Posted on 05/25/2006 10:08:01 AM PDT by Drew68
TOKYO - Japan's top camera maker, Canon Inc., will stop developing new single-lens reflex film cameras as more people abandon film for digital, company officials said Thursday.
The Tokyo-based Canon's move followed a similar move by its closest Japanese rival, Nikon Corp., which announced earlier this year it would stop making seven of its nine film cameras and concentrate on digital models.
Canon will continue making film cameras already on the market as long as their demand remains. Whether to withdraw from the film camera business will be "decided appropriately by judging the market situation," said Canon spokesman Hiroshi Yoshinaga.
Japanese camera makers sold a combined total 64.77 million digital cameras last year globally, compared with 5.38 million film cameras, according to industry figures. Yoshinaga said his company could not disclose the number of cameras sold.
Meanwhile, Tsuneji Uchida, president of Canon, told reporters that demand for film cameras will be limited to "special needs" like camera buffs, Kyodo News agency said.
In January, Konica Minolta Holdings Inc., another Japanese optical manufacturer, said it was quitting the camera business altogether — digital and film — and selling its digital assets to rival Sony Corp.
I get cell phone calls on an older WB/AM/FM radio.
I can tell you how it could be done in principal, right now. For each exposure, bracket the ISO to get more bits of luminosity informaion. The multiple exposures will align each pixel a bit differently due to camera shake (which can be detected and recorded along with the image).
Stich the whole mess back together with NASA like software, and you have far greater resolution than you could get with a single exposure.
I'm an amateur looking to occasionally go beyond point and shoot portraits. I've been taking more photos of my kids soccer games and I want to be able to zoom in on a stage from the back of an auditorium. I take approximately 200 35mm photos per year though I'm likely to up that count once I move to digital.
I've narrowed my selection to these two cameras:
and the
Both have 12x Optical zoom, 5 MP, and image stabilization (When I need the zoom, I probably wont have a tripod! That knocked out the equivalent Kodak).
Both are around $350.00.
Both get rave reviews and most reviewers (and the samples I've seen) indicate the picture quality being nearly identical.
The decision breakers:
The Canon:
- Uses batteries (rechargeable or not) which some reviewers have claimed a negative but I view as a positive since it's always possible to get 4 AA cells.
- Takes much better video with a stereo mic and video can be used with the zoom. (I plan on getting a 2GB memory card so short videos will definitely be likely)
The Panasonic
- Uses a rechargeable cell thus no extra costs for batteries or chargers
- Has a live histogram that allows for A/E adjustments prior to snapping the photo (The Canon only shows a histogram after the photo is taken)
I've never used a histogram for managing light but the concept sounds interesting. The Canon video is much better though so I'm thinking I can live with the post shot histogram and maybe take a second shot if necessary to achieve proper balance. It all likelihood, I'll be using the "Scene" options on both cameras and doing very little manual tinkering.
I'm open to any and all thoughts.
I have a Canon FT purchased in 1969.
I've got a Nikon F100. I love it. Digital cameras have made incredible strides lately, but you can buy professonal quality film SLR bodies for pennies on the dollar at present.
What do you do when that $2,000.00 digital goes on the blink? How much will it cost to fix?
Go to DPreview and poke around there.
The S3 review is here.
The S2 review is here.
The FZ5 review is here.
Compare them here side-by-side.
In 1970 with my Mamiya 1000DTL firmly in hand, I trudged the entire Sears Point race course for a Trans-Am race; (over two miles by foot) and stationed myself at the finish line after having snapped off 30 pics only to discover that long before the last-lap leader was coming into view that my counter was up to 40!
Struggling to accept the obvious, I tried to hide the camera under my jacket as I opened the back only to find what I had dreaded - I had cheated one too many times on latching the first hole on the sprocket.
I ended up with a fistful of winners, runners-up and also rans.
I only sold one picture of Roger Penske examining a sparkplug from a roll taken the day before during pit-stop practice.
From that day forward, I only get 34 pictures out of a 36 exposure roll.
Getting right back there with 1/2000, eh?
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N - $3,999.00 - dtgweb.com
With Epicac you can always reshoot that spontaneous vomit scene.
You don't fix electronics, you upgrade.
I had not been aware of this development.
Seriously though, thank you very much for your reply.
I see the S3 has a "Record Histogram" which I presume is the same as the "Live Histogram" for the Panasonic. Definitely makes the case for the S3 as this point save for price.
The S2 goes for $350 at Costco. The S3 for $450.
I'm not sure that the histogram and extra pixels (I have never had any of my photos enlarged so they are all 4x6) are worth the $100.
The Hasselblad H2D-39. 39 million pixels. But at the low, low price of only $29,995, I'm not quite sure it is what you'd call "consumer grade."
However, for about 6 or 7 thousand dollars less than the H2D-39 you can pick up a plain ol' Hasselblad H2D with a measly 22 megapixels.
Yes, it does have a live histogram.
From this page from the review at DPreview you can see the live histogram as displayed on the S3's viewscreen in the second picture down on the right.
The display from the FZ5 is shown on this page. The live histogram picture is in the same place, second down on the right.
Thanks. I just got through reading every single page of the reviews!
Hmmmm. 100 bucks though.... Hmmmm
I'm not Drew, but there's a setting in there somewhere that will allow you to specify the scan format and options. Poke around; you'll find it.
MM
Depends on what you want to do with the personal photos. A 2.3 megapixel camera will generate images that print quite well at 4" x 6" but once you start going bigger than that it gets iffy and probably won't be of the print quality we think of as traditional "photo" quality.
If they're intended for screen only, you're of course correct.
MM
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.