Beta

×

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!

Canon's new 16.7MP Digital SLR, with WiFi

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the whoa dept.

Toys 546

LoudMusic writes "Canon has recently announced the EOS 1Ds Mark II, successor to their previous excellent professional cameras. What makes this one so cool is that it can network. The early review over at dpreview.com says there is an optional part that gives it both 802.11a/g and wired networking capabilities. I can see photographers shooting sporting events with a 12" Powerbook in a backpack receiving images to its 80GB drive and automatically uploading them to SI. And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film. I wonder if it plays mp3s too ..."

cancel ×

546 comments

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

Yieah beyotch! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376681)

Frost pist!

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376683)

I have a choad. Call me CowboyNeal. AC's, post if u support my campaign.

what can i say (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376684)

but frist ps0t

gnaa pwns j00 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376692)

www.gnaa.us

we own GAY NIGGERS!!

WOOOO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376694)

WOOO First POST from
chuckles Barnes

Astroturfing? (-1, Offtopic)

TrollBridge (550878) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376697)

Is it just me, or did that summary read like one big FREE advertisement for Canon?

Re:Astroturfing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376722)

No it was not free advertisement, Canon actually paid Slashdot to publish this.

Subscribers, Ads... (3, Funny)

goldspider (445116) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376792)

If I were a subscriber who paid to eliminate the ads, I'd be pretty irked at still having to put up with the ones disguised as news articles.

The problem is... (1)

el-spectre (668104) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376966)

An ad is supposed to quickly promote the best features of a product. An article summary is supposed to quickly highlight whatever is unusual or interesting about the subject. So there's a lot of overlap there.

That said, this DID read a lot more like sales copy than a tech review.

Re:Subscribers, Ads... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376967)

perhaps we can subscribe to a /. that post new news or make enformed comment about the subjects they post while we are it!

Live Pr0n (5, Funny)

porkUpine (623110) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376699)

*Sigh* I can see it now... live, high resolution Pr0n. No, seriously... can I see it now???? *grin*

Re:Live Pr0n (3, Interesting)

British (51765) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376831)

Serious reply.

It's great that we have digital cameras making leaps and bounds on resolutions, but the monitors on our desktop are not making such high leaps. I mean, a 16 megapixel image is nice and everything, but not so much useful unless you have a 16.7 megapixel monitor to enjoy it on.

It will be fun to see the next generation of digital imagery with 500+ dpi displays. maybe someday.

Re:Live Pr0n (5, Insightful)

valkraider (611225) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376859)

It may not be useful on the monitor, but when blown up to a 10 foot wall poster - the high megapixel count is very important... ;)

samples (4, Insightful)

macshune (628296) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376896)

Here are some of the full-size samples available on the site:

Sample 1 [dpreview.com]
Sample 2 [dpreview.com]

The rest of samples can be found here [dpreview.com] . I don't want to slashdot poor dpreview. I'm sure as progress marches on, their bandwidth prices skyrocket.

Re:Live Pr0n (1, Informative)

tntguy (516721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376916)

but not so much useful unless you have a 16.7 megapixel monitor to enjoy it on.

They're called magazines and newspapers. You should try them sometime.

(yes, there are other outlets for these, but I'm in the publishing biz so there's my bias)

Re:Live Pr0n (1)

Xuranova (160813) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376953)

I get what you're saying. But doesnt these super high resolution images basically targetting people who plan to print them? The higher the res, supposedly the better the image when put on paper.[Assuming the printers are keeping up]

Gota love those upgrade (5, Interesting)

stecoop (759508) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376700)

I would like to say that only the next thing we need is a motion picture camera to capture full 35mm frames... Then I thought of the next level of using IMAX [earthlink.net] frames and realized that upgrading will never end.

Me too! (2, Interesting)

sup4hleet (444456) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376703)

I can see me taking a laptop to a game and downloading their pictures too!

While I'm kidding, I'm sure it's just a matter of time...

Re:Me too! (1)

FooGoo (98336) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376952)

I've done this with my Nikon D2H for the NCAA Womens crew championships. Very useful considering I was worried about dropping my cam into the water and loosing all my pics.

Full size sensor (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376708)

This is not the first digital camera with a full 35 mm size sensor. Canon 1Ds already had that at the previous Photokina two years ago.

Re:Full size sensor (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376788)

A full size sensor is not as good as it sounds. Unlike film the silicon CCD needs the incident light to fall perpendicular on its surface. That's why the image quickly degrades as you go from the middle of the sensor towards the edges. For a full size sensor you need expensive Canon telephoto lenses to beat the image quality of the consumer level EOS300 camera.

Re:Full size sensor (2, Interesting)

FooGoo (98336) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376901)

The Kodak SLR/n and SLR/c also has a full 35mm frame at half the price of the Canon. The Kodak is 13.8MP but no WIFI. I have been using the SLR/n since March and it is a great cam. I do yearn for WIFI support though. But, I am not willing to drop another $4k just to be able to use WIFI.
Look here for pics I shot with the Kodak SLR/n:
http://www.onemodelplace.com/djs3

powerbook? (1)

Bhull (644157) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376710)

i thought this was for professional photogs..

j/k this camera is pretty neat, i love the 10d , just hope nikon can catch up soon (i have a D70 that i love too)..

how long will it be before we see an exploit that pulls the images out of the wifi net and posts them to the web before the publisher gets a chance?

But still (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376713)

..no USB2 high-speed (480Mbps)

No point (3, Insightful)

Cybertect (85900) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376892)

If you're not using the WiFi, take CF card out, place in card reader, insert 2nd card in camera. Carry on shooting while images are being copied to laptop/Portable Digital Storage device.

Otherwise your camera is out of service while you're copying several GigaBytes to another medium.

Pro photographers won't leave the house with only one card.

Besides, it's got FireWire.

oh great! (4, Funny)

museumpeace (735109) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376717)

people snarfing my dirty pictures before I can even get home with the camera!

I posted first but /. put on the brakes!

moblogging tool? (4, Interesting)

Spydr (90990) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376726)

would be really nice if you could configure it easily on the fly to sniff out open wireless networks and upload your pics as you are taking them.

i could see someone walking around a city taking shots and as they walk around the camera is uploading those shots to a website and resizing and posting them to their photoblog. hot.

Independent reporting (5, Interesting)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376836)

I can see a reporter in a repressive country using it to get the stories out before the police take away their camera.

Re:Independent reporting (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376868)

You mean like the US?

Re:Independent reporting (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376900)

As a matter of fact, this camera is intended for USA market.

Re:Independent reporting (1, Insightful)

mattkime (8466) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376921)

as long as they're shooting in high res, snapping a bunch of pics with this and transmitting them over 802.11g isn't going to go very fast. most photographers aren't going to want to put up with a lag that poor.

Features vs Function (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376727)

Wifi... networks... I wonder if it plays mp3s too ...

Never mind that. I wonder if it takes pictures.

Image quality of 35mm film? (3, Insightful)

gumbo (88087) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376729)

And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film.

Don't most of the pro-level DSLRs already have 35mm sensors? Maybe they're trying to say it's the resolution that gets it to 35mm film, but it sounds like they're implying it's the sensor size...

Re:Image quality of 35mm film? (1)

mtrupe (156137) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376799)

Nope. Even the high end DSRLs still have a small crop factor. I think the 1ds has a 1.3 crop factor, small, but still there.

Re:Image quality of 35mm film? (2, Informative)

Colgate2003 (735182) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376845)

The 1D and 1D Mark II have 1.3 crop factors. The 1Ds has a a full-frame, 11 megapixel sensor.

Re:Image quality of 35mm film? (1)

mtrupe (156137) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376957)

Ah. That's right. A quick search at dpreview.com would have shown this. I can't wait for the first sub-$1000 full frame sensor DSLR. I bet its not *that* far off in the future. Maybe 2 years? Whaddya think? This competition with the DSLRs is great.

[Rupert Photo] [rupertphotography.com]

Re:Image quality of 35mm film? (2, Insightful)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376802)

And I'd be surprised to see a 35mm CCD with better resolution than Fuji Reala.

Re:Image quality of 35mm film? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376819)

No, this is just the second one. There are digital backs in big size almost every pro SLR has a 1.3/1.6 cropping factor.

Re:Image quality of 35mm film? (1)

socode (703891) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376919)

This is the second full-frame Canon Digital SLR, but there's also the Contax N Digital.

Re:Image quality of 35mm film? (3, Informative)

badmammajamma (171260) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376844)

Nope, they are specifically referring to the size of the sensor. Almost all digital cameras besides this one and the previous 1Ds have smaller CMOS sensors. This means there's a multiplier that must be applied when computing f-stops. To compensate, Canon and Nikon have introduced new lenses that take this into account and are easier to work with. Ideally though, it would be nice if they all just had 35mm sensors.

Re:Image quality of 35mm film? (2, Informative)

mattkime (8466) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376846)

The image sensor size is not 35mm except for the high end pro DSLRs. Lesser pro DSLRs have an image sensor size closer to the smaller APS format. This affects the viewing angle of your lenses. A smaller sensor size will give you a narrower viewing angle. This has resulted in the "lens multiplier" which tends to vary between 1.3 and 1.5 on most DSLRs. (take the length of your lens, 50mm, and muliply it by 1.5, 75 mm effective.) Typically, a larger sensor is better than a smaller one, resolution kept the same, as it will produce less noise.

Hrrr (2, Insightful)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376730)

with a 12" Powerbook

Or any laptop with a 802.11 card.

No. (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376783)

You can ONLY do it with a PowerBook. No other platform can handle images.

Actually, no... (1, Interesting)

OS24Ever (245667) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376795)

...802.11a and 802.11g, b isn't mentioned.

Re:Actually, no... (2, Informative)

10Brett-T (11197) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376853)

Ok, I'll bite. Show me an 802.11g card that *isn't* compatible with 802.11b.

Re:Actually, no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376880)

Its funny because the original article says 802.11b/g, no a.

Nobody here RTFAs...

Re:Hrrr (0, Redundant)

Roofus (15591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376800)

What gets me about that statement is that when you close the lid on the Powerbook, it goes into sleep mode. How does he intend to copy images with the laptop while it's asleep?

Unless he intends to walk around with the PB screen open in his backpack. If so, I give it about 15 minutes before it gets broken.

Re:Hrrr (1)

kmmatthews (779425) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376842)

when you close the lid on the Powerbook, it goes into sleep mode

You can disable that. System Preferences -> Power... etc. Too lazy to look right now.. (That, and my powerbook is at home, and I'm at work on my XP machine. )

Re:Hrrr (1)

FuzzzyLogik (592766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376883)

*looks at his powerbook system preferences*

nope i don't see that option...
System Preferences->Energy Saver (there is no Power

There is a hack for the ibook i heard about, but i wouldn't do it with a powerbook, from what i've heard the powerbook disapates heat through the keyboard.. heat+LCD = bad news i think over time... i think i'll pass on that option.

Re:Hrrr (1)

Roofus (15591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376918)

from what i've heard the powerbook disapates heat through the keyboard.

I dunno man, my balls would say otherwise. I'm pretty sure it all radiates out of the bottom =)

Re:Hrrr (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376843)

Hello? Earth to idiot! This is a PowerBook. It and ONLY it can handle such a task as "uploading images". No other platform has the advanced technology needed. None.

Re:Hrrr (1)

John Harrison (223649) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376973)

Why any laptop at all? If you are in range of a base station you should be fine. For a sporting event it is reasonable to assume that SI could set up a private network for downloading photos if needed.

Innovation that I didn't see coming. (2, Insightful)

JorDan Clock (664877) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376732)

Usually when something new comes to gadgets, you almost know it was going to happen long before it does, but this time, I was actually suprised and intrigued. This is something I never thought could use wireless networking, but now that it's been done, it seems like something that should have been done long ago.

Transfer Images to Web faster! (0, Redundant)

Ced_Ex (789138) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376735)

Home pr0n hosting just got more efficient.

Nikon (5, Informative)

Shenkerian (577120) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376737)

To be fair, Canon (for once) took a technological idea from Nikon. The D2H [dpreview.com] had wireless FTP support back in July 2003.

Also there have been 35mm sensors before, including Canon's own 1Ds [dpreview.com] .

To be the Paparazzi (5, Funny)

eseiat (650560) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376741)

The joy of shooting a billboard-sized picture of Britney's latest pimple or a near nip-slip of Jessica and then jog over to a Starbucks and distribute it to the masses all while getting a mocha frap must be heaven. Why did I ever bother with a college degree when so much fun could have been had!

Minor Issue... (3, Interesting)

lpangelrob2 (721920) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376747)

I can see photographers shooting sporting events with a 12" Powerbook in a backpack receiving images to its 80GB drive and automatically uploading them to SI.

I can't... I'm pretty sure all PowerBooks go to sleep when you shut the computer lid. Assuming you shut it correctly, of course. You can 'trick' the computer into thinking the lid is open when it's really not, but I don't recommend it, because you don't really know what the computer's going to do when it comes to going back to sleep or staying awake. :-) I've tried.

Nonetheless, being able to set up a 'base station' of sorts with a computer receiving pictures off the network is pretty neat. About damn time, too... I'll be waiting for the $250 version.

Re:Minor Issue... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376815)

That might be the default behavior, but there has GOT to be a setting to change that. Hell, my $500 Thinkpad lets me choose what action to take when the lid closes, from nothing right through to shutdown.

Re:Minor Issue... (1)

autocracy (192714) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376934)

If you find it, let me know... I've been hunting for over a month to find that option.

Re:Minor Issue... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376817)


I can't... I'm pretty sure all PowerBooks go to sleep when you shut the computer lid. Assuming you shut it correctly, of course.

You can just plug a USB mouse in, and move it, then the PC will 'wake up'.

-Hoobah

Re:Minor Issue... (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376825)

I'm pretty sure all PowerBooks go to sleep when you shut the computer lid.

If you have a kybd attached to it, if you type with the lid closed, it wakes up...

This is done in lieu of a docking station.

Still, I'd be interested to see if someone hacks a snooper that will sniff photos out of the air and display them...

It's better (1)

Stud1y (598856) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376749)

than having to buy memory sticks for the fuckin' things. I've got a sony 828 and the 1 gig memory stick fills up QUICK!

Re:It's better (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376862)

Then either the sony 828 is crap or you should learn to use it. With my Canon camera I can take pictures all day with a 20 MB memory stick.

Blurb is wrong.... (0, Redundant)

defaultXIX (106977) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376751)

And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film. I wonder if it plays mp3s too ..."

Um, the previous generation had a full frame CMOS sensor as well...

Look Here [dpreview.com]

Re:Blurb is wrong.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376851)

Blurb is right....

There was a previous camera with a full frame CMOS, but with 6 MP lower resolution - thereby not effectively reproducing the image quality of 35mm film.

Blurb is very wrong (2, Interesting)

mgscheue (21096) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376917)

Yes, and what does the sensor being the same physical size as a piece of 35 mm film have to do with it "reproducing the quality of 35 mm film?" The number of pixels and how they are handled has more to do with quality than the physical size of the sensor. Also, digital backs for medium-format cameras have been around for some time and are generally regarded as easily surpassing the quality of 35 mm film.

And, the Nikon D2h had wi-fi capabilities first. And, this is more a studio camera than something a sports photographer would use, so the Sports Illustrated reference is a bit off as well.

not the first full frame sensor (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376754)

And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film.

The Canon 1Ds (11 megapixel) has a full frame sensor (in other words, does not have the 1.6:1 cropping of the 300D, 10D, and now 20D).

The original Mark II was 8 megapixels and its biggest advantage was its ability to rapid fire shots - like 8 or 9fps, out to 20 frames... something like that.

The 1Ds was the king of image quality. Now it seems like Canon is offering the best of both worlds. If you have 8 or 10 grand or whatever they are pricing it at :)

Re:not the first full frame sensor (1)

mtrupe (156137) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376835)

Doesn't the 1Ds actually have a 1.3 crop factor?
www.rupertphotography.com

pfft... play mp3s... (1)

evangellydonut (203778) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376755)

why not just have a built-in iPod? extra $300 to a $7.5k camera body gives extra battery for emergency, 20gb of shared storage for mp3 and those huge pics, and everything else...

Sequence (1)

WhatsAProGingrass (726851) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376763)

I don't know much about cameras so i'm asking you. Can this camera take multiple shots with clarity? Like say 7 pictures in about a 1.5 second time frame?

Also, this camera is very ugly, anyone else agree with me on that?

Re:Sequence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376877)


Also, this camera is very ugly, anyone else agree with me on that?


It looks like it has a power winder attached. Pretty weird for a digital...

Re:Sequence (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10376909)

This is Canon's flagship digital camera.. the little 's' at the end of the model number denotes "studio". This really isn't the best camera for doing sports (smaller buffer and frame rate for continuous shooting). The 1DsmkII will do 4fps up to 32 images. The 1DmkII will do something like 9fps up to 45 frames. Different tool for different work!

Ugly? I think it just needs a nice large piece of white glass on the front of it (Canon L series lenses).

Re:Sequence (2, Informative)

thundergeek (808819) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376959)

I reviewed the web site, and it can take up to 32 shots in a row, at about 4 fps.

Not a wide screen movie, but you can get off 8 seconds of a TD play, and pick the best shot.

It has improved writing capabilities, which allows it to screem through shots. Unlike my camera, which takes close to 20 seconds to write one image!

Price... (2, Informative)

mtrupe (156137) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376771)

And it can be yours for the low, low price of $8,000! Ok, I guess its a decent price, considering that about 4 years ago a 6 mp DSLR cost upward of $20,000. Megpixels aren't everything, and Canon has really been at the forefront of other developments- like the full frame sensor. The best lowly people like me can hope for is that the advancement of both high end and mid range DSLRs continues to drive the prices down. I suspect in the next year or so we will finally see some (entry level) DSLRs at less than $500. I hope so anyway.
http://www.rupertphotography.com

But what happpens... (1)

eurleif (613257) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376773)

When the sports reporter gets a bit drunk and takes photos of some less-than-dressed female? What about a shot that just doesn't turn out right, for that matter? Automatic posting of photos is almost never a good idea.

Re:But what happpens... (2, Funny)

Slider451 (514881) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376935)

Only half your examples support your conclusion.

Not the first... (4, Informative)

RedBear (207369) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376778)

We might mention that Nikon beat Canon to the punch with a wireless adapter for the D2H back in July. [dpreview.com] Still a cool development from Canon, but give credit where credit is due, I allus say.

Not the first (2, Interesting)

ptomblin (1378) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376786)

Maybe if you looked past the marketing hype, Kodak has had a 14 megapixel professional camera with a full 35mm CCD for a couple of years now. I used it to take pictures at AirVenture 2003 [xcski.com] . (Unfortunately I got the CCD dirty before I took it out there, and didn't notice until it was too late.)

Re:Not the first (2, Interesting)

mattkime (8466) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376954)

yes, that is true.

unfortunately the MP count on that camera was offset by the ridiculous amount of noise it produced. its basically been ignored in the photo community.still, i'd wait to see pics from this thing to make sure it doesn't have the same problem

Cough (4, Informative)

rawgod0122 (574065) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376797)

This is a great camera! I want one, but one thing wrong with the story submission. This is not recent news, many people have gone over this before, but a 6MP sensor is enough to get you better then 35mm film.

The 16.7MP of this camera is getting very close to medium format (if not already there).

Again awesome camera!

see
not file [luminous-landscape.com]
like-it-is [luminous-landscape.com]
shootout [luminous-landscape.com]
This guy is one of the best. If you don't believe me check out dpreview or google

Re:Cough (1)

mtrupe (156137) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376863)

Yup... I think DSLRs will soon render medium format a thing of the past.

[Rupert Photo] [rupertphotography.com]

Re:Cough (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376979)

I believe that they were referring not to the megapixelage, but to the fact that the CCD is a true 35mm sensor rather than the APS style ones used in most other DSLRs.

digital cameras with wifi are cool (4, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376803)

I went to the aqaurium in KY right across the river from Cincinnati. They were taking pictures with digital cameras that had wireless cards. They were free roaming... The pictures could be picked up at the end of the day when you were ready to leave.

It was definitly pretty neat.

If all cameras had this (or any sort of net connection, even via GPRS) it would be great to use a script like galleryadd to pump the photos into your Gallery from the road. I do it via procmail, shell scripts, and galleryadd now with my hiptop's camera (although I suppose you could do it with any camera that allows photos with email attachments).

Re:digital cameras with wifi are cool (1)

Dr Reducto (665121) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376965)

So now I guess we need someone to buy one of these, get the adaptor, and then duct tape the phone to the camera to form some grandiose hack to get pictures straight to the internet no matter where you are.

It would be like an ultra-high end camera phone, but huge.

Who needs the computer? (4, Insightful)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376805)

"I can see photographers shooting sporting events with a 12" Powerbook in a backpack receiving images to its 80GB drive and automatically uploading them to SI."

Really? I can see uploading straight from the camera to SI. The computer is an intermediary today because it's a necessity. When every device has is on the internet, the intermediary function of computers will disolve.

Film Quality? (3, Insightful)

Colgate2003 (735182) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376809)

"And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film."

It had been generally accepted that this camera's predecessor, the 1Ds, was close to the quality of medium-format film. We've been beyond the quality of 35mm film for quite some time now...

Re:Film Quality? (4, Informative)

valkraider (611225) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376945)

Having a 35mm CMOS has nothing to do with the image quality. It has to do with the "mental math" that the photographer has to do when he uses lenses. On most Digital SLR cameras, there is a conversion multiplier because the sensor is not the same size as a 35mm film frame. That conversion is unnecessary if the sensor is the same size as the 35mm frame. But then we all know that slashdot editors take exhaustive measures to research their stories before posting...

What bugs me is that 35mm is considered 1, and all other sizes have to be converted. Maybe we need a better standard that could accomidate different sensor / film sizes while using standard nomenclature for lenses. I doubt it is even possible, but some genius somewhere could do it I bet... :)

Ob: Whine about price (3, Insightful)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376834)

I'm not a professional photographer, so I'm sure they have their reasons for needing an $8,000 digital camera [google.com] . For someone who doesn't make a living taking pictures, though, is there any way to justify a camera that costs more than a used Toyota [google.com] ?

Re:Ob: Whine about price (1, Insightful)

mtrupe (156137) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376899)

Probably not... But the good news with digital is competition is heating up, and great cameras are coming down in price as fast as computers have. Even this high-end competition affects the low end. You can buy a better 6mp DSLR today for about $800 than what was even available at $20,000 4 years ago. Pretty amazing.

[Rupert Photo] [rupertphotography.com]

Engadget Article (2, Informative)

Omega1045 (584264) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376838)

Engadget covered this camera a few days ago:

Link [engadget.com]

who would ever need 640k? (2, Insightful)

w1r3sp33d (593084) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376839)

Holy crap! Like I am not already working like an insane monkey trying to add hard disks to our server fast enough keeping up with my shutterbug wife and her D100 then somebody needs to make a 16 megapixel camera, damn them! At least T bytes are cheap...

But it doesn't look like they have embraced Adobe's new DNG format yet, wonder who is going to be first with that one? http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html [adobe.com]

What does it look like on the LAN? (1)

hey (83763) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376869)

Does the camera look like a webserver on your LAN via wifi. When you take another pics and refresh in the webbrowser you see another file? If so... Sweet!

Same Image Quality?!? (4, Informative)

UVaRob (243769) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376890)

I don't think so!
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=Mo delTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10 598 [canon.com]
From here.

4992 x 3328 pixels over a (36 x 24 mm) 1.4 x .94 inch CMOS array essentially tells you they have a cmos with a 7micron pixel pitch. This is hardly revolutionary. Assuming the optics are similar in quality to a comparable film camera, to have the same image quality that would be equivalent to saying that ordinary film has 7 micron light sensitive (silver?) particles. This is ridiculous!

http://science.howstuffworks.com/film3.htm [howstuffworks.com]
here says that "The imaging layers contain sub-micron sized grains of silver-halide crystals that act as the photon detectors". That's submicron.

So it's a nice camera. That doesn't mean it's a fantastic sensor - it still suffers from the same attributes that other CMOS/CCD sensors do. They've got phenomenal ADC's but the sensors just can't be packed as tightly as silver can be.

http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fyiglover/articles/ resolution.html [earthlink.net]
says that "All three silver microfilm manufacturers (Agfa, Fuji & Kodak) certify their medium speed microfilms to have the ability to achieve 800 lines/mm of resolution."

it sucks becuase: (2, Interesting)

hdd (772289) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376908)

With the optional Wireless LAN adapter plugged into the camera's IEEE1394/Firewire connection, photographers can work untethered as huge full-frame RAW files transfer automatically to the studio LAN in seconds .

1) ieee1394 wifi adapter is going to extremely expensive, since they are produced specifically for this device
2) it's extremely annoying to have a wifi dongle hanging on the cameras
3) wifi is extremely cheap to integrate into consumer devices.($20 for OEM) with a camera this big and expensive, why not just throw the chipsets into the camera? Well i guess this way you can always upgrade the external adapter when a new standard come out...but the camera will be outdate by then as well...

Having a 35mm CMOS isn't what they thought... (1)

foxtrot (14140) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376936)

It doesn't "reproduce the image quality of 35 mm film." It makes it so that the CMOS goes in the same place, relative to the lens, as it does in a 35 mm camera. This means if you shoot something with a given lens, you'll get the same effect, digital or film.

Now, 11 megapixels, that's what allows the camera to "reproduce the image quality of 35mm film.

Now, what the 35mm image sensor does is it allows you to get the same lens effects. If you put a fisheye lens on my Canon Digital Rebel, ferinstance, you don't get nearly as wide-angle an image-- but if you're looking for zoom telephoto, my camera gets about 1.6x the "zoom" compared to a 35mm SLR with the same lens.

-JDF

Sample Images... (3, Informative)

gosand (234100) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376942)

Gizmodo [gizmodo.com] ran this story last week. Check out the sample images [canon.co.jp] from the Japanese site [canon.co.jp] Yikes. 16.7 megapixels is a lot! It has some other cool features too, like "The accelerated image processing of DIGIC II combines with high-speed data reading from the imaging sensor to achieve fast continuous shooting at approx. 4 frames per second for maximum bursts of 32 shots in JPEG Large (11 shots in RAW)."

35mm Quality? (2, Insightful)

verloren (523497) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376950)

As sites such as Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.sh tml) point out, we're already there on image quality. Digital and film have different characteristics that make a direct comparison difficult (there isn't really one measure of image quality), subjectively a good 6-8MP DSLR is about the same, and certainly something like a Canon EOS-1Ds is at least as good.

What is less common is having a 35mm-sized sensor, but even that is already available (in fact you can get digital backs for medium format cameras, if you have enough money).

And what's better than this? (0, Redundant)

numbware (691928) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376968)

16.7MP is nothing compared to the resolution/storage of my eyes/brain. I can store so many high res "photos." Thing is, I haven't figured out how to transfer them from the memory banks of my brain to my computer's hard drive. And for those of you going through the same transfer crisis, the human brain is very sensitive to USB cables, so plug in carefully.

802.11b and g (2, Informative)

cmay666 (202732) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376974)

"optional part that gives it both 802.11a/g and wired networking capabilities"

Not to nitpick (which is unheard of on /.), but the review describes support for 802.11b and g, not a and g.

many uses (2, Interesting)

Graymalkn (115421) | more than 9 years ago | (#10376978)

Ah, finally - a networked camera. I think this could come in very handy for reporting on protests, police brutality, or even celebrities: sure, you can smash the camera, but the images are instantly stored elsewhere, preferably someplace secret and safe.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>