand lock in". If you have to change all your lenses anyway, then you can easily jump brands at the same time.
What is going to happen is eventually 10D-level cameras will have full-frame 35mm sensors. Canon and Nikon might not like this idea very much, but someone else is going to do it if they don't. If Minolta/Pentax/Sigma etc move in this direction, Canon and Nikon will be forced to follow. As pixel counts increase sensor size will eventually have to follow.
When this happens, prosumer point-and-shoots will move to APS-sized sensors, and the standard point-and-shoot models will increase to something around what the prosumers have now.
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:2, Informative)
Canon is the manufacturer most actively pushing full frame. That's because they lead in the manufacture of CMOS imagers so they have a distinct advantage in imager size. Still, there doesn't seem to be any race to get there. It's unlikely Canon and Nikon will be following anyone else any time soon. I should mention that Kodak makes full frame as well (the least expensive at around $4000)
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:1)
Think of this in terms of (for example) computer memory. As the manufacturing technology improves, yields will increase and prices will drop. We have already seen this happen -- the EOS D60 to 10D, for example. The 10D has better electronics, better body, but is far cheaper than the D60 was. (I have a D60, EOS 3, 17-40 4L, 28-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L + various other bits and pieces.)
There is no reason that P&S prosumer level cameras can'
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:2, Interesting)
At the P&S and prosumer levels though, there is a lot of competition, especially here in Japan.
Casio, Panasonic, Sony, Kyocera, Konica, Ricoh and others are all selling P&S digital cameras, but not DSLR. They want as much of the market as they can get, and will drive the lower end of the market up. This will in turn force the Kiss/300D/Rebel-level market up. Which will force the 10D market up
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:2)
Nikon considers themselves a lens company. Subtle distinction, but they offer bodies so that people will buy their lenses. I don't know for sure, but Canon may ultimately feel the same way. It all really depends on where the bulk of the profit lies.
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:2)
I think that CMOS is absolutely competitive with CCD from an image quality standpoint but not better. Of the APS sensors, I think (as a D100 owner) that the S2 is the class of the field. All three of the major players are very good, though. CMOS has big manufacturing and cost benefits and Nikon apparently agrees. Canon's got CMOS down and that's the huge advantage they
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:1)
You're recycling this comment from the one you made when the 35mm format was first introduced, aren't you?
Or was it from the introduction of the PCI bus?
KFG
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:2, Informative)
When 35mm was introduced the previous formats were drastically different. It was not reasonable to use previous body/lens formats for 35mm film.
PCI is the same -- VESA local bus was a major kludge, to be polite about it. It also could not be run at speeds other than FSB, if memory serves. This was a rather large problem for the DX-50 chips! (Not DX2-50, DX50.) Many cards would not run reliably on a 50MHz bus. But I digress...
This situation is rather different. It is ex
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:1)
KFG
I agree. (Score:2)
I'm disappointed with the quality of the articles.
The major issue is that it is far more difficult to improve lenses than it is to improve digital sensors. The development of lenses is already very mature.
It often happens that a digicam has a high number of pixels, but a poor lens, so that the captured image is of poor quality.
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:5, Informative)
Right now, Canon actually *has* a 35mm sensor DSLR (EOS-1Ds) - it's supposed to be awesome, as well as being awesomely expensive ($9,000ish I believe). From what I've read, the problem is the low yield on making the sensors themselves and also some fancy expensive anti-aliasing filter that goes in front of the sensor.
Unfortunately, I don't think you can compare yield improvement of expensive 35mm 12MP sensors with yield improvement (and therefore cost reduction) on things like LCD flat panels. The reason is that consumers don't *need* image quality like the Canon EOS-1Ds provides. It's almost medium format quality and 99% of consumers used crappy tiny-lensed 35mm negative film for years, printed by shitty machines on 4x6 paper that fades.
So if it *is* the case that 35mm sensors are the future for DSLRs, I do not believe we can expect the kind of quick generational reduction in cost that we're used to for other more "commodity" consumer items like LCD flat panels, PDAs, cell phones, and so on.
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:3, Interesting)
We will see this happen though. CMOS sensors are manufactured using essentially the same technology that is used to make RAM. Yields will increase. Costs will come down.
If this is not driven by Canon or Nikon in the high end, it will be driven by Panasonic, Sony, Casio, etc in the P&S market. As the P&S quality increases, the 10D-level DSLR quality will have to increase to just
Re:What is this article trying to say? (Score:2)
Of course not. Gotta keep up with the jonses, though
35mm (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be great to have the same bodies for film or digital and just swap the back off if you feel like changing and have it all interface with the body correctly. I know you can sort of do this with medium format, but then you getting into real $$. I guess customers not really caring is why APS film hasn't disapeared yet (oh look honey, it's such a cute camera), though hopefully digital will kill it off. One thing I'd like to see move up from APS is the magnetic media film. I don't know how badly it affects the image quality, but it would be really great to have the focus distance/lens, zoom, f-stop, shutter speed etc record when I take a picture. I always forget what lense I used by the time i come to develop the film... Of course if you're using a filter this still wouldn't let you know which filter you used.
Re:35mm (Score:3, Informative)
Drop in 35mm electronic film capture (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Drop in 35mm electronic film capture (Score:3, Informative)
You can. [bhphotovideo.com]
WAAAY more expensive than a good quality digital camera, though. So how much money do you have?
Re:Drop in 35mm electronic film capture (Score:2)
Re:35mm (Score:2, Interesting)
Full 35mm sensors have been available for some time in the form of the Canon 1Ds and the Kodak 14n, 14nx, SLR/n, and SLR/c. You are right about the price, though.
Re:35mm (Score:1)
Re:35mm (Score:2)
Here you go... [dpreview.com]
Re:35mm (Score:5, Informative)
So at least two full 35mm frame digital SLRs exist. None of them are cheap - and it it will quite possibly stay that way for some time.
Leica has announced a digital back for their R series SLR cameras. This being Leica, it will possibly be rather expensive - not to mention the huge price tags for their lenses and film bodies. There has been some persistent rumors that Nikon is designing their next professional flagship SLR camera body (the successor to the film SLR model F5) as a camera that can take interchangable digital (and film) backs. Nikon flagship models are usually replaced every 8 years. If the pattern holds then they should come up with a new model (the F6) this year.
Leica Digital (Score:2)
If you can't afford the digital back (or even the camera that takes it), Leica makes a very nice digital camera (albeit not SLR) called the Digilux (1 and 2). You can find it here [leica-camera.com].
It's pretty much everything you would expect from Leica in a point-and-shoot type. It reminds me very much of their MP-series film cameras, which are also incredible.
Derek
Re:35mm (Score:2)
Base ISO (Score:2)
Smaller pixels generate more noise; however in each case both cameras have above the number of pixels to properly capture all information in a scene (I think it's 9 micron off the top of my head).
The difference is the Kodak camera is really designed to be a studio camera. That means base ISO is low, because studios typically have enough watt-seconds to handle the slow speeds. Colour accuracy is aw
Re:35mm (Score:5, Informative)
The Kodak costs approx. $ 4000, and the Canon $ 7500. But at least 35mm, full frame sensors ARE here already. If you win the lottery, you can also buy medium format digital backs.
Re:35mm (Score:1)
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/digital/ccd/prod
Telecentric Lenses and Silicon (Score:5, Informative)
Standard film camera lens tend to transmit light from the subject to the sensor at the angle that it was received (similar to the way that a pinhole camera projects a bundle of rays from object space to image space). Silicon sensors suffer from two problems when light enters them at an angle. First, the high index of the material and coatings tends to reflect the angled light -- causing less light to enter the sensor and the image to have dark corners. Second, long wavelength light penetrates the sensor deeper than does short wavelength light. If the light enters at an angle, the red photons can angle down into the substrate and actualy register in pixels further out. The result is that the red and infrared portions of the image are misregistered, causing color fringing in the corners.
The point is that the best lens for a digital camera will be different from the best lens for a film camera. A better lens design for digital cameras incorporates image-space telecentricity. Image-space telecentricity means that the light hitting the CCD is largely perpendicular to the sensor.
Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon (Score:2)
Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon (Score:1, Interesting)
Or the fact that perspective correcting lenses are able to tilt an image to bring it more in plane with the sensor. If the light was hitting a high angle then the im
Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon (Score:5, Informative)
This statement is sort of correct. The real need for telecentricity is the limited acceptance angle of the lenslet arrays that are put on many sensors, particularly small pixel size consumer grade sensors. This is what causes the drop off in corner illumination with non-telecentric lenses in consumer grade digital cameras. Telecentricity is a real requirement, particularly in sensors which pixel sizes smaller than say 4um.
Large pixel, higher end CCDs generally don't need the lenslet arrays because the fill factor on the pixel aperture is much larger, so there is not much of a problem with non-telecentric designs. There are no lenslets present to limit the acceptance angle. I have never seen reflections off the sensor be an actual problem. People also talk about ray bundles from one obliquity passing through the wrong filter on the color filter array in a non-telecentric design, but I have never seen this happen either.
Longer wavelength light is generally eliminated by an infrared reject filter, so light rarely bleeds from pixel to pixel.
Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon (Score:2)
It's certainly possible that CA can be exagerated by this issue, seems to me.
In any event, the Canon 1Ds is known to be quite sensitive to lens build quality. The Kodak's have had lens issues as well, but those were due to a design shortcoming of the sensor site. The new
Re:Telecentric Lenses and Silicon (Score:2)
Self Advertising Concerns (Score:5, Insightful)
Surely one slashdot article with links to all three techlounge articles would be more appropriate? But of course 3 separate articles on slashdot generates more advertising revenue than 1 doesnt it?
I have mod points at this current time, but I'm sure as hell not using them in this thread... I don't want to waste my time reading part 1 and part 2 checking that noone is karma whoring...
BAH...
Re:Self Advertising Concerns (Score:2, Funny)
dpreview.com (Score:4, Informative)
dcresource.com too (Score:2, Informative)
Sample rules (Score:5, Informative)
Lens
I agree with the author that the lens pays an important part of the overall quality, rather than no. of pixels. Generally speaking, lens with large aperture(F2.8>F4>F5.6>F8, etc.) can create better images. However, to compensate for the distortion near the edge, the larger the aperture, the bigger the lens size. You'd find digital camera with bigger lens(usually implies bigger aperture) cost more, regardless of no. of pixels.
While it's true that camera with exchangeable lens is very desirable for photographers especially when you already has a good lens. However, I do not think the high price of those lens-exhangeable digital camera, especially Nikon D70, is justified(I'm a diehard Nikon film amatuer photographer myself). If you don't like those digital camera exchangeble lens, you may look at those already has good lens equipped, like Lumix DMC-LC1 [panasonic.com], which equipped with a F2.0 Vario-Summicron Lens, a legendary brand name for most film photograpers. (Mind you, some perfectists critize that the lensare not made in their original factory. Oh well..
Color
The article touchs this topic very lightly, in fact most digital camera manufactuers avoid this. You can imagine different wave in light spectrum refract in different angle in each piece of lens. The problem is particular complicated when the lens group has more than one lens. That's why lens with more lens group is more expensive. This problem is called the chromatic abberation.
Aspherical lens(glasses with uneven density) and coating could help solving this problem. You can see the color reflect from the surface of many professional lens are not white - usually redish or slight greenish. The less white light reflects from the lens' surface, the better the coating. (This is in fact one tip you can use in choosing a good digital camera)
Light
As implied in the word 'photographing', it's all about light(photo). The better the lighting condition, the better the images created - this is true for digital and film photographing. You can't control the light, but you can control how light enter the camera. Most digital camera owners would find that regardless of no. of pixels, the images quality drops drastically in low light condition.
Guess what I'd say - yes, bigger(and high quality) lens invite more light thus create better images. What's so difficult to understand. XD
Conclusion
The quality of the lens outweights the no. of pixels. Well, in fact this is a most unwelcome answer, and people stop asking me for opinion on choosing digital camera, and go buy some fancy looking garblish. Luckily we've slashdot where I can find people still listening to me.....hello? HELLO???......
Re:Sample rules (Score:3, Informative)
That could have been phrased more clearly, since it seems to imply that f/2.8 is always better than f/8. A large aperture just lets more light into the camera meaning that you can achieve the desired exposure faster, but the flipside is that you have a shallower depth of field. For landscapes, where a large depth of field is key, you will usually want to close the aperture down as far as possible and m
Aspherical Lens (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sample rules (Score:2)
The coating must be chosen for a particular wavelength, and it works less optimally for wavelengths away from it. (In fact, the coating is a quarter-wavelength thickness of material whose optical impedance is between that of the glass and the air.)
For visible light, the coating is usually chosen for green
See an earlier Slashdot (Score:3, Insightful)
The Digital Camera Revolution is not in Megapixels (Score:4, Interesting)
CCDs can only recognize one color per pixel, whereas X3 can recognize each color per pixel, producing much better pictures.
The CCD will be dead in 10 years and replaced by X3.
Re:The Digital Camera Revolution is not in Megapix (Score:2)
CCD is already being replaced by CMOS sensors.
Re:The Digital Camera Revolution is not in Megapix (Score:2)
(I hope not though.)
Re:The Digital Camera Revolution is not in Megapix (Score:2)
Foveon needs to be able to make larger sensors with higher pixel counts and get greater buyin with major manufacturers. That appears unlikely to happen with Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Sony, and Kodak all invested in their own imager technologies.
The primary advantage of a full color pixel site is sharpness. That doesn't ultimately help when your overall pixel count (3.5MP) is so much less that your Bayer counterparts. The Sigma Foveon camera produces images competitive with t
Bleh. Marketing Hype. Keep repeating it...... (Score:2)
It's funny. I've seen photos on that sensor- they look great.
As a 4x6.
I frankly like to look at my photos a bit larger, like maybe 8x10... or 11x14.... or even 16x20.
"The worlds first 10 MP camera". Only if you take every pixel and multiply by 3.
Frankly it's misleading advertising that, given time, may become true.
Unfortunately, it's not true now and unless they suddenly introduce something remarkable, say, full frame 11mp sensors that capture 3 channels independently, it'll stil
How sky-hi-end benefits us... (Score:4, Insightful)
But there's a huge benefit to this tech-race. More digital cameras. People with them, use them a lot more than they did with film. No cost to take, no cost to view, low cost to print or mail. I wrote an open-source project to make building galleries free-and-easy (primarily for my family initially, see it at Picture Pager on SourceForge [sourceforge.net]) and that too is a benefit of digitals... they gain from the open source world.
So the only downside of 8MP cameras is that they're the Ferraris or Porsches of consumer-land. They push the technology, in a few years us mere mortals will benefit, but serious drivers and photographers benefit, at least slightly, now while bearing the hefty early-adopter price.
Re:How sky-hi-end benefits us... (Score:2)
The 8MP digicams do not produce better images than the current 6MP DSLR's. You can find information on that from a number of digital photo sites. They are nice c
Slowness is the biggest problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Slowness is the biggest problem (Score:2)
The author of this report lightly touched on the Foveon x3 sensor. This supposedly allows a sensor to capture full color without having to interpolate between pixels. I really wish the author would have gone into more detail about that, since I have m
Re:Slowness is the biggest problem (Score:2)
The real issue is shutter lag which is the accumulation of autofocus, autoexposure, and actual image taking. Of these, autofocus is the biggest culprit and the perception of slowness comes from the expectation that AF is performed after the shutter is pressed. In no other camera is this the case.
Re:Slowness is the biggest problem (Score:2)
Digicams are unlike any other camera in that there is an expectation that you push the button and get a picture. No other camera works that way (unless you shoot manual focus). With digicams, the camera has to determine focus, then exposure, then shoot. It does this whenever you push the shutter and the combined time is known as shutter lag.
Film cameras and DSLR's will refuse to take a picture if the image is out of focus and you press the shutter. You can override
What's beyond megapixels?? (Score:4, Interesting)
I recently had the pleasure of attending a talk by a guy that worked on the focal plane of GAIA [estec.esa.nl], a spacecraft to be launched by ESA around 2010. It is not designed for imaging, but for very accurately determining the position of stars (astrometry).
Their specs for the focal plane of the telescopes: size of around 0.6*0.8 meter, 180 CCD chips packed together for a total of 1.2 Gigapixels! I believe handling the thermal power alone (~100 Watt), without moving the location of the pixels a bit already was a typical case of rocket science.
Re:What's beyond megapixels?? (Score:2)
Did anyone find this article hard to read? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spelling matters. (Score:2)
The body said to the sensor, "Nice design."
Good Reviews (Score:2, Informative)
what I want in a digital camera (Score:3, Insightful)
A dedicated knob for shutter time, one for ISO setting, another for white balance, and a Nikon lens mount (ok, I don't care if it's Nikon, I'll buy a new system if the camera is as above).
Um... no. (Score:2)
The instant feedback of a display is one of the best things about digitals -- you can instantly see if your exposure and focus is correct. Particularly focus. You can always bracket you
Re:Um... no. (Score:2)
Yeah, you're right of course. The "No LCD Display" was probably going off the deep-end on my part. But really, people have been making excellent photographs for well over 100 years without instant feedback/LCD screens. Also, manual focus is too often overlooked. Manual focus that lens and you know exactly what your intended subject is.
Re:what I want in a digital camera (Score:2)
A lot of people act like the world of photography has dramatically changed because of digital. The truth is, going from sheet to roll fi
Re:what I want in a digital camera (Score:2)
Re:what I want in a digital camera (Score:2)