Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Digital wishlist

Reply
Thread Tools

Digital wishlist

 
 
JohnR66
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last few
years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
them will be realized in a few years:

1) Full frame 13-16 MP DSLR - under $1,000!
2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized perhaps)
with good 3 or 4x zoom.
3) Li-ion rechargable batteries that don't weaken or quit after 2 or 3 years
(and cost a small fortune).
3a) Better yet, reduce power requirements so that standard akaline batteries
(AA, AAA) may be used.
4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts. Highlights blow
darn easy in digital.

Well, That's it for now.
John


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Al Dykes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
In article <K_vdf.49119$(E-Mail Removed)>,
JohnR66 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last few
>years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
>them will be realized in a few years:
>
>1) Full frame 13-16 MP DSLR - under $1,000!
>2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized perhaps)
>with good 3 or 4x zoom.
>3) Li-ion rechargable batteries that don't weaken or quit after 2 or 3 years
>(and cost a small fortune).
>3a) Better yet, reduce power requirements so that standard akaline batteries
>(AA, AAA) may be used.
>4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts. Highlights blow
>darn easy in digital.


:=)

good enough, cheap, right now. pick two.

Santa says that if you get the 16MP camera with improved dynamic range
(i.e. 16 bits) you'll immediatly be asking for a $8,000 quad-CPU 64
bit system with 10krpm disks to be able to crunch those raw images.

IMO there is a point of image print quality beyond which the consumer
mass market won't spend *any* money and it becomes a rush to the price
floor. The fact that I can buy an 8MP camera for a few hundred
dollars is becasue there is a mass market demand.

The kind of camera you propose is so far above the requirements that
Mom and Pop need that it will *always* be expensive, at least for a
while.

Maybe you are a pro and tired of schleping your current rig, a
digi-back 6x7 and a Macintosh laptop costing $20k all up.

it's all relative.






--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Daniel Silevitch
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:43:22 GMT, JohnR66 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last few
> years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
> them will be realized in a few years:


> 2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized perhaps)
> with good 3 or 4x zoom.


I'm not sure I'd call it a compact, but the Sony DSC-R1 fits this bill.
APS sensor, 10 MP, 5x zoom.

-dms

 
Reply With Quote
 
Yukon Cornelius
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005

"Daniel Silevitch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:43:22 GMT, JohnR66 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last
>> few
>> years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
>> them will be realized in a few years:

>
>> 2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized
>> perhaps)
>> with good 3 or 4x zoom.

>
> I'm not sure I'd call it a compact, but the Sony DSC-R1 fits this bill.
> APS sensor, 10 MP, 5x zoom.
>
> -dms
>


Then maybe #2 should be further qualified..."produced by a camera
manufacturer, not a spyware proliferator and malware enabler".

Boycott sony.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
JohnR66 wrote:

> 4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts. Highlights blow
> darn easy in digital.


What? 10+ stops isn't good enough for you? Film has only
5 (slide) 7 (negative) stops? You can only print about
5 or 6 stops. DSLRs have tremendous dynamic range. You just
have to learn to use your light meter correctly.

Roger
Photos, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Graham Fountain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> JohnR66 wrote:
>
>> 4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts.
>> Highlights blow darn easy in digital.

>
> What? 10+ stops isn't good enough for you? Film has only
> 5 (slide) 7 (negative) stops? You can only print about
> 5 or 6 stops. DSLRs have tremendous dynamic range. You just
> have to learn to use your light meter correctly.

I hear this bandied around all the time, that digital has 10+ stops of
image detail. Perhaps it does (I have my doubts), but the extra detail
is all in the shadow area of the image. Film is not real great at
recording shadows, digital generally seems to have a quite an edge on it
in that area. But even with digital, noise increases as you get closer
to black. I will agree though that usually it is considerably better at
recording shadow than film is.
But the more practical difference between film and digital occurs at the
highlights. It isn't always possible to put the brightest part of your
image at zone 9, thus avoiding blown highlights completely. To do so
would quite often result in the subject being lost in the muddy/noisy
world of shadows. With digital, the bright areas will linearly approach
bright white, once they get there, everything from then on is pure
white. No detail is recorded at all, and you are left with an ugly white
splotch on the image. A blown highlight is far more noticeably than a
jet black shadow. Film however, has a non-linear response when it starts
to overexpose, and while ultimately you will lose the detail as a blown
highlight, you do get more of a graduated entry into the highlight.
Overall it appears nicer when it does this. Even slide film with it's
susceptibility to overexposure will handle it better than digital.
Typical photos that show this up are where items have the bright part of
the sky behind them, or where an object has sun reflecting off something
shiny. Night photos will also often have extra bright components that
blow the highlights. While film will still lose the highlights, it
manages to do so in a more graceful manner than digital.
>
> Roger
> Photos, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
Graham Fountain wrote:
> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>> JohnR66 wrote:
>>
>>> 4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts.
>>> Highlights blow darn easy in digital.

>>
>>
>> What? 10+ stops isn't good enough for you? Film has only
>> 5 (slide) 7 (negative) stops? You can only print about
>> 5 or 6 stops. DSLRs have tremendous dynamic range. You just
>> have to learn to use your light meter correctly.

>
> I hear this bandied around all the time, that digital has 10+ stops of
> image detail. Perhaps it does (I have my doubts), but the extra detail
> is all in the shadow area of the image. Film is not real great at
> recording shadows, digital generally seems to have a quite an edge on it
> in that area. But even with digital, noise increases as you get closer
> to black. I will agree though that usually it is considerably better at
> recording shadow than film is.
> But the more practical difference between film and digital occurs at the
> highlights. It isn't always possible to put the brightest part of your
> image at zone 9, thus avoiding blown highlights completely. To do so
> would quite often result in the subject being lost in the muddy/noisy
> world of shadows. With digital, the bright areas will linearly approach
> bright white, once they get there, everything from then on is pure
> white. No detail is recorded at all, and you are left with an ugly white
> splotch on the image. A blown highlight is far more noticeably than a
> jet black shadow. Film however, has a non-linear response when it starts
> to overexpose, and while ultimately you will lose the detail as a blown
> highlight, you do get more of a graduated entry into the highlight.
> Overall it appears nicer when it does this. Even slide film with it's
> susceptibility to overexposure will handle it better than digital.
> Typical photos that show this up are where items have the bright part of
> the sky behind them, or where an object has sun reflecting off something
> shiny. Night photos will also often have extra bright components that
> blow the highlights. While film will still lose the highlights, it
> manages to do so in a more graceful manner than digital.


Look at Figure 8 on this page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
It shows the transfer function of a digital camera matches
the characteristics curve of color negative film very closely,
right up to the highlights. Note also the scatter in the data
from film compared to digital. DSLRs, which their much better
signal-to-noise ratios produce smoother (more noise free)
images than film at ALL levels. Again, you just need to know
how to use your light meter correctly. Just like one
must meter differently for negative versus positive slide
film, one must meter differently with digital. And when one
meters correctly, one get superior results.

See also:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ignal.to.noise
for tables with dynamic ranges of different sensors.

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bill Funk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:56:41 GMT, "Yukon Cornelius"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Daniel Silevitch" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:43:22 GMT, JohnR66 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last
>>> few
>>> years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
>>> them will be realized in a few years:

>>
>>> 2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized
>>> perhaps)
>>> with good 3 or 4x zoom.

>>
>> I'm not sure I'd call it a compact, but the Sony DSC-R1 fits this bill.
>> APS sensor, 10 MP, 5x zoom.
>>
>> -dms
>>

>
>Then maybe #2 should be further qualified..."produced by a camera
>manufacturer, not a spyware proliferator and malware enabler".
>
>Boycott sony.
>


For an APS size sensor, look at the DRebel XT and 20D; then look at
their lenses. There are certain requirements for such a system that
require the physical size of those lenses. This would preclude their
use on a "compact caqmera" with an APS size sensor.
That Sony's BMG is stupid doesn't alter the facts about cameras.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
Bill Funk <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> For an APS size sensor, look at the DRebel XT and 20D; then look at
> their lenses. There are certain requirements for such a system that
> require the physical size of those lenses. This would preclude their
> use on a "compact caqmera" with an APS size sensor.


What requirements and why don't the apply to the pocket sized Elph
series which use APS film, APS-sized by definition? For that matter
there's also tons of pocket sized 35mm full frame point-and-shoot film
cameras. I'm missing the reason digicams of similar size can't be
made with the same size sensors.
 
Reply With Quote
 
autodelete@dsl.pipex.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2005
JohnR66 wrote:

> The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last few
> years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
> them will be realized in a few years:
>
> 1) Full frame 13-16 MP DSLR - under $1,000!
> 2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized perhaps)
> with good 3 or 4x zoom.
> 3) Li-ion rechargable batteries that don't weaken or quit after 2 or 3 years
> (and cost a small fortune).
> 3a) Better yet, reduce power requirements so that standard akaline batteries
> (AA, AAA) may be used.
> 4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts. Highlights blow
> darn easy in digital.
>
> Well, That's it for now.
> John


For 10x digital zoom cameras
# A camera (not a camera phone) where you can set password protection.
# Ditto for the memory card.
# User replaceable sealed unit sensors with flagged serial numbers for
the firmware upgrade.
# An evf which doesn't instantly compensate as the polarizing filter is
being rotated.
# A *proper* manual focus function, for instance split screen where you
can use the evf brightening function.
# Distance and DOF markings and ability to set hyperfocal distance.
# Lenses which stop down to F32, (there is still a DOF problem in super
macro).
# Portable monitor screens, say 4 ins, which can attach to a flash
bracket and connect via the camera's a/v out socket.
# Fuji to stop ****ing about and provide rational software that will
allow adjustments *before conversion* of the their RAF files.
# Single button auto camouflage function which turns the camera into a
hardback copy of, 'Why I love my Government' when there are police
officers about.

T Ritchie (Sr)
enddone comes before at

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any digital compact that meets my wishlist?? =?iso-8859-1?q?Philip__Dyg=E9us?= Digital Photography 13 06-24-2006 02:33 AM
"Holiday Wishlist 2006" at XYZ Computing Silverstrand Front Page News 7 11-21-2005 01:44 AM
wishlist? Decrufting bookmark/fav manager Splibbilla Firefox 3 11-13-2005 03:03 AM
FireFox wishlist - add Newbie4Ever Firefox 1 09-26-2005 07:56 AM
wishlist item: itertools.partition (WAS: Wishlist item: itertools.flatten) Steven Bethard Python 0 03-12-2005 07:50 PM



Advertisments