Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

13.8MP Kodak Tops Previously Leaked Canon

timothy posted about 12 years ago | from the more-dots-more-dots dept.

Hardware 342

MadCow42 writes "With the professional imaging trade show Photokina opening this week in Koln Germany, digital camera manufacturers are announcing a stunning new lineup of professional digital cameras. These include a 13.8 megapixel monster from Kodak, and a 11.1 megapixel camera from Canon. I'm sure Nikon isn't too far behind, but no news yet on their offerings. These cameras are positioned for the professional photographer, but with list prices from under $4k to $6k, they're not out of reach for the 'pro-sumer' market either. The best news is that new products like this will push prices down on the 4-6MP cameras at the high end of the consumer level." We mentioned the premature release giving Canon's hand away; like MadCow42, I want to see what Nikon has to say.

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Be excellent to each other. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4316279)

Party on, dudes!

Re:Be excellent to each other. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317291)


I farted!


YourMissionForToday: bleeng bleeng
coed.jpg: ohohohoh my hehahahahad
YourMissionForToday: Trophy's Mine!
coed.jpg: I'm glad the fall is coming. it's statistically the second-best time of the year for my prospects of getting laid
coed.jpg: #1 being may-april
YourMissionForToday: I should play some Castlevania, no?

YourMissionForToday: Getting laid is t3h r0x0r
coed.jpg: yes. the dss forum site i most recently signed up on had a bunch of castlevania and chrono cross characters for icons
YourMissionForToday: wish the gameboy advance screen didn't suck so much...I can feel my eyes struggling after playing for about 20 minutes
coed.jpg: frank said he's bringing his to the apple store tomorrow
coed.jpg: the more i think about it the more it occurs to me that this whole adventure is really just gonna be a big joke... and i laugh
YourMissionForToday: Frank is steeped in materialistic excess! He must be re-educated!
coed.jpg: my friend anj said that the apple store in plano had a big line out the door on opening day. if that's the case, meet me in the food court
coed.jpg: i'll be scarfing SBARRO
YourMissionForToday: Meet me at the forklift dealership, I drive a forklift through your wall!
coed.jpg: did i tell you home depot won't hire me cuz i have no forklift experience
coed.jpg: "Have you ever driven a forklift"
"Well, no" (not since i was 6 yrs old in dad's warehouse, i shoulda said that)
coed.jpg: "Well we really need someone good with a forklift but we'll let you know if we need you for something"
YourMissionForToday: Show them your forklift experience by impaling them, then lifting up their body and leaving it on a high shelf
coed.jpg: hahaha
coed.jpg: "Well I drove one in my most recent string of brutal unsolved murders, perhaps you heard about them. The people were impaled with a forklift and then slammed repeatedly against the top and bottm of the highest shelf, and then left there"
coed.jpg: "They were insolent"
YourMissionForToday: I want to make a video game where all you do is bust through a wall and steal stuff with a forklift, then drive out
coed.jpg: that's a fantastic idea for a game
coed.jpg: the vague aesthetic of that zoo game witht he lasso and the truck
YourMissionForToday: Yeah, and then it turns into Unreal Tournament in my mind when you impale somebody and the announcer says "FORKLIFT KILL!"
coed.jpg: "There's a pallet of flat panel LCD's on that loading dock! Steal the forklift and put it in your buddy's pickup! GO!"
coed.jpg: hahaha an FPS with a forklift as a weapon would rox0r
coed.jpg: you'd move kinda slow, but you'dbe fuckin invincible. like having the school bus in vigilante 8
YourMissionForToday: you have to corner real fast and you get turbocharged nitrocack for your forlkift
coed.jpg: but your weakness would be the propane tank... someone hits that enough times and you're toast!
YourMissionForToday: if you crash into the wall at sams club, 10 tons of cat food tins land on your head
coed.jpg: Or... CRAZY FORKLIFT! You're a newly-hired night-shift loader at Sam's, and your boss is an asshole. He says "Get this pallet of new Color-Safe CHeer(tm) to aisle 7, put it on the third shelf!" ANd you have to do it as fast as possible, your forklift can go up to 120 mph, and you leave a wake of terror as you rip through the warehouse
YourMissionForToday: Yeah
coed.jpg: your forklift is all bad-ass, with not just the prongs but also the big side-clamps that hold the pallet on the lift, cuz you drive like a maniac and blare rock music on your forklift's boomin system
YourMissionForToday: Pimpin forklift with loads of chrome
coed.jpg: yeah!
YourMissionForToday: You can crush someone's head with the side clamps! They're like a vice!
coed.jpg: you can smash through walls, knock over shelves, none of it matters! as long as you get the pallet to the shelf!

or wait, you know what fuck the shelf... into the truck that's backed up to the loading dock that your buddy's waiting to drive off in
coed.jpg: Ditch the soap or whatever and head over to electronicas
YourMissionForToday: But watch out for land mines in the Cambodian Jungle forklift level!
coed.jpg: hahaha
coed.jpg: yeah you have big mud tires on your forklift, and roof lights
YourMissionForToday: There could be one level where you have to steal enough parts from an assembly line to make a killer forklift, and oyu have to drive across a bunch of conveyer belts
coed.jpg: haha! Forkker?
YourMissionForToday: Yeah, and when you drop all the proper parts in the foundry, it cuts to this FMV where your AWeSOMe NEW FORKLIFT EMERGES off the assembly line
YourMissionForToday: 199
coed.jpg: haha
coed.jpg: it's so appropriate!
YourMissionForToday: I can't wait for some stoned guy to see that
coed.jpg: hahaha
YourMissionForToday: Maybe you have to kill zombies with your forklift, or you're a superhero and you can fly off your forklift to like ten rows down at sam's and land on some guy who'ss trying to run away
coed.jpg: hahaha, or you have a reach-lift, with a big extendible arm you can lash out with and smash people and things
YourMissionForToday: Yeah, or like you can impale a big can of oil with your forklift, and then ram it in reverse so that oil spills all over the place and the cops can't pursue you
coed.jpg: oh that's great
coed.jpg: and if you grab something and send it up real fast as you drive real fast (without impaling it), it flies over your head and lands behind you
YourMissionForToday: cool, you could use crates of explosives...or depth charges!
coed.jpg: yeah! have summadis!
coed.jpg: but impaling people, stacking 3 or 4 on each prong, that would be the real point of the game
YourMissionForToday: and you could ride your forklift over to these hydraulic lifts, and the higher you dump people on the shelf, the more points!

With 12 megapixels I could be a rock star! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317092)


How many MPs do I really need? (1, Interesting)

seattle2napa (609603) | about 12 years ago | (#4317094)

If I want to print an 8x10 color picture with zero artifacts and aliasing problems on a high quality color printer, how many MPs do I really need?

Can anybody venture a guess at when I'll be able to get this in an SLR body that will take interchangable lenses for under $1000?

Re:How many MPs do I really need? (4, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | about 12 years ago | (#4317115)

Well, Epson says that a high quality color inkjet prints at 1440x720 dpi (they have some at double that...)

Let's say you ignore that and print at 300 dpi. That's 2400 by 3000 pixels. There's 7.2 MP.

Re:How many MPs do I really need? (2, Informative)

kesuki (321456) | about 12 years ago | (#4317175)

A few things about inkjets. First off, inkjets need to use higher DPI because the ink is essentially being spit out at the paper. they don't really know where the ink is going to land on the paper. They know more or less, and the slower the print out the more precisely they do know. Even so, in order to maake the colors correct they aren't actually putting the inks on top of each other, but simply so close that they seem to be in the same spot, but realistically i think they 1/3 or 1/4 the number to determine how many dots are being printed per pixel, in order to make all the colors needed. So a 1200x1200 DPI printer would be able to yeild only 7.2 MP, if they blend four dots per pixel to make accurate color blending.
I could be wrong on this, but I Know that 300dpi is Way too low to make an 8x10 print, the inkjet might spit it out fast, but it ends up looking horrible.

Re:How many MPs do I really need? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317177)

Be careful. DPI and PPI are not completely interchangable.

Re:How many MPs do I really need? (3, Insightful)

Sivar (316343) | about 12 years ago | (#4317288)

Printer DPI and photographic image DPI are entirely different.
A 720DPI printer, for example, will be able to spit about half a million ink droplets per square inch of paper, but one ink droplet != 1 pixel. Remember, as the previous reply stated, the printer uses many small droplets of exactly four colors (some inkjets use up to eight colors) of ink and attempts to create the perception of a certain color by mixing dots of those, much like your monitor uses different and separate intensities of red, green, and blue to approximate a color other than one of those three.
So how does the DPI rating of an ink printer relate to the DPI of a digital camera? It doesn't necessarily. In fact, most parts of any color printout will not have the maximum number of ink droplets (even if using absorbent photo paper) because far fewer are needed, particularly with light colors. There is absolutely no way to compare the two, but in general a 300DPI image will look better than most modern ink printers can accurately portray, and 600DPI will approach the representational limits of color laser, dye sublimation, and good thermal wax printers.
The DPI-to-paper ratio is a simple matter of comparing the resolutions (say, 1600x1200) of the digital camera image with the size of the printout (say, 8x10")

Re:How many MPs do I really need? (1)

lakeland (218447) | about 12 years ago | (#4317308)

When you print you mix ink in each pixel. However the cameras don't allow more than one pixel at each point. In order to get your 300dpi you need a 21.6MP camera.

I guess you're going to have to wait a few years before the fancy professional cameras can take advantage of consumer-level pritners.

Re:How many MPs do I really need? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317224)

For the former, as long as you're using a very expensive printer, you only need about 8-10 megapixels. As an aside, inkets by nature create artifacting because the ink is subject to inertia, gravity, just about everything for the fraction of a second between getting sprayed out the print head and before it reaches the paper. Laser printers suffer from the same issues that plauge news print, because each dye is added in it's own pass, or by it's own unit there is a possibility of misalignment. I'm not sure if the dye sublimation or thermal wax printers have any problems with how they print, but I don't think there is anything better for color on the market right now.
Or, you could just bring the digital photos on a CD somewhere that does prints from digital photos, as long as they've got good equipment and people who know what they're doing you'll get better results from any printer you can buy for under the price of that camera.

As of for the second, Three weeks after you buy it ;-)

Depends on what you want. (2)

mindstrm (20013) | about 12 years ago | (#4317345)

It is entirely subjective.

Take a good 8x10 from a good printer, on good paper.
Then take a good 8x10 photo-print on real photo paper, from real 35mm film. Or hell, even from 50mm (or whatever the professional standard is).

Now take out a magnifying glass.

Now you will see the difference.

Nikon's response... (5, Funny)

EvanED (569694) | about 12 years ago | (#4317096)

"Oh shit!"

OK, I'm sure they'll come out with something.

Re:Nikon's response... Who cares? (5, Interesting)

fmaxwell (249001) | about 12 years ago | (#4317250)

Nikon is the choice of pros for reasons other than pixel count. Nikon understands the concept of an investment. They realize that a professional photographer does not want to replace thousands of dollars worth of lenses just to get a new camera body. That's why you can take 20 and 30 year old Nikon lenses and put them on a brand-new Nikon digital SLR. Sure, it won't magically turn them into autofocus, but they will still work fine.

Nikon also builds a level of quality into their cameras that's just missing from many other brands. While Canon and Minolta make some great cameras, the pro Nikons are almost beyond reproach. Many of them have been used by photojournalists in such grueling conditions that it's a wonder that they work at all, but they just keep going until the lettering is all worn off of the countrols and the bodies look like they've been dragged behind trucks.

Consumer camera manufacturers don't get it, changing lenses on an all-too-frequent basis. They often come up with an all-new design that is totally incompatible with older lens series. While Canon has had some success in the semi-pro and pro market, Nikon is still king of the hill there.

Re:Nikon's response... Who cares? (0)

UniverseIsADoughnut (170909) | about 12 years ago | (#4317313)

Canon Can be flaky with designs but Minolta is right there with Nikon. I use 35yr old lenses on mine and my camera is only a few years old. They haven't changed their base in forever, they introduced AF bases but still make cameras with the manual base MD (i think, haven't touched it in a bit) actully the auto and manual lenses can be interchanged. You can put a 35 yr old manual lens on your new auto focus, but of course you have to manualy focus. You can't kill a good minolta, thats why so many pros use them. If I remember correct most National Geographic photophers run Minoltas. Nikons are very good. But they have got to a point where they sell at a higher price on their name. Not to say they are bad or anything. But Nikon and Minolta are dead even. I own cameras from both and like them equaly.

Re:Nikon's response... Who cares? (1)

Phork (74706) | about 12 years ago | (#4317317)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but your not going to take a 30 year old lens and put it on a d1x, at least not if you want the camera to be usefull. a 30 year old lens would be pre ai(IIRC), so it would be useless on anything made in the last 15, unless you had it converted, which is neither difficult nor expensive. But the real problem is that many new nikon bodies don't meter with non-af lenses, which makes them basically usless.

Nikon Sucks Ass (2, Troll)

shepd (155729) | about 12 years ago | (#4317343)

>Nikon understands the concept of an investment

Ahhh HAHAHAHAHA! ROTFLMAO! Now that's funny.

Nikon doesn't give two shits about their customers. Just ask anyone who owns an older model CoolScan. We trashed a few not so long ago because they worked fine, but Nikon won't devlop new drivers or touch the damn things. We lost a slide insert once. We ended up with a "spare" unit because Nikon doesn't make replacement parts for products that are more than a couple of years old.

Nikon is the shittiest company I've dealt with, barring Iomega.

What will happen after the Megapixel race? (2)

Wolfier (94144) | about 12 years ago | (#4317097)

We're closing on 35mm with about 8 MP....with about 20 MP we'll be in the 645 category. What's next?

Re:What will happen after the Megapixel race? (1)

sgtron (35704) | about 12 years ago | (#4317116)

According to the article about the Kodak, 35mm gives you resolution equivalent to 12-18 Megapixels... not 8.

Re:What will happen after the Megapixel race? (1)

Wolfier (94144) | about 12 years ago | (#4317160)'s from Kodak (who makes most of its $ from 35mm films) so what can I say - when we have 15 MP cameras they'll start to sell 35mm films that "would take a 30 MP digital to match"...

For most applications tho 8 MP would be a really close 35mm substitute.

Re:What will happen after the Megapixel race? (2)

Phork (74706) | about 12 years ago | (#4317344)

kodak already tmakes a 35mm film that it would take more than a 30mp ccd to match, it's called tech pan, and when souped in technidol is so beautiful, and so grain free, I have done a 15x enlargement from techpan, cropped down to 8x8, and it was copletely grain free. Then on the other hand they make a film with as much resolution as proably an 8mp ccd or less, it is called tmz.

Re:What will happen after the Megapixel race? (1, Informative)

opello (243896) | about 12 years ago | (#4317397)

can't remember where i was reading it -- but the chemical process used in photoreactive film for 35mm film would take something like 40 - 45 megapixels to duplicate ...

mind you that's not a reasonable facsimile, that is supposed to be a genuine reproduction of the amount of data in a silver chrystals on the film

on a side note -- this [] is a very interesting article all about digital photography and its limits.

Re:What will happen after the Megapixel race? (5, Insightful)

g4dget (579145) | about 12 years ago | (#4317182)

Yes, those are the usual claims, but they really are misleading. With resolution targets, if you use the right lenses and film, you may get something that by some naive calculation corresponds to 8 Megapixels.

However, the imaging characteristics of film and digital are just different; resolution isn't everything and you can't compare them that way. For practical purposes, a 4 or 5 Megapixel gives most amateurs and professionals similar functionality to what they get with 35mm. Under many conditions, a 5 Mpixel digital camera produces nicer images than a 35mm film camera with any film, and under some other conditions, it's worse.

In fact, scaling up such estimates to medium format is particularly silly. People generally don't use MF or LF for higher resolution, but for characteristics like tonality and DOF. Even if you manage to get the right film and the right lens on your MF system, the longer shutter speeds and smaller DOF will likely counteract any theoretical gain in resolution under most conditions; and films for MF on the whole aren't as good for 35mm either. A Rolleiflex (maybe even loaded with Tri-X) or Pentax67 can't compete with modern 35mm SLR systems and lenses, but that's not the point.

So, don't wait for some big, high-resolution digital camera to do digital imaging. 12 Megapixels is nice, and some people may need, but most amateurs and professionals probably don't. The real news about the two latest SLRs is that they have no focal length multiplier, and that means that we finally get real wide-angles. That's been the real limitation of digital cameras so far.

Screw pixels, I want to see stock options (2)

jcsehak (559709) | about 12 years ago | (#4317388)

However, the imaging characteristics of film and digital are just different;

That's what I've been saying all along. For my money, digital cameras just won't compare to film until they can emulate various types of film stock. Just like I can get reverb, chorus and delay plug-ins for my audio editor, I'm not buying a digital camera until I can get (or it comes with) different plug-ins like "cheap polaroid" or "Tri-X" or whatever that all react to light (and specifically shadows and very bright light) and reproduce colors in the same way that those film stocks do.

Photo-Quality (2, Interesting)

Oculus Habent (562837) | about 12 years ago | (#4317101)

So, at what megapixel mark reach comparable to "photo quality". Not to say the actual quality of photos, but high enough for 720-dpi or so - so you could print it as a decent photo?

Or are we already there, and I just don't pay attention?

Re:Photo-Quality (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317109)

Norman Koren has a very good summary of digital camera resolution versus film on his site [] .

Re:Photo-Quality (1)

stardyne (113935) | about 12 years ago | (#4317121)

Or are we already there, and I just don't pay attention?

No, just like a good slashdotter, you don't read the articles. From the Kodak article:

Pixels are the tiny colored dots that make up a digital image. By comparison, a frame of high-quality 35mm film contains an estimated 12 million to 18 million pixels.

Re:Photo-Quality (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317129)

Too lazy to log in. Anyways, 300ppi on a good printer (which may be 1440dpi and up) or output via LEDs to wet-chemistry photo paper gives results pretty much indistinguishable from film.

So, for an 8x10 this would require 2400x3000 pixels. or 7.2 megapixels.

With a 13.8 megapixel sensor, you could do an 11x14 at 300ppi. That'd be good for pretty much anything I would use it for.

Basically, for the vast majority of people this next round of cameras will make film redundant from a resolution point of view (there are other criteria though).

Re:Photo-Quality (2)

FFFish (7567) | about 12 years ago | (#4317383)

We're not there. There are pixel counts that are at or above film resolution (it really depends on what kind of film you're comparing to: that bulk-pack 10-for-$10, or pro-grade slow-speed b&w...).

But digital isn't touching two other important advantages of film: colourspace and dynamic range.

Still, it's rapidly coming to the point where film is going to be replaced. For most purposes most of the time, digital seems to be there...

End The Megapixel Race (4, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | about 12 years ago | (#4317103)

Someone, somewhere, should be working on inexpensive reusable "films" that have the same resolution as traditional film. It just doesn't make sense to be buying new cameras everytime CCDs get cheaper. At the very least, someone needs to make the chips interchangeable, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon since the camera companies like things the way they are. So, what kind of brew of light sensitive chemicals, magnetism, and degaussing apparatus will give us cheap "digital film"? Only time will tell.

Re:End The Megapixel Race (1)

Derg (557233) | about 12 years ago | (#4317108)

I coulda sworn I noticed that the Kodak was based on a CMOS Chip, not a ccd...

sorry, I'm just nit picking...

Re:End The Megapixel Race (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317231)

They have these for some medium and most large format cameras.... Also Nikon and Kodak worked together before on there last digital camera, so I wouldn't be supprized to see that happen again.

Re:End The Megapixel Race (2, Interesting)

Mind Socket (180517) | about 12 years ago | (#4317245)

Reusable "digital film" will be far too long coming due to the difficulties in establishing standards and because it adds unecessary and physically troublesome steps to the digitizing process. Also, how does it make more sense to be buying new digital films each time they get cheaper/better as opposed to CCDs? Aren't they just different implementations of what will eventually be much the same thing?

Who's to say that a roll of reusable film would be cheaper or more effective than the middle ground that is emerging? That is, developing large MP CCDs that replace the film plane on a 35mm camera. That is, attaching a CCD in place of film in a regular SLR camera. In that situation, the upgrade cost is reduced and compatibility will be maintained with the existing 35mm format.

Sorry I'm late (-1)

SweetAndSourJesus (555410) | about 12 years ago | (#4317104)

I was getting high.

Oh, it's such a perfect day
I'm glad I spent it with you
Oh, such a perfect day
You just keep me hangin on

The porn is so detailed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317106)

You can confirm the gender by seeing the XX chromosome in each cell.

Digital Cameras ROCK!!! (2)

mcrbids (148650) | about 12 years ago | (#4317110)

I was an "early adopter" of a Kodak DC-210 1-MPx digital camera. I've taken thousands of pictures with it - most archived on CD-R.

I love it!

Between my 5 children, running my own business, and home-schooling them, I just never got the time to run stupid errands like developing film.

My my DC-210, I just plug the Compact Flash card into my USB reader, save to the HDD, and every few months to CD-R.

Given that my 1.0 MPx camera blows up to about 6x8 before looking "grainy", I can't see the need for more than about 4 Mpx, but then again, "we don't need more than 640k!"...

With my DC-210, I get pictures I simply wouldn't have any other way... pictures I will cherish as an old fart.

Anyway, I recommend one. Highly.

13.8 megapixel (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317114)

Whoa! Imagine the detail I can get with my pr0n with that baby!

Re:13.8 megapixel (1)

saskboy (600063) | about 12 years ago | (#4317207)

...But imagine how many CDs you'll fill up just trying to film all of Anna Nicole's boobs?

Re:13.8 megapixel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317278)

Who's anna nicole?

Re:13.8 megapixel Smith (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317373)

Smith, I think is the reference.

Re:13.8 megapixel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317324)

and if you shoot medium format on Anna Nicole and scan it in at 4000dpi 48bits color - you will fill the entire CD with one boob shot :-)

Re:13.8 megapixel (0)

UniverseIsADoughnut (170909) | about 12 years ago | (#4317338)

Carefull, your comment looks like you want to make baby porn if you don't read it just right.

More privacy concerns (2, Funny)

I Am The Owl (531076) | about 12 years ago | (#4317117)

How will this tie in with face-in-the-crowd situations that we read about on this site every day? Couldn't this new digital camera lead to the government taking away more of our rights? Keep reading, I'm reaching a point...

What I mean to say is, we read about facial recognition software and the way that the government abuses it every day here on Slashdot and on other privacy sites. With the ever-higher resolutions on these cameras, it will only make it that much easier for a computer to pick out someone's face in a crowd, tieing them into a huge database of personal data that the government keeps a secret and taking away their Constitutional right to privacy. The potential consequences are astounding.

I think perhaps we should think more carefully about the implications of such an advance in technology before we go ahead with blindly cheering it on. Dire predictions just might turn out to be true.

Re:More privacy concerns (1)

buswolley (591500) | about 12 years ago | (#4317390)

Also Higher resolutions allow you to resolve a face at further distances. Privacy concerns indeed.

focal length (5, Interesting)

g4dget (579145) | about 12 years ago | (#4317137)

The big news about these new cameras is that they finally don't have a focal length factor--with older digital SLRs, your nice, expensive 20mm lens turned into 28mm or 32mm. To me, that matters much more than the extra resolution--there are few or no decent wide angles on current high-end digital cameras.

Now, if only the price came down...

Imagine... (2, Funny)

Alien Being (18488) | about 12 years ago | (#4317138)

taking a picture of a Beowulf cluster with one of these!

Re:Imagine... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317179)



(the sound of my mind popping loose from its moorings....can you tell I'm beyond sick of these Beowulf cluster postings?)

Re:Imagine... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317195)

Or taking a picture _with_ a beowulf cluster of these!

Floppy Disks (2, Funny)

repetty (260322) | about 12 years ago | (#4317139)

So, is this a good time to ask whether floppy disk drives are worth having?

Re:Floppy Disks (0)

seattle2napa (609603) | about 12 years ago | (#4317152)


Neither are serial ports, parallel ports, mice that aren't wireless, monitors less than 17in (unless they are flat panel in which case 15in is still worth having), assembly language manuals for IBM mini-computers, pants without a belt, shoes without laces, etc.

I could go on, but I digress.

not for average users (1, Insightful)

neo8750 (566137) | about 12 years ago | (#4317146)

This camera will not be for the average users which you can see from the price. Unless the user is a camera freak and has a 6 digit salary. When I see the price I thought that could be a used car or a very nice computer system. but maybe thats just me.

Re:not for average users (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317233)

Yes, but honestly this is way overkill for almost any use except the professional photographer making 11 by 14 prints.

The average home photographer will be very happy with a 3 or 4 megapixel camera. Something like a Canon s30 or s40 fits in you pocket, has full manual modes, makes movies, and creates beautiful 4x6 prints. Even 8 by 10s are quite nice unless you examine them very closely.

Film is truely dead.

Wet Ware Rules! (1)

Quirk (36086) | about 12 years ago | (#4317147)

With apologies to Rudy Rucker... wet ware rules whether in the photographer or the camera. Pulling focus Rocks! Stand less than fifty feet from a predator in the wild with a 300 mil lense and pull focus off one eyeball of the beast, then develop those E6, 50 ASA slides and tell me you want a digital camera. I don't think so. And ya you can pull focus on a 300 mil lense on a monopod shooting 50 ASA although the lights gotta be right. And it's such a rush, breath, steady.

obligatory (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317149)

Wow, imagine a Beowulf cluster of these. ...sorry.

I was just thinking about clustering digital cameras together to cover the entire field of view.
Does anyone know what the resolution of a person's field of view is? And what is that equivalent to in pixels?

Re:obligatory (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 12 years ago | (#4317171)

The human eye can only discern 40 lines per inch.


Re:obligatory (0)

UniverseIsADoughnut (170909) | about 12 years ago | (#4317386)

I've wondered this. Is an interesting thought to think the world could be crisper than what we think as 20/20 (I know there are those who have better than 20/20, people get laser surgry to do this, like Pro atheletes)

Wonder what the highest resolution is for visual anything. Like what resolution would be the highest needed to see the universe at its finest level ( I don't know how to phrase that question, anyone understand what I'm getting at?) like do you take the smallest known/theroized partical/bit of energy and and take it's size and then use that with the most dense you can make the substance and that would be the highest resolution needed to properly view the universe without lose. It wouldn't be possable to achive it but makes you think about how blury are we seeing the world/universe

I appologize if this made no sence. I hate having a question that I can't even form.

6k pocketchange anyone? (2, Insightful)

MalleusEBHC (597600) | about 12 years ago | (#4317157)

These cameras are positioned for the professional photographer, but with list prices from under $4k to $6k, they're not out of reach for the 'pro-sumer' market either.

Since when was $4k-6k "pro-sumer" range? I'm no photography/digital camera buff by any stretch of the imagination so maybe this is just my naivete but I can't see spending that much money on one of these cameras unless you are professional when a 4-6 megapixel camera delivers damn good quality pictures and will be significantly less expensive.

Re:6k pocketchange anyone? (2)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | about 12 years ago | (#4317239)

I dunno .. I remember when I was looking to buy a camera a few years ago, for fun and to do some copywork.. it was me and this older dude at the counter. I settled on on a cheap Canon EOS Rebel and a the best lenses they had (the total was around $1000). The dude was going through every high-end EOS there was, the ones with eye-controlled focus, the ones with attachments for high-speed 7+ fps shooting, etc. He bought the most expensive camera and lenses, and easily put away $8000 or so.

I was asking him advice on the cameras, thinking he was some hot shot photographer. Finally I asked him if he was indeed a photographer, and what he photographed.

Turns out he was a doctor and he was buying the camera "to take on trips" and take photos of "the dog and kids".

So, yeah, there are people who just walk into the camera store and say "Give me the best". These people also do this in electronics/computer/stereo shops.

A nice demographic to target...

Where is this headed? (2, Insightful)

Eric_Cartman_South_P (594330) | about 12 years ago | (#4317163)

I can see why a 15ghz comp might be nice. Voice recon, or 3D, or working as a digital hub (calm down iMac fans, I mean "running the house automation AND your pr0n kinda thing), whatever... 100ghz is nice too. Design safer airplanes with better simulation and testing. Fold some proteins and find cures, etc...

But what the FSCK are we gonna do with a 100 million pixel camera (around 2010ish???) WTF? Any serious uses, I'd love to hear imaginations run wild. And no, I'm not talking pr0n, I mean medical, etc. I just don't see a use for it. Do you?

Ebay? (1)

bongholio (609944) | about 12 years ago | (#4317230)

An ebay pic with a click this to enlarge to 100MP link would be sweet. You could zoom in and see if what you were buying had any scratches, defects, or other problems.

Re:Where is this headed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317240)

You could take just one picture on your vacation, and have enough pixels to crop out all the individual shots that you want.

Re:Where is this headed? (3, Insightful)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | about 12 years ago | (#4317260)

you'd never have to frame a shot again. just point the camera in the general direction of whatever you want to picture, and then you can crop out a nice shot. Want a close-up of the same thing? No problem, just crop it closer. See a cool looking bug on a leaf in the corner of the shot? Just zoom right in, and still have enough pixels for an 8x10 glossy.

MP not everything (4, Informative)

ChristopherLord (610995) | about 12 years ago | (#4317169)

The Canon D1s uses a CMOS sensor (not CCD), which results in very low noise. This sensor type has a far lower noise floor then film or CCD. Although CCDs from Kodak and Nikon out-pixel-count the D30/D60/D1s, I would take a 'lowly' D60 any day of the week, simply because it has a pure color ramp with no noise, and all the resolution you would ever need, unless your printing multi-foot-wide prints.
As an aside, the new D1s is also full frame, meaning you do not have to multiply your lenses by a certain factor in order to get correct results.

Hey dipshit, the Kodak uses a CMOS. (2)

jabbo (860) | about 12 years ago | (#4317321)

Read the article, nimrod. The Kodak is basically a second-tier version of the 1Ds for the Nikon mount.

And it is also full-frame.

Price pressure... Really? (4, Insightful)

Tsar (536185) | about 12 years ago | (#4317172)

"The best news is that new products like this will push prices down on the 4-6MP cameras at the high end of the consumer level."

IMHO, they won't have a real impact on that market. Canon's excellent G2, a 4-megapixel camera, is currently selling at a street price of $600-$650. Others are in that same range, between $500 and $1000. Do you really think that someone considering the purchase of a $700 camera is going to be swayed by a $4000 camera with less than twice the resolution (noting that resolution varies with the square of the pixel count)? And remember, interchangeable lenses means they're extra, so the actual price difference is actually greater.

I'm really excited about these new cameras and sensors, and I think they're going to make a big impact in the film-dominated pro market, but to think they're going to generate price pressure on sub-$1000 cameras would be like Toyota dropping Camry prices to compete with the newest Lamborghini.

Re:Price pressure... Really? (1)

eunos94 (254614) | about 12 years ago | (#4317196)

Well, you're one considering a Camry would be swayed by a Lamborghini.

But Ferrari will have to drop because of Lamborghini...and Lotus will have to drop because of Ferrari...and Porsche will have to drop because of Lotus...and BMW will have to drop because of Porsche...and Lexus will drop because of BMW and Toyota will drop because of Lexus...etc

Doesn't seem like a huge leap of logic to me. But then again, I'm no car salesman.

Re:Price pressure... Really? (1)

opaqueice (602509) | about 12 years ago | (#4317256)

Uh... resolution does not "vary with the square of the pixel count." The pixel count is the total number of pixels, and therefore determines the resolution. It's not the number of pixels per side, or something, which is what you perhaps had in mind.

"Film dominated" pro market? (3, Informative)

jabbo (860) | about 12 years ago | (#4317354)

Not the pros I know. Aside from Nat'l Geo contract pros who still (mostly) shoot slides, all the PJ's and pool reporters I know switched to digital long ago. Those guys used to spend more in a month on lab fees than they do in a year on bodies & lenses.

This includes freelance AP stringers, Washington Post pool reporters, and basically all of the pros that aren't making ''art''. And the latter are growing fewer and fewer due to the superior workflow from digital cameras. Curiously (to me), the guys who have stuck it out with film are Nat'l Geographic contract heavies (McCurry, Doubillet) and climbing photography pros. At least one guy I know who is a professional freelance photojournalist (don't laugh, he makes plenty of money doing it) and avid climber, still uses a film back for his climbing shots.

All this could change (a LOT) with the advent of affordable full-frame DSLRs. I know it's tempting me... and I'm just an amateur with a lot of lab fees to nudge me in that direction.

my gf's dad (1)

null-sRc (593143) | about 12 years ago | (#4317173)

works for olympus so i buy digi camera's for super cheap ... he told me about the new memory chip's they're gonna use to replace smartmedia / compact flash.. called Xd chips or soemthing .. the size of a quarter: maxing out at 8 gigz... can't wait to carry my mp3 collection around on a quarter sized mp3 player.

Re:my gf's dad (4, Funny)

Tsar (536185) | about 12 years ago | (#4317341)

You're referring to the xD-Picture Card [] , which was announced back in July. 128MB cards were supposed to be available this month, with 256MB cards coming out around Christmas and higher-capacity cards (eventually topping out at 8GB) in 2003 and beyond.

Personally, I'm waiting for Dr. Arroway's camera in the movie Contact [] :
"...we have your personal recording unit. Normal, infrared and ultraviolet lenses. Digital microchip, good for thousands of hours of recording."

Maybe that will be Nikon's response!

why is this for pros? (4, Interesting)

Snuffub (173401) | about 12 years ago | (#4317174)

im sure a real photographer would be much happier with a headline like, Cannon develops new camera which improves color accuracy, or a camera which can take more than 8 pictures per second. these cameras will have worse image quality than 3-4 megapixel cameras on regular sized prints. (in brief the higher the resolution given a constant image area in the camera the smaller the recievers, the less light the reciever gets. noise is constant for a single reciever so the less light the less signal. ie less accurate pixels) about the only thing this is usefull for would be that it allows for very large prints, then again who's ever heard of a professional photographer printing a digital image in large format? the technology's just not there yet. for the time being ill stick to good ole silver nitrates and developer.

Re:why is this for pros? (1)

DaveSchool (154247) | about 12 years ago | (#4317232)

Nikkon, Cannon? WTF, doesn't anyone know how to spell anymore? Oh, wait, this is Slashdot, nevermind...

Re:why is this for pros? (3, Funny)

Snuffub (173401) | about 12 years ago | (#4317272)

because i enjoy seeing that vein on your forehead bulge.

Digital Advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317202)

Would anyone care to make a recommendation to a digital newbie? I am having a baby soon, our first and I feel the urge to purchase a decent digital camera in the under 500 dollar range. Nothing fancy, just something that takes a good photo when used by someone with few photography skills. What is the least you would consider spending on a camera for typical family photo fun? I would much prefer the advice of geeks than marketing laden web sites. Thanks.

Re:Digital Advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317268)

Well, the biggest weakness in digital cameras is focus speed and low-light performance. If you are taking a lot of indoor shots of a wiggly baby you are playing to digital cameras' weaknesses. Make sure to research accordingly. Sorry I don't have a recommendation.

Re:Digital Advice Canon (1)

saskboy (600063) | about 12 years ago | (#4317274)

I have a Canon Powershot S30, 3MP camera, and use it at 2MP most often. It also takes short movie clips which is a nice feature I think. It is in the $500US range as of 4 months ago. I hear lots of people on the web say they are happy with the G2 from Canon. The only downsides to mine, is the custom li ion battery, and the zoom button is a little sticky at times.
I get about 110 photos and videos from one battery life, and they are rechargable of course. You need a second battery with you basically, so factor that into the purchase price. Extra CF card(s) are a must too, and may cost you another $100 to have enough space for a weekend of pictures without downloading.

Re:Digital Advice Canon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317312)

I have a similar camera (the s40). It has a hard time focusing in low light. It definatley takes some getting used to, and you won't be able to hand the camera to a relative without a tutorial ("ok, half press the button on a stationary object, wait for the box to turn green, if it doesn't, find another stationary object with more contrast, try again, ok, now while still holding the button half way down, frame the shot and take the picture).

Nikon (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 12 years ago | (#4317329)

Any of the CoolPix, either in the 800 or 900 range (990 or 995 at this time, as an example). Buy the most camera you can afford.

pictures of the camera (2, Informative)

cetan (61150) | about 12 years ago | (#4317211) is running quite a bit of news about Photokina 2002. They've even got 2 images of the new Kodak. (Note: that's /of/ not /from/). 14n.asp []

Pixels and Megapixels (5, Informative)

Polo (30659) | about 12 years ago | (#4317212)

Here is a very detailed article comparing Film vs. Digital []

This might be better than some 35mm films, especially at the higher ISO ratings.

Of course, it may be easier to get larger film than a larger sensor...

Nikon Body? (1)

DaveSchool (154247) | about 12 years ago | (#4317220)

The article doesn't say what type of body the camera is going to use. Anybody know? *hopes it's Nikon*

Re:Nikon Body? (2)

Phork (74706) | about 12 years ago | (#4317367)

They say it is a nikon lens mount, and from the picture i saw it looks fairly simmilar to an f5.

MP are great, but what about storage space?... (1)

saskboy (600063) | about 12 years ago | (#4317229)

In the discussion about the Canon, a number of people like me realized the sheer memory capacity even one picture will take, especially if it is not compressed. I find my 3MP pictures to take a hideous amount of room on my Flash card, and eventually my CDs. And forget emailing these suckers to people using nearly full email boxes. You have to convert them to a fraction of their original size even to get the jpgs to under 500Kb.
It only makes sense for professionals to have digital cameras that take 4MP or better. If you buy one of these puppies in the next 2 years, either you have too much money, or it is your passion/livelyhood taking photos.

Re:MP are great, but what about storage space?... (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 12 years ago | (#4317348)

The Canon mentioned is not digital.

bigger is better (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 12 years ago | (#4317387)

1.) The Canon mentioned is not a digital camera.

2.) If you are intimidated by file size, you're most likely behind the curve. For me, a 128mb CF is small. I don't find buying more an issue.

I just spent the weekend shooting around Beijing, and between digital photos and DV, I'll have less than 500mb. My bottleneck is the time it takes to move the data, not to store it.

11 megapixel? maybe not. (1)

photo storm (610997) | about 12 years ago | (#4317255)

I recently had a conversation about this very topic with a camera service technician at the Nikon office here in the Toronto area. The pros have interesting things to say.

He was basically saying that what Canon had done was combine two 5 megapixel CCDs to form something that resembles an 11 megapixel CCD. That means this is not actually new technology. It's not revolutionary. It's merely more pixels.

Also, the issue that someone else has raised is very important. When you get to higher resolution CCDs, you may see a degradation in colour sensitivity and therefore your photos will suffer. Sure, high res is nice, but not at the expense of washed out, muddy colours.

I still think that something about the instant gratification of digital cameras takes away from the joy of photography. The fact that you can't easily re-take shots with film means you have some very tangible incentive to improve your skills in a hurry!

Now, since I'm a Nikon user, I really do want to hear what Nikon has to say about all this. Since I'm a Nikon film user (yeah, yeah, yeah. I know this is slashdot and we're all supposed to love digital. Film is more fun.), my interest in this is still pretty academic.

Re:11 megapixel? maybe not. (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 12 years ago | (#4317366)

Since the Canon mentioned is not digital, I'd have to say....not.

PhotoFina deals with more than just digital cameras. It's not yet time to assume that film is dead.

good site (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | about 12 years ago | (#4317263) has a review on this camera

Extreme Resolution (3, Informative)

R.D.Clark (467410) | about 12 years ago | (#4317265)

Just had to do the quick math to figure out the approximate "top end" that one of these cameras can shoot. My admitedly aging Epson PhotoPC 750z is a 1.9MP camera, and tops out at 1600x1200 in an interpolated mode. Normal mode is only 1280x960 which is still fantastic for what I use it for, namely web page creation. I think it is still easier to crop and scale down than to scale up.

Anyway, going with the assumption of a 4x3 aspect ratio in the new camera, 13.8MP would yield a resolution of roughly 4300x3225 (13,867,500 pixels). Doing simple division to fit that roughly into an 8x10 photo would give you about 410dpi. A far cry better than the 150dpi that my camera is capable of. And while it is still not in the ballpark of 720dpi (7488x5616 or 41.8MP), it's surely a lot better than this amature photographer is ever going to need.

When the 20MP cameras are available, we will be looking at 5168x3876 (20,031,168 pixels) which yields 495dpi for an 8x10 photo.

Canon not digital (1)

djupedal (584558) | about 12 years ago | (#4317279)

The Canon camera mentioned in the blurb is not digital.

check out the pix @ (4, Informative)

Dr. Awktagon (233360) | about 12 years ago | (#4317284)

Check out some pictures of the new Kodak at dpreview [] . It looks pretty nice. I like big cameras that fill my hands, have a nice solid feel, and weigh a few pounds.

Of course my dream camera is 4-6 megapixel SLR that has a full-35mm-size *interchangeable* sensor (in case I want to upgrade to more pixels), low noise, good color, and takes EOS lenses. All for $500 or less. Just a few more years....

3mp is good enough (2)

Maskirovka (255712) | about 12 years ago | (#4317286)

A bunch of people are asking what resolution produces a good 8x10 print. I shoot at 3mp for the most part, and get stunning 8x10 prints from my $100 off the shelf printer using good photopaper. Unless you're a pro, $4000 is a waste of money for a digital still camera. If you are a pro, you'll buy a nikon d1x or a good camera; Not anything with kodaks name on it.


Re:3mp is good enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317331)

I agree 100%, except you can skip the printer and fancy paper. Upload the jpgs to an online photo printer. does 4x6s for .26 each. They take about 3 days to be delivered by USPS and the delivery cost is only a dollar or two based on weight. The prints are made using Fuji Crystal Archive paper, the prints look better than any 6 color inkjet printer, and they are much cheaper than the inkjet paper alone. Consider the cost of ink and head cleanings/wasted prints and the cost is much less.

Re:3mp is good enough (2)

Maskirovka (255712) | about 12 years ago | (#4317375)

I agree 100%, except you can skip the printer and fancy paper. Upload the jpgs to an online photo printer. does 4x6s for .26 each. They take about 3 days to be delivered by USPS and the delivery cost is only a dollar or two based on weight. The prints are made using Fuji Crystal Archive paper, the prints look better than any 6 color inkjet printer, and they are much cheaper than the inkjet paper alone. Consider the cost of ink and head cleanings/wasted prints and the cost is much less.

I'm getting full edge to edge 8.5x11 for ~$0.18 per page including ink and photopaper. And I get them in 5 minutes, not 3 days, and living in alaska I'd be paying a lot more for freight service. Interesting idea though.


Pro-sumer. Bah. (0, Offtopic)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | about 12 years ago | (#4317289)

I think the "pro-sumer" market is becoming increasingly important nowadays--to the HUGE advantage of electronic-gizmo and software companies, and seemingly to the disadvantage of the very un-pro "pro-sumer." (As opposed to the yes-pro "pro-sumer"--there is a difference, which I'll explain briefly.)

First, this is because there are a lot of self-proclaimed "experts of everything" out there who follow marketing hype like a dog on a leash. That's what I mean by "un-pro 'pro-sumer.'" You probably know a few in your own neighborhood: They're the kind of person who will state "facts" about any subject, and sound real-darn-confident that their "facts" are as correct as the fabric of space. They're the kind of person who has a copy of every single high-end program there is, don't know how to use it, but convince everybody they know that each of those programs is a critical necessity for enormous success in business (success, that is, that they just don't have, and never will). They're the kind of person who reads PC-World, decides there's some evil sub-organic-half-cyberbeing virus swimming through the Internet, so they install a virus protection program that doesn't work and subsequently firmly believe that they're 100% protected from any and all possible dangers, including blackouts and such. And they read magazines like Entrepreneur and Esquire and consider themselves the world's leading expert on all matters of business, et cetera.

Think I'm making all this up? I happen to know such a person. About five years ago, he tried to convince us that we MUST be on "the Internet" in order to keep our business successful. He went on and on about how our website would advertise our customers and how, by promoting their business, we'd be promoting our own. And he described a system for searching the Internet whereby these dogs run out and fetch the information you're looking for. Yeah. We seated him in front of a computer running Netscape Navigator and asked him to research the subject. He didn't know what to do. So we asked him if he knows how to operate a web browser. He had no idea. In fact, he had never operated any kind of program that communicated with the outside world. Not even gopher, or FTP, or anything! But his lecture sounded SO convincing.

Back to my original point: The "pro-sumer" market is increasingly important for business, especially with the enormous recent growth of the "un-pro expert" high-tech user market (high-tech users, that is, who don't know a "that black screen" from a C-shell).

Another case in point: There are lots of people out there with expensive digital cameras like that Minolta 5.0 megapixel one, who don't know a damn thing about photography and wonder why their pictures of God-knows-what in poor lighting conditions come out fuzzy, or why it's important to prevent shadows from overtaking half of some female's face in a photograph. (Shadows, properly placed on a male's face, and in the proper situation, make him look more masculine, whereas shadows on a female's face always make her look horrible. You don't have to go far to solve this problem--in a sunny outdoor situation, you can even use your camera's built-in flash, at the proper distance, of course. It looks funny, using flash in broad daylight, but it gets rid of the shadows and there's no evidence of flash in the photograph.) They're afraid to "mess up the camera's settings" in fear that all their future pictures will come out weird, and can't figure out why the shutter seemingly clicks twice for a single exposure. And yet, they proudly own the most expensive camera that's in their financial reach. READ: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS! But at least, if you're going to spend $1,000 on Adobe's pro-collection, or $1,200 on a camera, or $999,999,999,999.00 on a Lamborghini Diablo, at least LEARN HOW TO PROPERLY USE WHAT YOU PAID FOR! (On a side note, relating to expensive cameras again: I have an uncle who specified in exacting detail exactly what kind of Nikon camera he needed and which accessories, to open his professional photography business. (Sound familiar?) He dropped something like $4,000 on all the junk, and probably went through two rolls of film in four years.)

I keep digressing from my main point: That the "pro-sumer" market is growing larger with each passing day, because among the five or so real pro-sumers, there are a zillion self-proclaimed experts. That's why companies should continue to make these expensive toys for these folks. So I can laugh when the photographs I take are crystal clear and contain shadows only where I want them, and so I can laugh even more when their "100% protected" computers with Microsoft Outlook on the monitor and angry bulldogs defending the ports (and fetching data) get h4x0rd and my FreeBSD box with the few crappy ipfw rules I slopped together in 30 minutes remains untouched.

Low cost idea (1)

computechnica (171054) | about 12 years ago | (#4317302)

Would it be that hard for Canon to come out with a digital Rebel with around 4 MP and a price point of around $500. I would love to use of my older lenses again. My 600mm zoom is great for bird watching, nudge nudge know what I mean ;^)

Well for some.... (1)

3rd_Floo (443611) | about 12 years ago | (#4317339)

... this might be the new toy to buy tomarrow, and yes, i'm drooling over the thought of it too! However, I've been thinking/waiting for the fall to pickup a Nikon D100, this is great news for me, with new tech coming out, the D100 will drop a bit in price, and my hobbist fantisies will become a more easily atainable reality!

The big question is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317363)

Will they have support in Linux? That's the whole reason I bought my measly little Kodak DC3200: Because Kamera supports it.

Will it run with linux? qjkx (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 12 years ago | (#4317368)

So I don't have to deal with an imprisoned OS?

Just an FYI (5, Informative)

bogie (31020) | about 12 years ago | (#4317378)

for anyone in the market for a digital camera. Unless you a serious photographer a 2.1MP with a good zoomable optical lens will work fine for most people. Having 3MP can't hurt, but anything beyond that is overkill(financially) for most people.

Ask yourself this. How many 8x10 photos have you made and kept in the past few years? If your like the average consumer and do 4x6's and 5x8 's a good 2.1MP will do you well.

Plus keep in mind that A) you will need a high speed connection if you want to upload your photos to an online printer. My father realized that after buying a 3MP and trying to upload a roll of 30 via a 56k line which as we all know only does 33.6 up. Also realize that B) printing your own photos is very expensive and between the ink and paper really burn money.

So while its all good and well that these higher MP camera are coming out, the cost of the camera can really sometime be minimal over the other expenses you may incur.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?