Canon Mistakenly Announces 11-Megapixel Digital Camera 402
RichardtheSmith writes " PC Magazine just confirmed
that Canon
mistakenly announced a new 11-Megapixel digital camera that wasn't
supposed to be announced for another two weeks. This caused quite a
stir on the digital photography message boards like DPReview, where Canon
apparently tried to have all links to the press release taken down.
The PC Magazine article is here.
The original press release can be found here."
11mp (Score:3, Insightful)
11 megapixels is an impressive number - but means nothing to me until i see what that actually translates to - picure. 1K words. etc....
it depends what you want to do with it (Score:5, Informative)
Also, if you want to do image editing, you'll want to start out with a higher-quality image than what you want as a final image, since filtering/etc. will invariably reduce the quality of the image.
So is 11 megapixel necessary? If you're taking pictures to email to grandma, certainly not. If you want to print out 8x10" photographs on high-quality photographic paper, it could be nice.
Re:it depends what you want to do with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it depends what you want to do with it (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, the more image resolution you have overall, the more pixels you have to work with in that cropped portion, and the better your final results will be. That can give a photographer a lot more "darkroom" flexibility with their digital image.
Re:it depends what you want to do with it (Score:3, Informative)
I print 5X7 prints with my 2.1 Megapixel Cannon all day long at 1200dpi and get 35mm 1hour processing quality prints. everyone at work is amazed, and the reason I bought it was the quality of the lenses (glass not plastic like the kodak crap) and the near-lossless Jpeg compression (or the almost no-loss compression settings) in the camera.
I shoot completely digital now. I havent shot a roll of 35mm film in my SLR for over 2 years now and I havent looked back. 3x5 and 5X7 prints are excellent and some of the 8X10's I have printed are very satisfactory when printed at kinko's on their dye-sublimation printer on kodak paper.
Anyone that tells you you need 3 megapixel or better to replace film for every-day use is either on drugs, or really doesnt know what they are talking about.
Granted the 5 megapixel SLR from cannon is an awesome camera and this 11 megapixel camera is also very cool, but almost no-one needs that kind of resolution for everyday photos or for vacation photos.
Re:it depends what you want to do with it (Score:2, Insightful)
This camera isn't intended to replace film for "every-day use". It's intended to replace film for professionals.
Re:it depends what you want to do with it (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if you've got a bottom-of-the-barrel $49 printer [hp-at-home.com], it will do at least 600x600DPI. A 5"x7" print will use 3000x4200 pixels at that resolution, or over 12 megapixels. Dye sublimation will hide the loss of clarity because the process is inherently blurry at the pixel level, there is no set of sharp dots. But if you are looking for great contrasty detail, like nature photography where you want to see veining on a dragonfly wing, you are going to want those pixels. A 2.1 megapixel camera will give you far less than 300x300 DPI on a 5"x7".
Even a (relatively) cheap 35mm SLR like the Canon Eos Rebel [bizrate.com] at under $250 will easily take negatives with ordinary film that will print a 8"x10" that you will need a magnifying glass to see all the detail.
Things change... (Score:2, Insightful)
And don't assume that this will always be the case in the future. I predict that someday 1600x1200 screens will seem as quaint as 640x480 screens are now.
mahlen
History repeats itself. That's one of the things wrong with history.
--Clarence Darrow
there's still the size issue (Score:2)
Re:there's still the size issue (Score:2)
Re:it depends if you like **Security** cameras. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it depends what you want to do with it (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that pixels on a digital camera are for one primary color only; i.e. 1 megapixel = number of red + green + blue elements = 1,000,000. Often times the ratio of green to red to blue is 2:1:1 which means that for certain images, the number of effective pixels might be 1/4 of what you'd expect. Assuming this, a digital camera would have to be a 7.68 megapixel device to fully tax your 1600x1200 monitor for all possible images.
A better comparison between monitors and digital cameras would count phosphers in the monitor against the elements in the camera's CCD.
Not exactly! (Score:2)
Re:11mp (Score:2)
Re:11mp (Score:2)
Re:11mp (Score:5, Funny)
"A picture is worth 2 Libraries of Congress"
Re:11mp (Score:2)
"A picture is worth 2 Libraries of Congress"
.. but how many hairs [slashdot.org] is this?
Well, geez (Score:5, Funny)
Cannon sure will get pissed at Slashdot now, wont they!
The question is.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The question is.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I find that any resolution under 300dpi looks cheap, which is rarely the effect I'm trying to produce. Given that, a 2MP camera gives around 4"x4" which is or smaller than an ordinary photo.
This camera is a significant improvement, 11MP gives more like 10"^2, big enough for almost all uses.
FWIW, I'm still holding off buying a digital camera because my $300SLR is better than a $1000 digital camera. I can understand someone with a $2000SLR medium format camera saying much the same thing about this camera.
Re:The question is.... (Score:3, Informative)
2 meg image is VERY blurry compared to 35 mm. I of course havent seen the 11 MP camera output, but I can tell you that there is huge room for improvement over todays average 3MP cameras. And I'm not even talking about pro use. Just amateur photographer use.
Sure those people that never "needed" anything other than a 110 snappy camera wouldn't need it. But there are thousands of amateur photographers out there that would probably (like me) LOVE to have far more resolution that my current 3MP camera gives me.
I won't be shelling out whatever gawd awful price they'll want for it at first though
Re:The question is.... (Score:2)
I for one want a 6+ MPix consumer camera, just like I want a higher resolution DVD...
The answer is... (Score:2)
Your post is like seeing an announcement for a server 1TB RAID array, asking when a desktop version will arrive, and why would most people need a 1TB RAID array on the desktop.
Feh.
This is seriously high-end equipment, and is intended by it's maker as such, and it's priced accordingly.
Also note, according to the premature press release, it's a 'full-frame' sensor, which will make it the first of its kind on the market. Couple that with Canon's excellent line of lenses, and this is a fantastic announcement.
Re:The question is.... (Score:2)
The digital model is more like $6k
Or did they really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Article Text (Score:2, Informative)
Canon Europe celebrates Digital Revolution at Photokina 2002
24/9/2002
Witness the launch of Canon Imaging Gateway an online digital imaging service for consumers
Canon takes its large format printers to high street print shops to deliver fast, large-scale image reproduction
Canon celebrates 15 years of EOS with the launch of the EOS 1Ds - the world's highest resolution professional camera
Cologne, Germany - Canon Europe will use Photokina 2002 as the launch-pad for its latest innovative digital technologies designed to meet the demands of both the consumer imaging and professional print markets.
Forecasting a stunning 70% increase in production of digital still cameras, 2002 has already been an historic year for Canon Europe as both professionals and consumers fully embrace digital imaging.
Mr Hajime Tsuruoka, Canon Europe's Chief Executive Officer and President, said: "Canon Europe is at the forefront of the digital revolution and we plan to remain there. Our strengths as an organisation lie in our implicit understanding of the digital process from start to finish. In addition, we are one of the only electronics companies that own and continue to develop innovative technologies for both the consumer and professional print markets and many of these products will be unveiled at this year's Photokina show, one of the most important industry events in the Canon Europe calendar."
Canon Consumer Imaging
Photokina marks the 15-year anniversary of EOS as a brand. Canon is announcing two new EOS models at the show - the world's highest resolution Pro-camera, the EOS 1Ds and the EOS 300V, which is predicted to become the world's number 1 selling SLR camera.
The EOS-1Ds features the first ever full frame 35mm CMOS sensor with 11.1 million effective pixels. The EOS-1Ds capture astounding detail & colour, almost doubling the resolution ordinarily considered state of the art for a digital SLR camera in the world today.*
Also new this year are three digital still cameras, all featuring the new high performance DIGital Imaging Core (DIGIC) processor. One of the trio, the Digital IXUS v, is claiming the position as the world's smallest 3.2 Megapixel digital camera with optical zoom and LCD monitor.*
Along with the new additions to the camera line up, Canon is announcing Canon Imaging Gateway (CIG), a digital imaging web site, which Canon Europe sees as the vital missing link in Customer Relationship Management (CRM) by creating a one-on-one communication channel to consumer users.
The online solution will allow users to download updates for their digital cameras, in much the same way that mobile phone users download personalised ring-tones. CIG also offers other services online, such as photo albums, photo-printing.
Canon Business Solutions
Canon, recently named one of the world's 'Innovation Elite' by Reuters Business Insight, will also announce the decision by its Business Solutions division to target high-street mini labs with its new range of industry-leading, large format printing devices.
On stand at the show, Canon will be demonstrating how large format devices, such as the W2200 and W7250, will offer the photographic and photo finishing markets innovative solutions to reproduce digital images in poster size, with speed and ease.
Accessible, easy to use, large format Canon printers will be installed in high street photo labs, a move that the market leaders see as a natural progression in the digital revolution. Consumers will be able to turn images from a digital camera, CD, floppy disk, print or negative into large scale versions of their images within an hour, at a considerably lower price than traditional photographic enlargements solutions currently on the market.
* As of September 2002
About Canon Europe
Canon Europe is a subsidiary of Canon Inc. of Japan, a world-leading innovator and provider of imaging and information technology solutions for individuals and businesses.
Canon Europe is a subsidiary of Canon Inc. of Japan, a world-leading innovator and provider of imaging and information technology solutions for individuals and businesses.
The main business focus for Canon Europe is in two clearly defined markets: Business Solutions (network peripherals: photocopy, printer, scanner and fax solutions) and Consumer Imaging (Input Solutions: photographic equipment including analogue and digital cameras and camcorders; and Output Solutions: Bubble Jet and other printers).
Canon Europe also provides Industrial Products including broadcast lenses, semiconductor and medical equipment.
Canon Europe employs more than 12,000 people across 19 countries.
11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:3, Insightful)
A DVD burner costs less than an 11 megapixel camera.
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:5, Informative)
This camera is probably the first to match the quality of a decent 35mm camera.
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:5, Insightful)
My D30 images printed professionally are indistinguishable from 35mm prints up to 20x30. Sooooo, you'll have to qualify your statement for me to believe it. Note that the quality of lenses (I use Canon L glass) contributes significantly to image quality.
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:2)
When printing pictures of what?
of a Landscape far away? Ok sure I'll give you that.
Of a portrait? Well maybe if you do not really want those skin blemishes* to show up. . .
When scanning 35mm photographs in for reprocessing I typically use 1200DPI minimum, and end up working with images that weigh in at around 50-70MB or so. This is for a 3x5 mind you. . . . for a 20x30, heh. Hell I wouldn't enlarge 35mm to 20x30, yeesh.
Oh, and what are you using to print your images with? I want a photo printer that goes up to 20x30.
*or texture of the material or strands of hair or so forth and so on.
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:2)
You really need to check out some of the current 5mp cameras. In fact here is a shot from DiMAGE 7i (which with announcements this week has suddenly become much older):
http://nsa.org/~chris/pics-of-difference/PICT0005
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:2)
if i got right down to it with a 200x magnifying glass, would you feel confortable giving me a 35mm 20x30 and your 'professionally printed' digital 20x30? doubtful.
with lens photography there is infinate amount of raw data, but (he is claiming) ~10 million effective pixels in a decent camera. so with 11.1 mp, you capture all the effective data, but still miss the fluff. it would perform equally under a microscope after being 'professionally printed'
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:3, Insightful)
This statement is simply not true. Any lens system is ultimately limited by diffraction, and you cant get away from it. No lens can completely focus anything, there will always be diffraction effects which act to blur fine detail at some level.
Additionally, film is a poor way to judge any systems detail/resolution, since film grains or dye clouds in slides have a finite size that is definitely larger than the pixels in todays modern CCD cameras.
Film has one thing going for it, it is available in large sizes.
Ultimately, the 11 megapixel cameras $6000 price will keep it mostly in the hands of people who need the resolution -- those people making large prints.
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:2)
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:3, Insightful)
Note that the quality of lenses
So where does the quality of the film come into it,
or does that matter that much?
Plus where do you get it developed or do you do that yourself?
Really good 35mm film is about 20megapixels. (Score:5, Informative)
I have a new film scanner I use that has made scans up around 5500x3600 pixels. That's about the highest one needs to go to get all the information out of an image. Oh and that comes out to about 19.8 mega pixels, which is about a 60 meg uncompressed file (24bit RGB). You can also scan in using 16bit RGB channels resulting in an image around 120megs.
And think, that's just 35mm film, which is about 1 square inch. Imagine what a large format camera can shoot with it's 8x10" film. And the film can be even larger than that!
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:2)
And even for people that are planning on taking nothing but 11Mp photos, if they can afford the camera+microdrive, more power to them. They're welcome to help support new technology if they wish.
Re:11mp is waaaay too many (for most people) (Score:3)
And as far as back up goes, you can just buy another drive!
won't replace film (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps what's most impressive about this leaked announcement is that Canon is not playing the release only in small increments game that companies usually do. Why release a product 4 times better than your competitors when you can keep releasing disabled products for the next 4 years that will still beat your competitors by 10% every year. Do you think Intel would just go ahead and release a 40 Ghz processor next week if they could figure out how to do it? The question is are they going to have 11mpixel cameras in their consumer and prosumer lines or just in their professional cameras?
Re:won't replace film (Score:2)
This isn't that big of a jump over their highest professional camera at this point. I guarantee this is only for their professional line.
Re:won't replace film (Score:2)
That's only true in some sense. Many people compose multiple digital images at different exposures in order to get _greater_ range than film.
see this link: compositing [fourchambers.org]
Re:won't replace film (Score:2)
>>That's only true in some sense. Many people compose multiple digital images at different exposures in order to get _greater_ range than film.
>That technique only works on something that doesn't move too much. Try it with children, say.
Staples work great. Anyway, the only requirement is that you get the fast-moving portion in one shot. Keep the camera in the same place and take a few extra shots to fill in the background textures.
Re:won't replace film (Score:2)
It's not 4x better. There are already rumors of other 10M+ cameras.
Wow, a Digital Camera... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder how many engineers died choking on someone elses vomit?
Heh, cool (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder if this is a strategy that can be employed to promote the product... naw.
Just curious... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just curious... (Score:2)
Re:Just curious... (Score:2)
Re:Just curious... (Score:3, Informative)
Also if you have the optics to match and take a picture and want to zoom in you need that extra resolution. With something like medium format a small portion of a regular picture can be enlarged to regular view sizes without just going all blurry - stuff like that will drive digital camera resolutions on the pro level anyways - where lack of resolution very quickly makes things go all pixely.
Do you look at the entire photo at once? (Score:3, Informative)
11 megapixels - for professionals. (Score:2, Interesting)
This isn't really for the average layman, at least that is obvious. Is it only news on slashdot because some web author screwed up while he was proofing the draft? Mabye not. 11 megapixels is a huge jump (twice the current high-end professional ones).
The biggest question, however, is how many megapixels are needed before the quality is on par with analog cameras.
Re:11 megapixels - for professionals. (Score:2)
The interesting part (Score:5, Insightful)
The other good news is that they didn't reduce the pixel size to increase the resolution. This gives better image fidelity (contrast and color saturation). That's the funny part about digital camera resolution - they keep increasing the number of pixels in roughly the same sensor area - they get fewer photons per pixel, but more pixels per frame.
This should be cool (I'll check it out at Photokina)
Megapixel shmegapixel (Score:5, Insightful)
What I really want is a more sensitive CCD that can take sharper pictures with less light and more brilliant color. A razor sharp 1600x1200 picture can be printed at nearly any size and look great. Unless you have nerves of steel to hold the camera steady, you're not going to be able to take a picture sharp enough to take advantage of 11 megapixels. Unless it's high noon in Arizona and the blinding sun is at your back, your CCD just won't be fast enough.
Erik
Re:Megapixel shmegapixel (Score:2, Interesting)
There are times when you want a high quality camera and can't set up the shot, but they are probably the minority of cases.
You're right though, faster reading of the light would be very useful. It isn't like we need to wait for the film to develop anymore.
Re:Megapixel shmegapixel (Score:3, Interesting)
Having a high senstivity (higher ISO, such
as ISO 800 or ISO 1600), as seen in high end
digital cameras, lets you take picture under
even the most demanding light conditions.
Higher shutter speed (1/2000 or fasters) lets
you eliminate handshakes and take clear pictures
of action shots.
All this of course, requires that your lens passes
ample light, and produce low chromatic and spatial aberrations. A good SLR lens, though, we cost you more a thousand dollars.
Having said that, the advantages of greater pixel count scales the picture quality linearly given good enough optics.
Re:Megapixel shmegapixel (Score:3, Informative)
On modern cameras, you can boost the gain on the CCD (this is often called changing the ISO equivalent setting, as if you were going to higher speed film). The problem, of course, is you get more noise when you boost the gain like that-- similar to when you go to a higher speed film.
The real answer, for film and digital cameras alike is, unfortunately, "Invest in a tripod." If you can't get the thing to a reasonable F-stop and still have the aperture open less than 1/60 of a second, you're gonna probably have a miserable picture if you're shooting it by hand.
I'd like to see more sensitive CCDs, too, but the film camera people have wanted more sensitive film that wasn't so blasted grainy for decades now, and they haven't gotten it, either.
My Camera w/Lasers (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the issue you are having is more to do with your particular camera or camera model & lense than it is to do with the megapixel count.
I took these pictures [ebay.com] of a laser I'm selling on eBay. Lasers are notoriously difficult photography cleanly without then photo editing them. I shot them with a Canon Powershot G2 4.0 megapixel camera and they look great.
Previously I had been shooting with a Canon Powershot Pro IS90 which did 2.6 MP. Even when shooting the G2 at lower resolutions the images are consistently better than the IS90. Why? Better lens and CCD.
However, you say:
A razor sharp 1600x1200 picture can be printed at nearly any size and look great. Unless you have nerves of steel to hold the camera steady, you're not going to be able to take a picture sharp enough to take advantage of 11 megapixels.
Stability isn't the issue. Exposure is. If you use a faster shutter speed blur will be less of an issue. The resolution you set the camera to will have nothing to do with it.
Additionally, if you plan to print at higher than 72dpi (yetch) you will need a higher resolution image to get the same width & height dimensions on the printed page. Which means more pixels!
I'd be interested to know what kind of camera that you are using that needs such a slow exposure to generate a decent picture. It sounds to me you have a camera that is doing less than midrange digitals currently can. Nevermind highend ones.
Re:My Camera w/Lasers (Score:2)
I agree that exposure time is the issue--the problem is the camera wants a certain amount of light to expose the picture. In order to get enough light in a shorter amount of time you need a more sensitive CCD, otherwise you'll sacrifice the dynamic range.
Erik
Re:My Camera w/Lasers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Megapixel shmegapixel (Score:2)
I set my cannon D20 to 1/1000 speed shutter and I can STOP the spokes on a motorcycle that is driving 80 MPH.
so you are telling me that you shake so badly that you are moving faster than the spokes of the front wheel of a motorcycle speeding down the highway?? Cut down on the caffeene man... or get some help from your doctor.
Aside from the silliness.. It is not difficult at all to take a proper picture with most any digital camera IF you use proper photographic technique.... you hold your breath when you finally click the shutter dont you? and you press the button in 1/2 way to let it autofocus and notify you it's ready for a shot right?
99% of all failed photos are because the operator is not using the camera properly.. Digital or Chemical film.
Re:Megapixel shmegapixel (Score:3, Informative)
That's why a professional photographer (film or digital) will happily drop $3500 on something like a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM lens, when a lesser 300mm lens costs $300. Or spend $2500 on a 50mm f/1.0L USM when a basic 50mm lens is only $75.
It's not just lens-envy, either. Spend more and you get tack-sharp optics and smoother focusing, and with a brighter (faster) lens like that you can get amazing low-light capabilities and depth-of-field effects. And if your exposure is still kinda long, Image Stabilization (IS) will also help compensate for those slight jitters you mention (and it really does work - if I have to, I can take handheld photos with reasonable sharpness at
I'm no pro and I can't afford the very best L-Series professional lenses for my D30. (Though I did splurge on a 50mm f/1.4 USM for portraits.) I make do with the best consumer lenses and accept the limitations imposed by my wallet and my skills. But don't misplace the source of the limitations or underestimate what can be done with current technology.
Re:Megapixel shmegapixel (Score:2)
If it's high noon then the sun can hardly be at your back.
Unless you're lying face down on the ground, I suppose.
I think you need an astronomy course. The sun is never directly overhead in Arizona, or anywhere else in the mainland USA.
Re:Megapixel shmegapixel (Score:2)
I want to be able to pull out the camera in a dimly lit restaurant and take a snapshot of my friends. Without a tripod.
Erik
Hopefully they didn't pull a Palm. (Score:2)
But in all seriousiness. I sure hope it's really 11 Megapixels and not "11 Megapixels if you count these as individual pixels even though the industry standard doesn't, rar rar rar rar rar.."
Re:Hopefully they didn't pull a Palm. (Score:2)
Whoa...
(a joke (a bad joke))
Guessing at the pixel dimensions (Score:3, Interesting)
To get as close as possible to 11.1 megapixels while retaining a nice horizontal dimension of 4096 pixels, the vertical dimension would have to be 2710 pixels. However, 2710 isn't a typical "round" binary number, so the actual dimension is likely to be 2688 (11.01 MP), 2752 (11.27 MP), or 2816 (11.53 MP).
Big deal. Sinar has a 22 megapixel camera (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, you have to divide those pixel numbers by 3 or 4 to get a useful pixel count. Camera makers like to count each color as a separate pixel. Tacky.
I'm waiting for Foveon [foveon.com] technology to go mainstream. All the colors for each pixel are sensed at the same location, so you don't get color artifacts on sharp edges like you do with other digital cameras. So far, they only make super high end cameras, but I went to a talk by their CTO, and the device isn't inherently expensive if made in volume.
Re:Big deal. Sinar has a 22 megapixel camera (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Big deal. Sinar has a 22 megapixel camera (Score:3, Interesting)
The Contax N1 has the same size one, the cool trick is it's the same size the image area of a 35mm film frame. Meaning that a 50mm lens on this camera has the same effective focal length than on a 35 mm film camera, and not subject to the infamous digital camera multiplier effect [lonestardigital.com]. Anyone with a decent investment in lenses, especially wide angle ones, will drool over the sensor size more than the pixel count.
Re:Foveon? Big deal. (Score:2)
Real advantages (Score:4, Informative)
The other advancement that is very important is that it is a full-frame CMOS sensor. 35mm film is 24mm by 35mm. Today's digital cameras use sensors that are smaller than this. The side-effect of this is that you end up with what some call a focal-length multiplier. The Canon D60 digital SLR has a 1.6x focal-length multiplier, meaning that a 100mm lens turns into a 160mm lens. It doesn't really multiply the focal length, it just crops the image to only record the center portion of the lens' field of view.
This is great if you want to really zoom in on something, but if you're looking for wide angle, you have to buy expensive super-wide angle lenses to get the same effect. Now with a full-frame sensor, you actually get the focal length of the lens you buy.
This is speculation, but I imagine the 's' in 1Ds stands for studio. The Canon EOS 1D is a great pro digital SLR - it has super-fast AF, is built like a tank, has seperate color spaces, and can shoot up to 8 frames per second! However, it's 4 megapixel. The 1Ds is 11.1 megapixel, and will probably only be able to shoot about 2 to 3 frames per second. Perfect for the studio - not that great for sports photography.
I'm very interested to see/hear about the other improvements Canon may have made in the 1Ds!
- Eric, a Canon EOS D60 owner
Need 10 GB Microdrive! (Score:2)
11 MP Camera Instructions (Snippet) (Score:2, Funny)
2) Press button to activate shutter.
3) Push 500 MB file through USB connection to attached network storage drive.
4) Watch hard drive light for 30 seconds.
5) Wait.
6) Send to grandma's AOL dial-up via your own AOL dial-up.
7) Tell everyone to hold still again.
8) Repeat.
35mm sensor is the key feature to me (Score:3, Informative)
my only really big complaint about it is depth of field. except in extreme scenarios, EVERYTHING is going to be in focus with that camera. depth of field is one of the most important tools of photography to emphasize what you want to emphasize in the picture.
because the CCD is so much smaller than 35mm film, the lens is shorter. to accomodate the shorter lens and smaller sensor, the aperature is smaller than 35mm equivilent.
the 3 big ingredients to controlling depth of field are aperature, lens length and distance.
with todays smaller than 35mm digital cameras, the aperature is significantly smaller than 35mm equivilent (greater DOF)
the lens length is significantly shorter than 35mm equivilent (greater DOF)
so all you have is distance...
if you focus on something 2 feet away, maybe something across the street will be somewhat out of focus.
with a 35mm camera (digital or film), you can focus on something 2 feet away and then you, the photographer, can choose whether you want the thing across the street to be almost perfectly in focus or so out of focus that you can't even distinguish whether it's a tree or if it's a building.
this kicks a lot of ass.
Hold on all you mega pixel masters... (Score:2)
We tested a nice consumer level 6 MP (IIRC) camera informally with an odd shaped object. We found that we could not discern the shape of the object from a distance under any conditions, even though the camera clearly had enough pixel resolution to do so. (Yes we checked lossy compression was off) Therefore, the effective resolution was less than the resolution of the CCD. So maybe (not tested with our tests) a lower resolution camera will give similar results with a blow up in photoshop? I don't know, there are many variables.
In an SLR camera, light has to pass through as many as 15 glass elements before the light hits the film, these elements usually form the basis for the limiting resolution, not the film. So maybe you 6 MP fanboys don't need penis envy over the 11 MP camera afterall.... What we need to see is a affordable digital SLR that can take AIS (for nikon) or equivalent lenses so we aren't stuck with stock glass.
-Sean
Oh Yeah... (Score:2)
-Sean
Re:Hold on all you mega pixel masters... (Score:2)
What you found is true, the actual resolution of a digital camera given a specific sharpness is about 1/4 the physical resolution of the CCD. But this also means that yes, a higher resolution CCD will give you a higher resolution image. So an 11MP camera WILL look better than a 5MP camera (Assuuming that the lens systems are not total crap)
BTW the glass elements of a camera do NOT limit the resolution of the film much at all (Again unless were talking total crap optics like in a 110 snappy camera). The size of the film grain does. ASA 100 film is much sharper than 400 becuase it has much finer grain.
Re:Hold on all you mega pixel masters... (Score:2)
Your points are taken, but the above quote is *not* always true, IMO. This is why we have lens tests. You are probably used to a so called "normal" or 50mm (w/ 35mm film) lens. Generally telephoto lenses are much lower res and look soft compared to sharp photos.
-Sean
Crying 'Overkill!' shows ignorance of photography (Score:4, Informative)
High quality magazines print at 187 lines per inch (not DPI as another poster states, there IS a difference). In order to provide decent color information, a source file should have a DPI of twice the line screen, or nearly 400 DPI at 24 bit color for a high quality print. Say the magazine is 8.5x11 and you are printing a full page ad. You need 3400x4400 pixels for best quality.
So a professional 35mm that gives you the full 14 megapixels is good enough. This new 11 megapixel camera still isn't. This is not even counting larger format printing, like posters, which though usually printed at a lower line screen than 187, are much bigger than 8.5x11. This is why medium and large format professional cameras use larger film for even more resolution.
Re:Crying 'Overkill!' shows ignorance of photograp (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting, I've found the exact opposite to be true. I'm going to first assume you're talking about slide film, which has a dynamic range of about four stops, since that's what most people are shooting professionally (save for photojournalists and wedding photographers).
I've found that the shadow detail in digital cameras (specifically the canon d60) can be absolutely stunning- through some Levels adjustment I've been able to take parts of a digital image that appear completely black, and get excellent detail out of them, something I'd never be able to do shooting on transparencies.
I'd recommend a look at Michael Reichmann's site, where he reviews the D60 vs. 35mm vs. Medium Format [luminous-landscape.com] and concludes that for up to 11x17 prints, the Canon D60 is at least as good as 35mm. Furthermore, I've personally found that the raw images delivered by my D60 look better on screen and in print than scanned in images, since the pixel quality simply seems better (despite using a top of the line film scanner that's optimally configured).
In closing, as a professional photographer, I've never had a client need anything more resolution than what I've been able to deliver digitally.
just about perfect (Score:2)
11Megapixels????? (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot Slashdotted? (Score:2)
What's going on?
Film vs. Digital (Score:4, Informative)
Film vs. Digital [clarkvision.com]
Bottom line: This camera can beat some 35mm films in resolution, but not all of them.
Digital still has a long way to go:
8x10 format film is equivalent to ~1000 Mpixel
Full frame, woohoo!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:11.1MP *CMOS* sensor (Score:2, Informative)
Um... The Canon D30 3 megapixel digital SLR has a CMOS censor. And although it might be a bit outdated on the megapixel front it still delivers one of the best quality images from a digital camera.
Re:11.1MP *CMOS* sensor (Score:2)
Where have you been? (Score:2)
Yup. Where have you been?
Re:Any consumer printers that can utilize this? (Score:3, Informative)
For instance, take your average "prosumer" non-SLR digital camera. They've got, what, 3-4MP, and usually not much better than a 175mm (35mm equiv) optical zoom -- often 105-140mm (35 mm equiv) when down in the sub-$600 range or so, with the 2100UZ and 720UZ from Olympus being the major exceptions. 140mm is rarely sufficient if, say, you'd like to photograph small, wild birds, or squirrels in trees, or other even not-terribly-far-but-small subjects.
11 MP / 4 MP = 2.75. Take the square root -- that's 1.658. That is, if you're perfectly happy with a 4 MP image right now, you could get 4 MP from an 11 MP monster CCD and essentially multiply the zoom by 1.658, without needing a teleconverter or a higher-end lens.
Re:Any consumer printers that can utilize this? (Score:2, Informative)
I agree. Digital is just at the edge of 35mm quality. But medium and large format quality is ways off. The practical advantages are probably causing many to move to digital anyway.
Here's 35mm vs medium format if you're interested: comparing formats [photographybyharvey.com]
Re:Any consumer printers that can utilize this? (Score:2, Interesting)
This will help editors a lot more, as cropping digitial images will be more forgiving. The full-frame CCD is the best feature, IMO [besides the 11MP], as it means a 24mm lens is really a 24mm. That's my biggest problem with the EOS-1D: all EOS lens are 1.4x their lens length on a 35mm camera. Great for zoom lens; sucks for wide angle shots.
Re: storage for 11 m-pixels is $$$ (Score:2)
On an interesting side note, though, if you're just doing static scenery stuff, or studio work, you can use something like ComCam, a tool written to interact with Olympus digitals (like my c2100uz), that gives you full settings control, as well as downloads the image after it's shot.
If the 11MP cameras are in an SLR body, they can be T-mounted to telescopes, which will really open the door for good resolution amateur astronomy.
There's more than one kind of photography geek. Sadly, I'm like, three.
Re: storage for 11 m-pixels is $$$ (Score:2)
s/ComCam/Cam2Com/g;
There already. (was Re:half way there!) (Score:2)
Re:In case of slashdotting (Score:2)
Re:Too Those Who Think 2 MP or 24 bits is enough.. (Score:2)
And 35mm is small-format. Photographers going for higher quality go with "medium format" (70mm film, 60x60mm image size - think Hasselblad) or larger, roughly 12000x12000 pixels -- 144 megapixels. Digital still has a ways to go to catch up at the high end.
Re:mmmm...... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh Wow! (Score:3, Informative)
Releasing [4-men.org] prematurely [sexhealth.org]? they [abakong.org] have [centerwatch.com] ways [newremedies.com] to [yahoo.com] fix [bu.edu] that [malehealthcenter.com].