Canon goes nuts!

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited January 2014
That S400 Elph is looking sweet! I may have to sell my S330. And it's smaller and lighter than the S330 to top it off.



Here's the link from Macnn <a href="http://macnn.com/news.php?id=18621"; target="_blank">http://macnn.com/news.php?id=18621</a>;



And from MacCentral <a href="http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0302/27.canoncameras.php"; target="_blank">http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0302/27.canoncameras.php</a>;
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    The S400 Elph look sweet. I love the Elph small compact design.
  • Reply 2 of 21
    I'm holding out for the Apple <a href="http://forums.appleinsider.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=003103"; target="_blank">iShot.</a>
  • Reply 3 of 21
    escherescher Posts: 1,811member
    Have a look at <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/"; target="_blank">Digital Photography Review</a>, <a href="http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html"; target="_blank">Steve's Digicams</a> and <a href="http://www.dcresource.com/"; target="_blank">Digital Camera Resource</a> for detailed coverage and previews of some of the cameras.



    The Sony Cybershot DSC-V1 (left) and the Pentax *ist D (right) look very attractive as well.







    Personally, I want the Canon EOS 10D!







    Escher



    [ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Escher ]</p>
  • Reply 4 of 21
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I'm waiting for Fuji to release the 6MP (12MP output) F602 successor, but that Sony looks sweet. It's almost an F717 (smaller sensor, iThink, but Sony has been very good at pulling real resolution out of small sensors). 4X zoom vs 5X, night shot/focus system and 5MP just like the F717.



    Makes you wonder what they have lined up for that camera?



    What's the price on that Pentax, it looks small by SLR standards.



    Memory stick is the only real drawback I see, but then again, there's no real reason for half the standards out there CF and SD were enough. I'd rather see capacities increase than physical formats shrink/proliferate.
  • Reply 5 of 21
    escherescher Posts: 1,811member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>What's the price on that Pentax, it looks small by SLR standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm curious about that as well. They haven't announced a price yet. The Pentax will only be visible "under glass" at PMA and won't be "launched" until July. I'm hoping it will be even less expensive than the low-end Canon and Nikon DSLRs.



    [quote]<strong>Memory stick is the only real drawback [of the Cybershot DSC-V1]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    If this camera took CF cards, I'd order one today. Totally agree with increasing capacity instead of shrinking the size of flash media formats.



    Escher
  • Reply 6 of 21
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Canon goes nuts? Sony released no fewer than 9 new cameras a few days ago. It's digital camera overload.



    [ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 21
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    double



    [ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 21
    [quote]Originally posted by Eugene:

    <strong>double



    [ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yeah - but don't forget the two Canon printers and the scanner.



    Okay - here are two dumb guy questions:



    1. How many megapixels equivalent is 35mm?



    2. Knowing little about the optical zoom, is there a physical limit as to how far Canon push the Elph zoom (without being ridiculous). Will we ever see a 4x optical zoom in an Elph model?
  • Reply 9 of 21
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    1. It's hard to say. I'd guess 15+ megapixels.



    2. Canon could do a couple of things to increase the zoom capabilities of the Elph. They could use a smaller sensor, resulting in focal length changes and such. That's one reason why the Sony F717 has such a huge honking lens even though it's only 5x...it has a huge CCD. And then there's also the ability to just engineer more compact optics...
  • Reply 10 of 21
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    [quote]Originally posted by gobble gobble:

    <strong>1. How many megapixels equivalent is 35mm?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's 22 Megapixels. I learned that at NAB last year. :cool:
  • Reply 11 of 21
    So, if I have a 23-megapixel camera will it have greater resolution than all 35mm cameras?



    Digital cameras are moving pretty quickly - perhaps by 2008 or so I could buy a 23-megapixel for several hundred dollars.



    But think of the storage requirements. A photo at that resolution would have to be a 100 Mb plus!



    [ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 21
    double post - sorry!



    [ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 21
    [quote]Originally posted by Ebby:

    <strong>



    It's 22 Megapixels. I learned that at NAB last year. :cool: </strong><hr></blockquote>



    The real answer is: it depends.



    The Canon EOS 1Ds is a full frame (i.e. 35mm), 11 megapixel SLR. It depends on how big they make the sensors. This Firewire camera rocks, if you have 8 large ones.
  • Reply 14 of 21
    [quote]Originally posted by Escher:

    <strong>

    Personally, I want the Canon EOS 10D!



    Escher

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Me, too, even though I was hoping for the mythical D80/D90 rumors that were floating about at dpreview. (what! there are other rumors outside of Apple!?).



    I found a D60 in town the other day. They wanted ?5000 for it. I nearly gagged. Stupid MediaMarkt.
  • Reply 15 of 21
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    [quote]Originally posted by gobble gobble:

    <strong>So, if I have a 23-megapixel camera will it have greater resolution than all 35mm cameras?[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yes you would. There may be some Professional, top-of-the-line film that may be more, but good 35mm 100 ISO file is equal to 22 Megapixels.



    [quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:

    <strong>



    The real answer is: it depends.



    The Canon EOS 1Ds is a full frame (i.e. 35mm), 11 megapixel SLR. It depends on how big they make the sensors.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    A problem with SLR cameras is that the lenses work with 35mm film/sensors. You can increase the sensor size and therefore increase the Megapixels, but the optics of the camera won't match. True, the Canon EOS 1Ds is a full frame sensor, but that sensor records 1/2 the information of good plastic film. For a digital camera, it is great (I own a Canon EOS D60 (6.3 Megapixel) and can print up to 18" before the image degrades too much for my taste.) The challenge for the industry is to make a 22 Megapixel sensor in a 35mm footprint. That digital camera will be the [near] death of film. (Digital technology is re-usable, instant, and uses computers, which most people have, instead of darkrooms)
  • Reply 16 of 21
    [quote]Originally posted by Ebby:

    <strong>



    A problem with SLR cameras is that the lenses work with 35mm film/sensors. You can increase the sensor size and therefore increase the Megapixels, but the optics of the camera won't match. True, the Canon EOS 1Ds is a full frame sensor, but that sensor records 1/2 the information of good plastic film. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm not sure if I understand your definition of "optics". All things equal, the optics of the camera (lens, etc.) are identical whether they record on film or digital sensors.



    Right now what sensors are fighting are the physical size of the sensor (e.g., full frame) and the size of the individual pixels (pixel density). The tighter you pack them in, the more noise you get (equivalent to film grain). I haven't seen the output of a 22MP camera yet, but I'm excitedly hoping they're minimizing these issues.



    I scan using a Nikon 4000ED, and what I don't like is that I get the "film grain" at ISO 100 and higher. I like the fact that the digitals minimize this effect (i.e., less noise).



    BTW: If you don't like the D60, I think I have a couple hundred euros I can send your way to take it out of your hands.
  • Reply 17 of 21
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    Oh, no! Don't get me wrong. I LOVE my D60. I use it all the time for smaller prints. (The larger you make a print, the more noticeable the pixels are.)



    The truth is:

    All things equal, the optics of the camera are identical whether they record on film or digital sensors of equal size.

    That is why full-frame (35mm) sensors are desirable. The problem is that current 22 megapixel sensors are larger than 35mm.



    A 50mm lens will look like normal human vision on 35mm film/sensors, but if you increase the film size to 72mm or even 6x6, you will get a fish-eye effect. The proportion between lens size (50mm) and film size (35mm) gives an zooming or sphereizing effect to your photo



    [ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: Ebby ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 21
    [QUOTE]Originally posted by gobble gobble:

    <strong>

    1. How many megapixels equivalent is 35mm?

    </strong>[/QUOTE[



    Well, I think again we have to take other things into account. If you're shooting traditional film, the speed of the film you're using matters. Slower film typically results in finer grain; increased resolution. If it is said to be that 22MP is equivelant to 35MM film, I'd want to know what ISO speeds we're comparing it to.
  • Reply 19 of 21
    Ebby said ISO 100.



    [ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 21
    This year there will be more digital camera sold than film.



    <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/products/2003-02-27-digital-film_x.htm"; target="_blank">www.usatoday.com/tech/techreviews/products/2003-02-27-digital-film_x.htm</a>
Sign In or Register to comment.