Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/22/2005 11:12:02 AM EDT
DPreview.com's review of the new Canon 12 mp cam. With a representation of how large the 12mp CMOS sensor is compared to the 8mp one.

Nikon, are you listening...?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:14:30 AM EDT
Honestly 3MP is enough for 99% of the folks out there. I have seen some high MP rated cameras that take absolutely crappy pictures. Its like Intel hyping the Mhz Myth. Yeah the numbers are impressive, but do al the other feattures tie in to make it worthwile?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:16:14 AM EDT
DAYYYUUUUMMMMMMM!!!!!

I'm afraid to ask how much $$.....
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:17:33 AM EDT
Good to see Canon is going with full frame sensors and larger LCD screens. I just might have to trade my 10D in soon...
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:19:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
Honestly 3MP is enough for 99% of the folks out there. I have seen some high MP rated cameras that take absolutely crappy pictures. Its like Intel hyping the Mhz Myth. Yeah the numbers are impressive, but do al the other feattures tie in to make it worthwile?




I don't own a digital camera yet b/c I'm waiting for the innovation in the number of MP to settle down. I heard once that anything in the high 3MP's is as good as a 35mm. I might go out and buy something in the 4-5MP range. I don't think I could tell the diff btwn a 3Mp and 5MP though.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:28:36 AM EDT
Looks like it's about twice the price of a 20D or $3200. The full frame sensor is nice. It has no built-in flash so you might say the price is $3600 with a flash. The other large difference is the size of the LCD, about twice that of the 20D.

I'm plenty happy with the 20D. I wouldn't consider upgrading at that price.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:29:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
Honestly 3MP is enough for 99% of the folks out there. I have seen some high MP rated cameras that take absolutely crappy pictures. Its like Intel hyping the Mhz Myth. Yeah the numbers are impressive, but do al the other feattures tie in to make it worthwile?

'

You're right, 3-4 MP is fine for most people.

But for those of us who are essentially true "Prosumers" who will shoot mostly happy snaps but might sell some of the pics (product pics in my case- nothing major), it's quality AND quantity... I could see how it would be nice for a true pro as well- you can use more frame to compose with and then crop into it.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:35:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
Honestly 3MP is enough for 99% of the folks out there. I have seen some high MP rated cameras that take absolutely crappy pictures. Its like Intel hyping the Mhz Myth. Yeah the numbers are impressive, but do al the other feattures tie in to make it worthwile?

'

You're right, 3-4 MP is fine for most people.

But for those of us who are essentially true "Prosumers" who will shoot mostly happy snaps but might sell some of the pics (product pics in my case- nothing major), it's quality AND quantity... I could see how it would be nice for a true pro as well- you can use more frame to compose with and then crop into it.



Yea.

I have a 5MP camera that's clear enough--MP enough--to print 8-1/2 X 11 pictures. I can't imagine needing more MPs, nut I ain't no photographer. I would consider buying another DC if I can go from off-to-picture in something like 1/2 second. Maybe I can do that with the one I have now and don't know it.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:37:19 AM EDT
I'm waiting for a reasonable quality, affordable full frame sensor camera that uses my existing Nikon lenses, and that allows a decent wide angle. Anything in the 4-5mp range is plenty for the vast majority of users.

Megapixels are meaningless when you go past the effective resolution of the lens. Some of these 5+mp point and shoot types are laughable. I'd be interested to see if you can tell the difference between 12mp and 8mp using the same lenses.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:38:28 AM EDT

I heard once that anything in the high 3MP's is as good as a 35mm.


The equiv. megapixels of 35 mm film would be 25-26mp.

Having said that, for 4 x 6 prints, 3 to 4 mp is fine, 5mp will get you to 8 x 10 well, and almost to 11 x 14, 8mp will get you to 14 x 20 well, and decent posters. Anything else is superfluous.

However, the full frame sensors will get you 35mm proportions, and that is very cool, but very, very expensive.

Yet another toy that I would love to have, but cannot (or probably ever will) actually justify.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:40:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By WildBoar:
Honestly 3MP is enough for 99% of the folks out there. I have seen some high MP rated cameras that take absolutely crappy pictures. Its like Intel hyping the Mhz Myth. Yeah the numbers are impressive, but do al the other feattures tie in to make it worthwile?

'

You're right, 3-4 MP is fine for most people.

But for those of us who are essentially true "Prosumers" who will shoot mostly happy snaps but might sell some of the pics (product pics in my case- nothing major), it's quality AND quantity... I could see how it would be nice for a true pro as well- you can use more frame to compose with and then crop into it.



A high mega-pixel camera WITH a good lens can make a big differance in the quality of the pictures IF you are printing large format above 4x6. A high pixel count also equals more effective zoom for cutting and croping.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:42:02 AM EDT
Soon the resolution will be so high that you will be able to count the bacteria inside the poors on a model's face.

Once you get resolution enough for poster size printed images, what's the point?
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:43:54 AM EDT
I am hopeful the D200 will be nice. Nikon seems to be slipping as far as keeping up with Canon.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:47:35 AM EDT
as someone who does this for a living, I'll state that this is a niche camera.

It's designed to capture the film holdouts.

They're not going to sell many of these.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:50:38 AM EDT
Just like a highly-accurized rifle, this machine has capabilities far beyond that of most of its purchasers. This new camera will allow people to take crappy photographs at a much higher resolution and clog the In-Tar-Web with ridiculously large raw image files.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:08:27 PM EDT
The MP game is just flavors of the same CMOS / CCD Chips being built upon historic 1st Gen Professional Backs. The market is being more segmented into Consumer / Prosumer on one end and the Pro Photographer / Corporate on the other.

35mm Frame CMOS / CCD > 1 to 16 MP

120mm Med Format > 22 to 39MP

4x5 Camera Backs > 50 to 60MP (Approx 200MB Optical)

Compared to Historic / Current Pro Film (Taken Digital through Drum Scanning) All Below Optical

35mm Frame > 55MB to 250 MB

120mm Med Format > 400MB to 1.3GB

4x5 Camera Backs > 800MB to 3.4GB

Though for the folks shooting consumer these new batch of cameras are great


Interesting reads:

http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp (CMOS / CCD Manufacture for 4 to 39MP Sensors)

www.scannerforum.com (120K to 3K Scanners Scanning Air Force Ortho Film and Density Strips)

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 1:52:04 PM EDT
I have an Olympus 4 MP camera.

I've printed 8x10 photos on my canon photo printer that you would be hard pressed to tell weren't from 35mm.

On the highest quality setting, it is VERY good.

And it's a $300 point and shoot camera.

I know it won't do what a "real" camera will, but for me, it's all I need.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:24:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 2:24:34 PM EDT by rjroberts]
Thanks for the heads up on the Canon. I'm in the market for a new, higher performance one, and have been looking at a 20D. I doubt the difference in pixels, a 50% increase will be enough to justify the new one. I would think that a doubling would be the least that would produce a noticeable difference.

Ideally, this may "obsolete" the 20D to the extent it may drop in price. (Wishful thinking in Richard-world) Right now I have a G1 - 3.3 mpixel. I can see where I'd like more performance for many shots. However, it's great for underwater, and will always have a home for that.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:27:52 PM EDT
I didn't feel it was worth it to upgrade my 10D to a 20D, but this...

Mmm, full frame sensor....
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:10:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NODDAH:
The MP game is just flavors of the same CMOS / CCD Chips being built upon historic 1st Gen Professional Backs. The market is being more segmented into Consumer / Prosumer on one end and the Pro Photographer / Corporate on the other.

35mm Frame CMOS / CCD > 1 to 16 MP

120mm Med Format > 22 to 39MP

4x5 Camera Backs > 50 to 60MP (Approx 200MB Optical)

Compared to Historic / Current Pro Film (Taken Digital through Drum Scanning) All Below Optical

35mm Frame > 55MB to 250 MB

120mm Med Format > 400MB to 1.3GB

4x5 Camera Backs > 800MB to 3.4GB

Though for the folks shooting consumer these new batch of cameras are great


Interesting reads:

http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp (CMOS / CCD Manufacture for 4 to 39MP Sensors)

www.scannerforum.com (120K to 3K Scanners Scanning Air Force Ortho Film and Density Strips)


Sorry, I don't know what all the number mean, what's the difference between the 1st set and the 2nc set. Can you please elaborate and clearify for this old 35mm film(Minolta SRT101-guy) amateur photogrpahy. I like to find out because I met a professional wedding photographer that still uses film. She says that she can see a difference between film and digital image.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:16:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 3:56:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:

Originally Posted By NODDAH:
The MP game is just flavors of the same CMOS / CCD Chips being built upon historic 1st Gen Professional Backs. The market is being more segmented into Consumer / Prosumer on one end and the Pro Photographer / Corporate on the other.

35mm Frame CMOS / CCD > 1 to 16 MP

120mm Med Format > 22 to 39MP

4x5 Camera Backs > 50 to 60MP (Approx 200MB Optical)

Compared to Historic / Current Pro Film (Taken Digital through Drum Scanning) All Below Optical

35mm Frame > 55MB to 250 MB

120mm Med Format > 400MB to 1.3GB

4x5 Camera Backs > 800MB to 3.4GB

Though for the folks shooting consumer these new batch of cameras are great


Interesting reads:

http://www.dalsa.com/markets/ccd_vs_cmos.asp (CMOS / CCD Manufacture for 4 to 39MP Sensors)

www.scannerforum.com (120K to 3K Scanners Scanning Air Force Ortho Film and Density Strips)


Sorry, I don't know what all the number mean, what's the difference between the 1st set and the 2nc set. Can you please elaborate and clearify for this old 35mm film(Minolta SRT101-guy) amateur photogrpahy. I like to find out because I met a professional wedding photographer that still uses film. She says that she can see a difference between film and digital image.





The top set is the state of CCD / CMOS Technology and next set is the digital film capture equivalent with a scanner which can capture the film grain / most all prosumer scanners cannot.

The best CCD /CMOS elements in digital cameras today (Ones costing like between 25K to $40,000) are at a size of 11 microns each; for each RGB return. (1 Micron = 10,000 mm) For every RGB return each of these elements only capture 1/3 of the (RGB) color data and then it is combined. Also CCD / CMOS technology is video based meaning it has Gamma "U" Shape not "S" Shape Density Curves as the Film, Historic Prints and the world around us which is density based. Video space is approximately 60% less than density space. (This maybe the tonality issue your photographer friend maybe speaking about)

Film is a density material with natural light exposure mapped out in the form of a "S" shaped density curves of exposure not video gamma. Different films also has different performances. "Pharmacy Film" such as used by consumers is negative film with grain at 16 to 19 microns for all three RGB returns (CCD / CMOS example above is 33 microns) Chrome Films (Think of slide film) can have grain as small as 5 microns and Black and White Professional Film can get down to 3 Microns (This includes the military aerial films)

Professional Photographers for decades have been using PMT based drum scanners which collimate the light and focus a single beam of light to an individual film grain to capture the film like a microscope. (3 to 27 Microns) This beam of light is split into its seperate component RGB and sent to a RGB / Photo Multiplier Tube Scanner which takes the intensity of light and converts each element of the RGB light from an intensity to a voltage. The bottom list from my last past has the Megabytes of optical data a drum scanner can bring back from film.

Most consumers only care about pictures of grandma and using it for traditional prints. Many of the latest Digital Cameras fit that bill great. Meanwhile the rift between PRO and Consumer is not as tight as the marketing makes it out to be and there are many more generations before film is gone.

Something to chew on:

1. In a 4x5 E100G Kodak Film there is 20GB of information at 24 Bits of Color Data. The min. not max capture to faithfully reproduce that film is approx. 800 MB of information
2. Modern Drum Scanner Tech is the equivalent of an approximately 400 MP Capture Device.

But the real question is who cares?

Consumer or Pro


Top Top