Options

New Cameras Coming

wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
edited February 13, 2004 in Cameras
Thinking about buying a new camera? You might want to wait a few weeks. Canon has plans for world domination, and we're the beneficiares. :clap:

Word is that they may make announcements in February, at the PMA convention in Vegas, Feb. 12-15. :deal:

Here's a snip of their press release from late last year:

"Canon has announced today that it plans to roll-out nearly 20 new compact digital cameras in 2004 in an aggressive product push to grab 25 percent of the global market and it seems that this is aimed squarely at Sony. Takashi Oshiyama, head of Canon's digital imaging business group, told Reuters in an interview "Those companies out there that have no experience producing film cameras have yet to create a camera that performs like a real camera should. I won't say who that is." Oshiyama said shipments of digital cameras by Japanese manufacturers would total between 40 and 44 million units in 2003. That compares to last year's 25 million units, according to Japan's Camera and Imaging Products Association (CIPA)."

Cheaper, better, faster? :D
Sid.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au

Comments

  • Options
    HarveyMushmanHarveyMushman Registered Users Posts: 550 Major grins
    edited January 9, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    Cheaper, better, faster? :D
    Hey, Sid! wave.gif

    "Cheaper" and "better" are definitely welcome, but what I'd really like to have is "faster," as in faster auto focus and shorter shutter delays. Or will one still be forced to buy a SLR (okay, if I must . . . ).
    Tim
  • Options
    wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited January 10, 2004
    Hi Tim! wave.gif

    I wonder if that will be part of the next generation of point-and-shoot cameras? A faster "trigger" response makes such a difference when you're shooting people. I wonder where they'll draw the line, to separate the high end stuff from the less expensive gear?

    The small cams are already catching up in megapixels, so presumably it's the other features which will become the focus for marketing, as well as for discerning buyers such as yourself.
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • Options
    ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    Hi Tim! wave.gif

    I wonder if that will be part of the next generation of point-and-shoot cameras? A faster "trigger" response makes such a difference when you're shooting people. I wonder where they'll draw the line, to separate the high end stuff from the less expensive gear?

    The small cams are already catching up in megapixels, so presumably it's the other features which will become the focus for marketing, as well as for discerning buyers such as yourself.
    I'm told by someone who should know that the new Canon Pro digicam will have as fast a trigger as a 10D DSLR (fast enough, believe me.) It shares a lot of innards with the 10D and Digital Rebel. I don't know about the other new Canon offerings. You could dig out the information from Canon's published specs or wait for a full review from dpreview or steve's digicams.

    One difference between even the high end digicams and their big brothers is the size of the sensor. Don't confuse this with the number of pixels on the sensor. Larger sensor require physically larger lenses to produce an image of the right size. DSLRs have sensors many times larger than those of the fixed lens miniture digicams. The obvious benefit is that the digicams are smaller, lighter, and easier to have around at all times.

    There are important advantages of larger sensors, though. Because the pixels are spread further apart, they tend to be less "noisy" than smaller sensors. I'm not sure if this is a difference that will go away with time.

    Larger sensors allow better control over depth of field. Even with the f2.8 lens wide open, my old olympus digicam still had a fairly deep depth of field. Think of it this way. The lens just doesn't have as big a radius (it doesn't need to because it is making a smaller image to cover a smaller sensor.) The smaller this radius gets, the greater the depth of field. At the limit, it's a pin hole. But greater depth of field is a sharp tool and needs understanding to be used well. In the hands of a pro, a blurred background for a portrait brings the subject to the center of attention and eleminates distractions. Used without understanding, it results in group snaps with only some subject in focus.

    The final issue about sensor size is something I don't understand as well. I think that smaller sensors require better optics to get the same results. In theory, small lens imperfections cover a greater part of the sensor. What I don't know is whether lens manufacturing has become good enough to make this a nonissue.

    All these are the same points that drive the distincthins between medium or large format vs 35mm film cameras. 35mm has proven to be a good compromise over the years (there have been many smaller formats, but not many good pictures made with them.)

    Know your requirements and pick the right tool for the job.
    If not now, when?
  • Options
    wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2004
    Good stuff Rutt. You helped me understand why my G3 has a hard time getting a shallow depth of field. No bokeh for me.

    Out of my depth here, so I may be about to say something stupid, but I seem to remember reading that the smaller aperatures of the prosumer cameras, due to their smaller diameter lenses, helped hide faults in the lens? ne_nau.gif
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • Options
    cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited February 13, 2004
    wxwax wrote:
    Good stuff Rutt. You helped me understand why my G3 has a hard time getting a shallow depth of field. No bokeh for me.

    Out of my depth here, so I may be about to say something stupid, but I seem to remember reading that the smaller aperatures of the prosumer cameras, due to their smaller diameter lenses, helped hide faults in the lens? ne_nau.gif
    The diffraction distortion drowns out the chromatic distortion :(
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
  • Options
    pathfinderpathfinder Super Moderators Posts: 14,698 moderator
    edited February 13, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    I'm told by someone who should know that the new Canon Pro digicam will have as fast a trigger as a 10D DSLR (fast enough, believe me.) It shares a lot of innards with the 10D and Digital Rebel. I don't know about the other new Canon offerings. You could dig out the information from Canon's published specs or wait for a full review from dpreview or steve's digicams.

    One difference between even the high end digicams and their big brothers is the size of the sensor. Don't confuse this with the number of pixels on the sensor. Larger sensor require physically larger lenses to produce an image of the right size. DSLRs have sensors many times larger than those of the fixed lens miniture digicams. The obvious benefit is that the digicams are smaller, lighter, and easier to have around at all times.

    There are important advantages of larger sensors, though. Because the pixels are spread further apart, they tend to be less "noisy" than smaller sensors. I'm not sure if this is a difference that will go away with time.

    Larger sensors allow better control over depth of field. Even with the f2.8 lens wide open, my old olympus digicam still had a fairly deep depth of field. Think of it this way. The lens just doesn't have as big a radius (it doesn't need to because it is making a smaller image to cover a smaller sensor.) The smaller this radius gets, the greater the depth of field. At the limit, it's a pin hole. But greater depth of field is a sharp tool and needs understanding to be used well. In the hands of a pro, a blurred background for a portrait brings the subject to the center of attention and eleminates distractions. Used without understanding, it results in group snaps with only some subject in focus.

    The final issue about sensor size is something I don't understand as well. I think that smaller sensors require better optics to get the same results. In theory, small lens imperfections cover a greater part of the sensor. What I don't know is whether lens manufacturing has become good enough to make this a nonissue.

    All these are the same points that drive the distincthins between medium or large format vs 35mm film cameras. 35mm has proven to be a good compromise over the years (there have been many smaller formats, but not many good pictures made with them.)

    Know your requirements and pick the right tool for the job.
    You are absolutely correct that there is a big difference between the size of the sensor and the number of Megapixels - because you can make sensors with smaller light capturing wells and increase the number of Megapixels but as the light capturing wells get smaller they capture fewer photons/well and hence are INTRINSICALLY prone to be noiser as they are made smaller.

    LARGER light capturing wells - like on the 4 Mpixel sensor in the Canon EOS 1D - will always have less noise then cramming 8 Mpixels on a chip that is 1/3 the size of the chip in the 1D. Most people fail to grasp the distinction between the size of the light capturing well and hence the size of the total sensor area versus the quoted # of Megapixels which has no direct relation to overall sensor size in the camera.
    Kind of like talking about grain in film negatives WITHOUT mentioning the size of your negative -say 110 versus 2 1/4 square - a 2 1/4 sq negative with large grained Tri-X is much better than a fine grained 110 negative of Panatomic X because the 110 negative is 30 or 40 times smaller than the 2 1/4 square.

    Very small sensor chips are great for increasing depth of field and close focusing eg: Nikon CoolPix 995 et al - great little macro cameras - none better - but no real ability to limit depth fo field. And as the individual pixels get smaller lenses to need also get better to match them or it is a waste of extra pixels....
    Pathfinder - www.pathfinder.smugmug.com

    Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Sign In or Register to comment.