Fuji surpasses 6 megapixels

CNET News ^ | February 19, 2003, 10:01 AM PT | Sandeep Junnarkar

[July 4th]

Yup, there are quite a few things out there now that surpass 6MP, it's just how much you want to pay. The Sigmas with the Foveon sensor actually fall into the 3MP category, but with the Foveon, it's effectively 3MPx3. And for what they're asking (~$1,500) it's a steal, especially with all of the features. (Not many digicams do instant histograms).

I don't have that kind of money. The new Pentax Optio S ("fits in a mint tin") is what my money's on at the moment. I need something to complement my big-a$$ SLR, and the Optio S reviews from CES were amazing.

[meyer]

I suspect that it will be less than 5 years for good 10-12 mpx camera bodies to drop below $1000. Things are moving fast in the digital imaging world right now.

I just got a new digital, the Canon S230. Its a very small (about the size of a cigarette pack) 3.2 mpx digital and I am quite pleased with it. Still, I miss the totally manual control that my older 35 mm SLR offers. On the other hand, I carry this Canon with me nearly everywhere - I can't say the same for the full-sized camera. It fits in the shirt pocket or I holster it on my belt in a small camera pouch. Very handy!

[Ranxerox]

Ha! My wife and I have this conversation all the time, except you need to replace "computer" with "gun".

[meyer]

Excellent answer! Thanks so much!

You're welcome. I've been tooling around in the camera world for a while, though I'm still pretty-much a weekend duffer/novice. Fun hobby, but it can be expensive if you let it.

[meyer]

Ha! My wife and I have this conversation all the time, except you need to replace "computer" with "gun".

Really, you need both. :^)

[stands2reason]

Mine's this: "Look, babe, at this (website)! Here we can get (Expensive Toy) for just (unbelievably high amount)! But, wait, it comes with (every attachment possible, most which are unnecessary) and that's included in the price!"

[tomkat]

fofl !

[ArrogantBustard]

Portability is the great attraction (for me) of the small non-SLR digital cameras. As I age, I grow tired of dragging my Canon SLR and all its impedimentia around. The Olympus has a great general purpose lens with a huge aperture. It's a bit bigger than some of the other cameras with slower lenses (like your Canon); it won't fit in a shirt pocket. However, an affordable (sub $2000) Canon EOS digital with double-digit-MP sensor might change my mind. The little cameras just don't have the telephoto capability I'm accustomed to for wildlife photography.

[Cooter]

Kodak DCS Pro 14n does ~14 Megapixels.

[meyer]

Portability is the great attraction (for me) of the small non-SLR digital cameras. As I age, I grow tired of dragging my Canon SLR and all its impedimentia around. The Olympus has a great general purpose lens with a huge aperture. It's a bit bigger than some of the other cameras with slower lenses (like your Canon); it won't fit in a shirt pocket. However, an affordable (sub $2000) Canon EOS digital with double-digit-MP sensor might change my mind. The little cameras just don't have the telephoto capability I'm accustomed to for wildlife photography.

Yes, I really enjoy the portability - that is why I bought it. You're right, it isn't the fastest lens in the world, but f-2.8 isn't too bad, especially when the camera can be set to emulate 400 speed film (with a little increase in noise or graininess). As for tele, it only covers to about 70 mm (35 mm equiv.) on the telephoto side. I use the zoom primarily for framing, just as I did with an older Olympus 35 mm point and shoot (which took very sharp pictures until it contacted the ground at rather high velocity).

My SLR is an old Canon FT, old enough where all you had was a light meter with a needle in the viewfinder. Took some great pictures, though it now needs a very good cleaning. All mechanical, but would shoot to 1/1000 sec. if desired. I have some excellent slides from a few Cleveland-500 indy-car races that I took with that camera. The 50 mm Canon lens that I have for it is excellent - very clear (and has a big hole as well, f 1.8).

Like I said, though, the camera really needs to be taken apart and cleaned out with some attention to detail. I also have a 135 mm tele (which still wouldn't fit your needs if you're shooting wildlife - they tend to run away when you get close), and a Tamron 28-80 zoom as well as a 2x doubler. The doubler always seemed to take a little sharpness and vividness away from the pictures (along with about 1 f-stop) so I seldom used it.

I still have the old Argus that my Dad used when I was a kid as well. It probably hasn't touched film in about 25-30 years, but I bet it still works just fine. Totally manual - I'd have to remember the sunny-16 rule. :^)

[meyer]

Kodak DCS Pro 14n does ~14 Megapixels.

I'd love to see Kodak get back into the high-end camera market. Sadly, though, I suspect that if you took that camera apart, you'd probably find a name like Fuji inside. That's not to say that it's a bad camera - its just that it would be nice if some American company chose to compete head on in that market again.

[Daus]

One on the best purchases I've ever made was a Sony F707 when they releases their F717... They slashed $200 off the slightly older model so I eneded up getting it for $799.

Takes stunning 5.2 megapixel images.

It's not an picture unless it's over 2.5 megs! :)

[Cooter]

It's basically Kodak's CCD back installed into a Nikon SLR body. I had a DCS 315 for a while at work and it was awesome. I'm pretty sure the CCD is all Kodak. They also sell what's called a Pro Back for Hasselblad, Mamiya, and Contax cameras as well as a universal back for medium and large format cameras. The Pro Back is rated at 16 Megapixels (4080 x 4080) and 12 bit per color depth. Their professional camera page is here.

[dljordan]

You mean you can't see them?

[meyer]

It's basically Kodak's CCD back installed into a Nikon SLR body. I had a DCS 315 for a while at work and it was awesome. I'm pretty sure the CCD is all Kodak. They also sell what's called a Pro Back for Hasselblad, Mamiya, and Contax cameras as well as a universal back for medium and large format cameras. The Pro Back is rated at 16 Megapixels (4080 x 4080) and 12 bit per color depth. Their professional camera page is here.

Interesting! I wasn't aware that Kodak had gotten that deep into digital. I'll take a look at their pro page when I get a chance! The stuff sounds excellent, particularly when a US company is involved (though I suspect that the labor isn't US).

[Cooter]

From The Seybold Report.

Kodak is unique among professional digital still camera manufacturers in making its own ccd's, in a facility known as the MTD (Microelectronics Technology Division) in Rochester, NY.

The new high end cameras actually use CMOS instead of CCD but I believe the sensors are still manufactured in Rochester.

CMOS vs CCD

Why CMOS?

[razorback-bert]

6MP Nikon D100

It takes 35mmm lenses? Last one I looked at that did was $5000.

[js1138]

It's a moving target. Besides, in my opinion, digital surpassed color print film some time ago, but hasn't yet reached the level of Kodachrome. Film has a lot of advantages in professional work, but Sports Illustrated covered the SuperBowl entirely with off-the-shelf digital cameras.

[Rudder]

You seem to know your stuff.

Which, in your opinion, digitals would you recommend for use in PC publishing (printing) of pix in color brouchures if you had two photo situations and a camera for each: a camera for the studio and a camera for the fieldwork?

[meyer]

re: #36; You continue to bring good news! This may sway my thinking when I do decide to dive into the digital SLR world. I really want to see US products in an arena that has been dominated by foreign firms for years.

I agree WRT CMOS, it is, I beleive, the newer, better format for light collection. I beleive that the Canon EOS-1Ds 11.1 meg camera uses CMOS rather than CCD. I don't know who makes their sensors though.