backtop

Gadgets New Nikon 10.2MP D-SLR On The Way
Brandon Hill (Blog) - July 20, 2006 9:18 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 38 comment(s) - last by silver.. on Jul 22 at 12:47 PM
Nikon's latest D-SLR offering is 20 days away

Although the only details we have are that Nikon's new D-SLR will be a 10.2MP unit and a shadowy image of the camera from Nikon's Japanese homepage. I guess we'll know for sure what Nikon is up to in 20 days, but one can only guess that this is the follow-up to the popular Nikon D70/D70s. 


Nikon's Japanese website has a purposely blurred animation of the new D-SLR with text claiming "More power... More control... More versatile... More excitement. Next Nikon. New 10.2 megapixel D-SLR addition to the lineup. Integrating quality and affordability to meet the demands of passionate photo enthusiasts." 

Nikon announced back in January that it was abandoning its film camera business to focus solely on its digital camera efforts. With its resources now being more focused, we can’t wait to see what Nikon has to offer now. Watch this space for up to the minute information as it rolls in to DailyTech.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Megapixels
By epsilonparadox on 7/20/2006 11:47:04 AM , Rating: 2
How much is enough megapixels? Is there a real difference between a 7MP camera and 10MP camera if everything else is the same?




RE: Megapixels
By masher2 (blog) on 7/20/2006 11:50:45 AM , Rating: 2
If all you're doing is taking 4x6 snapshots-- no difference at all. If you with with formats larger than 8x10 or do a lot of blowup/cropping work, then you can easily benefit from a 10MP camera.


RE: Megapixels
By ksherman on 7/20/2006 12:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
beyond that, when you take and work with images in the creative field, it is best to get as much quality/detail as possible, then scale back to what your actual needs are. Of course, those higher res images and such are then stored and maybe someday in the future, there will be an even higher demand or need for high res pictures, then you already have what you need.


RE: Megapixels
By NagoyaX on 7/20/2006 12:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
Also we must remember that a DSLR image sensor is the size of 25mm aps film, not the size of a normal compact digital camera which is about 1/4 size of 25mm aps film. So the D70s and the D50 6.1mp will give u a superiour picture quality then the panasonic FZ30 or other camera that are simliar to DSLR's.

But in general if you do more croping and blow ups liek Masher2 said, the more the marrier! (sp?). There just a problem of too much after a while. Just like Compact Digial cameras, the more MP you have on a sensor the more noise it will create after a while.

I just hope that this new camera is a full size sensor like the 30D by canon and not a noraml 25mm aps size sensor like the D70s but im sure that wont happen


RE: Megapixels
By lennylim on 7/20/2006 1:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I just hope that this new camera is a full size sensor like the 30D by canon and not a noraml 25mm aps size sensor like the D70s but im sure that wont happen

A D70 replacement will not get a full size sensor. I don't believe Nikon has any camera with a full size sensor, not even its professional DSLRs.

The 30D has an APS-C sensor, not full size. The 5D is the cheapest (US$2800) camera with a full size sensor.


RE: Megapixels
By marvdmartian on 7/20/2006 12:07:22 PM , Rating: 1
Just think, 25 years from now.....when someone comes out with the world's first TERApixel digital camera, which will be like having your own electron microscope in a digital camera the size of a pack of cigarettes!! LOL


RE: Megapixels
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 12:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How much is enough megapixels? Is there a real difference between a 7MP camera and 10MP camera if everything else is the same?

If you consider that typical film in use by consumers today has an effective resolution of 25-35MP, the 10MP specification is not unreasonable. Others have stated the benefits of higher resolutions, and I will add to that the cost of capturing and storing very high resolution images is pretty cheap already will still continue to decrease.

But all that said, I see little benefit to going beyond 10MP for consumers, based upon what you will typically do with such photos (display them on a computer and/or print them). Professionals and enthusiasts will want to continue to go higher resolutions, I'm sure. For consumers, the innovation in cameras will probably evolve in other dimensions rather than higher MP capabilities.


RE: Megapixels
By MrCoyote on 7/20/2006 1:02:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you consider that typical film in use by consumers today has an effective resolution of 25-35MP, the 10MP specification is not unreasonable.

That is very true. Actually some people have done tests showing a 35mm film frame, "may" have about 50MP equivalent to digital. I have a Minolta 35mm scanner that scans up to 5400DPI. This is equivalent to about 40MP. Let me tell you, that 5400DPI makes all the difference in the world, when scanning in 35mm slides and negatives. It brings out details that my 4000DPI scanner missed.


RE: Megapixels
By lemonadesoda on 7/21/2006 4:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
I surprised you would see any noticeable "details" on 5400DPI compared to 4000DPI. I think what is more likely is:

1./ You just bought a much better quality scanner the second time round, irrespective of DPI.

2./ The 4000DPI may not have been a true 4000DPI optical scanner. It may have been scanning (optically) at a lower resolution, e.g. 2400 or worse, and interpolating to create a 4000DPI image.

3./ Slide/Negative scanners are extremely sensitive to focusing. If the negative isn't being held straight and flat, or isnt in exactly the right position, or the focus-mechanism isn't perfectly tuned, then you won't get a good scan. Maybe your 4000DPI suffered from this.


RE: Megapixels -- RUBISH
By drml on 7/20/2006 1:25:16 PM , Rating: 3
I have the Canon 1DsII which is 17MP. I assure you that it does NOT take 25-35 MP to equal 35mm film. This has been shown in test after test. Review sites such as luminous-landscape.com, robgalbraith.com, dpreview.com etc. have shown this many times.

A DSLR with around 8MP will produce prints that appear visually superior to 35mm film. My 1DsII compares well with medium format film. Again, see the sites mentioned above for numerous tests supporting this conclusion performed by professional photographers.

The most important things in the equation are the size of the sensor (DSLR sensors are much larger than the point-and-shoots and thus usually produce better images) and the quality of the lens. If I put a cheap lens on my 1DsII (say the 75-300, which I have done...it is TERRIBLE...) the image quality will be better from my 7MP Casio point-and-shoot. However, with a good lens, there is simply no comparison. The DSLR produces images that are superior, especially in low light situations.

Most DSLRs are able to produce MUCH better images in low light settings due to the larger pixels in their sensors vs. the tiny pixels in the point-and-shoots. The larger sensors allow more light, which produces better images. If you go to DPReview and look at the reviews on the pocket cams, you will notice that the 7MP vs. 8MP vs. 10MP comparisons rarely show improvements in image quality (See the Casio EX-750 and Sony W series). This is because the companies are cramming more and more pixels into the same amount of space. The lenses on the cameras have a limit to the amount of detail they can resolve. Beyond that limit, the additional megapixels are of little use.

In short, the difference in image quality between 7MP vs. 8MP vs. 10MP in a pocket cam is likely to be very little. It is possible that the new camera uses a better lens or new image processing algorithms that improve image quality, but the additional megapixels will be of limited value. Also, in general the DSLR will produce better images than the equivalent MP point-and-shoot camera. Oh, and that DSLR will likely cost you a lot more money (lenses, bags, more lenses...)

Best of luck!


RE: Megapixels -- RUBISH
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 1:52:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I assure you that it does NOT take 25-35 MP to equal 35mm film. ... A DSLR with around 8MP will produce prints that appear visually superior to 35mm film.

I agree, especially considering that printing a 4x6 photo probably loses 90% of the original information stored on the film (to speak in digital terms). My statement wasn't that 25MP+ is required to get the same quality of prints; instead, I said that 25MP+ is required to capture the same amount of raw information as a film frame "stores."

Obviously we draw the same conclusions - anything over 10MP is not needed by consumers, but that pros and enthusiasts will still want to go well past 10MP (as you have already done in your purchase).


RE: Megapixels -- RUBISH
By koomo on 7/20/2006 4:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent summary.

I'd also like to point out that going bigger is not always better -- IIRC, there were some sensors in the 4-6 MP range where the "smaller" sensor was found to produce a better, more consistent image.

And, perhaps in agreement with the above poster, I'd take a 6 MP D-SLR with a great lens over a 10+ MP model with an average lens.



RE: Megapixels
By epsilonparadox on 7/20/2006 1:31:21 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the info. I assumed 35mm quality was already attainable for 8x10 or larger pictures.


RE: Megapixels
By alex90444 on 7/21/2006 2:36:04 AM , Rating: 2
It depends not on MP but type of sensor. SLR cameras except for high end use APS size sensors. They have better dynamic range and less noisy comparising to regular P&S cameras. 6MP SLR cameras may be better than 10MP P&S. Even if you're going to enlarge photos.


Film still rules
By silver on 7/20/2006 10:58:42 PM , Rating: 2
Shoot film. Digital is for the pro's who

A) Don't want to keep a lot of negatives around.
B) Don't want to incur the cost of film processing.
C) Need a fast turn-around
D) Don't need a high resolution image.

Film :

A) Higher resolution.
B) Self-contained data storage.
C) Portable.
D) Doesn't need power.
E) Has backups (negatives) that are quite durable.
D) Is usually immediately printed to a stable media at a very low cost.

In the end I can only recommend that if you need a digital image then shoot digital. If your a pro, shoot digital. If your a casual photographer and want a good photograph, shoot film. 150+ years of R&D and molecular resolution that can't be matched by any electronic device that the average person can afford.




RE: Film still rules
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 11:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
You must be joking. I could take apart your points one-by-one, but instead I'll just cite the fact that the digital camera market has completely decimated the film camera market in the span of just a few years. There is practically zero demand for film cameras now (except for disposables) because digital cameras are good quality, cheap, and give the user lots of usability benefits. I don't know anyone in my friends or extended family still shooting film.


RE: Film still rules
By silver on 7/21/2006 8:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
And Polaroid was quite popular in the early 70's as it was supposed to replace the need for film processing and printing. Turned out that it wasn't all they great and most images would show a significant color shift in just a few months. But it was extremely popular.

And just because your friends and family are shooting digital doesn't mean they know why. It means they listen to the marketing gurus who tout "The Next Big Thing" as "New and Improved". It's not. In fact it's a compromise.

Of course history has shown time and again that most people will choose a high quantity of mediocrity rather than a few high quality items. Look at computers for instance. Companies like HP sell huge quantities of extremely mediocre systems. Look at cars, cameras and many other items. It's not the 80/20 rule. It's more like the 98/2 rule.

So do your friends back up their images to some wonderfully stable medium that I haven't heard of or will all of their images become static before their children are old enough to view them ?


RE: Film still rules
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 9:58:07 AM , Rating: 2
Your argument is absurd. If I read between the lines, I think you are saying that digital is just a fad (like Polaroid) and that we will return to film. No way; will never happen. It's more like vinyl -> CD's. Sure, there are some folks out there that still prefer vinyl for various reasons, but 99.9% of people switched to CDs and never looked back. Same is true in this case.

I can't testify to the benefits my friends and family see, but I can tell you the benefits I realize by using digital:

- ability to create prints on demand, any quantity, and time of day, instantly
- ability to store photos using files and folders on the computer, rather than having drawers or boxes of negatives and/or prints
- no worries about damage to negatives, e.g., scratches
- ability to quickly view, crop, straighten, adjust colors, etc. any photo any time using photo software
- ability to share photos instantly via e-mail, etc.
- ability to easily make backups (both on-site and off-site) to protect from losing my photos
- ability to instantly evaluate a shot (using the LCD) to determine whether to take another
- ability to instantly delete a shot if something bad happened
- ability to "change film" on the fly (frame by frame), e.g., changing effective film speed (ISO), white balance, etc. based on current conditions
- ability to just shoot, e.g., 5 shots, and upload it without wasting the balance of the film
- ability to shoot hundreds or maybe even thousands of shots without changing "film" (I used to buy 40-50 rolls of film to take with when I went on vacation!)
- low cost: shooting a photo costs basically nothing, meaning that I can cost-effectively take lots and lots of shots, and just print the few that I need/like

I'm sure I could go on and on; that's just what I could come up with off the top of my head.
quote:
So do your friends back up their images to some wonderfully stable medium that I haven't heard of or will all of their images become static before their children are old enough to view them ?

Again, can't speak for my friends and family, but yes, I back up my photos both locally in my house (USB HDD), and I also give copies to my parents on DVD for off-site backup. My photos are part of a set of files that I have maintained continuously since I owned my first PC. Obviously the goal is to maintain these files perpetually.


RE: Film still rules
By silver on 7/22/2006 12:13:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your argument is absurd


When all else fails, resort to ad hominem, eh ?

Obviously imaging will never return to film as that would take money out of Nikon, Canon, Sony et al. They have no interest in telling you anything other than what they want you to believe.

quote:
- ability to create prints on demand, any quantity, and time of day, instantly


Sure you can. Incredible numbers of inkjet fodder already fill our landfills and millions more are to come as they are not a stable display media.

quote:
- ability to store photos using files and folders on the computer, rather than having drawers or boxes of negatives and/or prints


So you'd rather have all of your images stored in a medium as tenuous as a computer or otical media ? You must not place a very high value on your images.

quote:
- no worries about damage to negatives, e.g., scratches


Properly stored films are quite durable. At least as durable as CD and DVD media.

quote:
- ability to quickly view, crop, straighten, adjust colors, etc. any photo any time using photo software


As long as you have a computer available. Don't need one for film. Light helps though.

quote:
- ability to share photos instantly via e-mail, etc.


Easily done with a PhotoCD which is made at the time the films are developed or one can scan a proof or negative after the processing is done.

quote:
- ability to quickly view, crop, straighten, adjust colors, etc. any photo any time using photo software


Just as easily done with film.

quote:
- ability to easily make backups (both on-site and off-site) to protect from losing my photos


Backing up onto unstable media is hardly a backup. I've already lost some images to CD degradation. Thankfully I still have the negatives.

quote:
- ability to instantly evaluate a shot (using the LCD) to determine whether to take another


No doubt this is the most valuable feature of digital and necessary for the amateur who simply needs that confirmation that s/he didn't screw up.

quote:
- ability to "change film" on the fly (frame by frame), e.g., changing effective film speed (ISO), white balance, etc. based on current conditions


All of which is easily done with film. White balance is handled in the printing and the latitude of film is far broader. Particularly in over-exposure.

quote:
- ability to just shoot, e.g., 5 shots, and upload it without wasting the balance of the film


I'll concede this. That's another point that digital certainly has in its' favor. Not that I really care about blowing a whole roll for 4~5 images. At $3/roll it's not a budgetary issue.

quote:
- ability to shoot hundreds or maybe even thousands of shots without changing "film" (I used to buy 40-50 rolls of film to take with when I went on vacation!)


Some people need this capability. I've never understood the need for hundreds of meaningless images myself.

quote:
- low cost: shooting a photo costs basically nothing, meaning that I can cost-effectively take lots and lots of shots, and just print the few that I need/like


Cost is one of the biggest fallacies going. The fact is that you need a digital camera, a computer and at least a CD/RW drive. So I spend the extra $10 for a roll of 35mm and have them printed to 5X7 RA-4 prints which have a stable life of 100~200 years and the films are scanned using a high quality scanner to PhotoCD. It follows that I have the negatives which have a longer scale and better highlight resolution, I have prints and I have a CD of images for posting or emailing.

quote:
Again, can't speak for my friends and family, but yes, I back up my photos both locally in my house (USB HDD), and I also give copies to my parents on DVD for off-site backup. My photos are part of a set of files that I have maintained continuously since I owned my first PC. Obviously the goal is to maintain these files perpetually.


And thereby you will defeat any cost savings as you will need to update your entire archive onto new media about every 10 years.


RE: Film still rules
By TomZ on 7/22/2006 8:06:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When all else fails, resort to ad hominem, eh ?

Hardly, since I continued the discussion and gave you around 15 reasons why your argument is absurd. I could respond to your points, but I think that would be a waste.

The only thing I can add is that I've shot thousands of photos in film as well as on digital, and spent many hours in the darkroom. So I feel I have developed a pretty well-informed decision. I assume you are in the same position.

You obviously see digital as some bad technology forced upon ignorant consumers against their will. There is no convincing you otherwise, so all I can say is, enjoy your film!


RE: Film still rules
By silver on 7/22/2006 12:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see it (the technology) as "bad" per se but rather as unnecessary and extremely expensive in that :

A) It does not have the tonal resolution of film.
B) It costs substantially more over a lifetime.
C) It requires supporting technologies that are far from perfected.


Also I consider the marketing of it fallacious in that nobody is expressing these issues and the industry is certainly well aware of them.

FYI, I do use digital as a working semi-pro. And yes I've shot literally millions of images on film and probably a hundred thousand on digital. In fact I just wrapped up shooting a very large group of children for a church on digital. The images were printed immediately to RA-4 on a Fuji Frontier, archived to 2 DVD's and deleted from my system. One of the DVD's was provided to the church and the other shall sit in my archive for a year or so.

And yes, I will enjoy my Linhoff 5X7.


RE: Film still rules
By danidentity on 7/21/2006 7:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
This has to be a joke.

There isn't a single advantage to film over digital, especially for amateur shooters. Every single point you make is ridiculous.

Pros aren't the only ones who don't want to keep a lot of negatives around, incur the high-cost of film processing, and need/want a fast turn-around.

As of today, high-end digital can easily go head-to-head with film in terms of resolution. How is film more self-contained and portable than digital? That is absurd. You can store 30 rolls worth of film on a 1 GB memory stick. Negatives are less durable than a memory stick. Especially because they can scratch, get bent, etc.

Shooting film is MUCH more expensive than shooting digital. Getting film developed vs. getting prints from a digital memory stick costs the same. You don't need to buy film with a digital. The digital camera market has completely obliterated the film camera market almost overnight. And for good reason. Using digital allows you to shoot more, because you don't have to worry about wasting film.


RE: Film still rules
By silver on 7/21/2006 9:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There isn't a single advantage to film over digital, especially for amateur shooters. Every single point you make is ridiculous.


Non Sequitur. Since you do not (can not ?) substantiate your opinion it is valueless.

quote:
Pros aren't the only ones who don't want to keep a lot of negatives around, incur the high-cost of film processing, and need/want a fast turn-around.


Non Sequitur.

quote:
As of today, high-end digital can easily go head-to-head with film in terms of resolution.


Citation ? And please don't pull up some URL from a digital review site that know little if anything about optics, resolution and image production.

And high-end ? Believe me, I've played with Betterlight's and I know about high end. And I doubt that you can afford a Betterlight.

quote:
How is film more self-contained and portable than digital?


It is completely encapsulated. It does not need a computer to open the image as it is viewable even in just looking at the negative. Along that line, one can scan a negative and have a digital image of excellent quality on even such inexpensive scanners as the Epson Perfection 4490,

quote:
You can store 30 rolls worth of film on a 1 GB memory stick.
quote:


Interesting. I can't get that many on my 1GB Compact Flash and I'm using low compression JPG's.

quote:
Negatives are less durable than a memory stick. Especially because they can scratch, get bent, etc.


And memory can :

A) Be erased
B) Be corrupted by a bad reader.
C) simply stop functioning.

quote:
Shooting film is MUCH more expensive than shooting digital. Getting film developed vs. getting prints from a digital memory stick costs the same. You don't need to buy film with a digital. The digital camera market has completely obliterated the film camera market almost overnight. And for good reason. Using digital allows you to shoot more, because you don't have to worry about wasting film.


Sure you can shoot more. A good thing as now you don't have to learn how to create good images. Just "shotgun" a bunch of digipics into memory and let Photoshop sort them out.


Full sensor
By Nocturnal on 7/20/2006 2:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
I hope that full sensor becomes the norm and that with it becoming the norm the price goes down significantly.




RE: Full sensor
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 2:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope that full sensor becomes the norm and that with it becoming the norm the price goes down significantly.

Just curious, why? Because of the lenses?


RE: Full sensor
By rgsaunders on 7/20/2006 2:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
Use of a full size sensor gets rid of the crop factor introducted by the APS-C sized sensors, this crop factor can go from 1.3x to 2.0x, on Nikon DSLR the norm is 1.5X, on Canon DSLRs the norm is 1.6X. For those of us migrating from the film world with expensive glass, the value of a full sized sensor is great.


RE: Full sensor
By AmbroseAthan on 7/20/2006 2:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
Just have to view it as a positive. I have two Nikkor lenses from my old film SLR, and just treat it as if a 1.5 teleconverter was on it. My 70mm-300mm is now a 135mm-450mm; great for distance shots.

Though my way of thinking does make me need a new wide-angle lense. My old 28mm doesn't quite cut it as well anymore.


RE: Full sensor
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 2:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
Understood, but in the long-term, the desire to have lens compatibility between film cameras and digital goes away, especially since it costs less to produce the smaller digital-compatible lenses. Therefore, I'm thinking that some DSLR manufacturers might take a long view that larger sensors are not needed for enthusiast DSLRs. For pros, however, that might be a different story, similar to how you have medium- and large-format film.

For me, personally I've retired all my film lenses (except for one) and basically replaced them with 2 high-quality digital-compatible zoom lenses.


RE: Full sensor
By AmbroseAthan on 7/20/2006 2:44:15 PM , Rating: 2
Even with the full sensor being the norm; the prices to play in the SLR market are always going to be higher then people expect. Even a decent film SLR is still a few hundred dollars. Start adding in the lenses at hundreds to thousands a pop, photo editting software (I recommend trying Nikon's Capture NX for anyone using Nikon, 30 day free trial, downloaded from their site; good raw (NEF) editting), plus any other misc. items, the cost is much higher to play in then point-and-shoots will ever be.

Sure, the prices will come down over time; but SLR will always have a huge startup cost. Why I am glad I was using Nikon film-SLR's early on; loaded up on lenses which work with my D-SLR, kept those costs down.


RE: Full sensor
By sixscrews on 7/20/2006 3:08:58 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of pixels are good, but they are only part of the system - without an excellent lens those pixels are useless, as mentioned above.
Before digital the camera was 'just' a film holder; the lens was the critical piece in the system (yeah, there are good and bad 'film holders'). Now the camera is as important as the lens, in essence replacing the film and its chemistry with light sensors, software and storage.
That's where good digital cameras shine - shooting in .RAW (or .NEF) format gives you incredible control over the final product, much more than possible with film unless you had your own lab. There are some great .RAW editing packages out there - Nikon's is so-so in my book; I prefer Bibble Lab's Bibble Pro, that that's my preference; there are lots of others out there, including one in Photoshop. The point is that shooting in .RAW format is the key to using all those pixels gathered with that great lens.

sixscrews


It doesn't really matter anymore
By The Blue Moose on 7/20/2006 11:03:18 PM , Rating: 3
Comparing megapixels to film grain, and prints from digital and film is pretty much pointless these days. Unless you do your own developing, or use a lab that does it the old fashioned way.

Most photo labs now are all digital. Meaning your film is run through a film scanner, digitized, then printed on what amounts to an overgrown laser printer. This is the case in most chain stores (wal mart, walgreens, etc.). The resulting files are saved as JPGs and they are nowhere near the 20-30MP mark. Most use a default setting which allows them to print a 4x6 at 300 DPI (1800x1200, just over 2MP). They can use higher settings for printing larger pictures at the same resolution (3600x2400, 8.6MP, for a 8x12).

Back in the day, developing equipment was like a slide projector. They would shine a light through the film negative and expose the photo paper. So, the grain of the film could make a big difference.

So, unless you've got some REALLY cheap film with coarse grain, or a really low resolution camera ( < 3MP) you'd never tell the difference between film and digital in an average sized print.

Many seem to forget that it doesn't matter how many pixels you have, or how great your film is. If the resolution of the source is greater than the resolution of the printer, you will never see ALL of that extra detail.

Also, I agree with sixscrews. Being able to shoot in RAW mode is essential to getting the thing to look just right. Sadly, this is a feature lacking in most consumer level cameras.




RE: It doesn't really matter anymore
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 10:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, I agree with sixscrews. Being able to shoot in RAW mode is essential to getting the thing to look just right. Sadly, this is a feature lacking in most consumer level cameras.

Why is shooting in RAW "essential"? Most photo-manipulation software I've seen can work with JPEG input as well. I realize that JPEG compression, even at high-quality setting, loses some information and may introduce some artifacts, but for most consumers and enthusiasts, this is probably not a serious concern, right?


RE: It doesn't really matter anymore
By lemonadesoda on 7/21/2006 5:22:43 PM , Rating: 2
RAW is not essential on a point-and-shoot consumer camera for snaps. The jpg artifacts won't be noticed, and the auto-sharpening and auto colour-balancing are helping the average fotografer (sic) get better pictures.

But if you enjoy photography, and like getting the best out of your camera... and often crop or edit a picture... then RAW is essential.

As a quick list for other readers, RAW lets you:

1./ Make your own choices about sharpening
2./ Make your own choices about color
3./ Full gamma control
4./ Zero artifacts from the camera engine
5./ Luminosity or chromatic noise from the sensor can be processed using a much more powerful algorithm on the PC, e.g. Noise Ninja

JPG introduces into the workflow
1./ Very noticable artifacts when zooming
2./ Any post-sharpening algorithmns sharpen the artifacts and make them worse!
3./ Reduced color depth... while not noticable if you don't try to edit the color balance, having lost bit depth means that subtle color correction is not as effective as under RAW
4./ Less than ideal noise correction of luminosity and chromatic data
5./ Noticable detail loss especially on crop+zoom

Basically, the RAW file allows you to substitute your PC as the internal "picture processing engine". This little chips inside the camera's have a fraction of the power of a PC. They rely on battery power... and are designed to process the picture in a fraction of a second... so that you can shoot-shoot-shoot.

The quality difference between camera processed jpg and PC processed RAW truly amazing. I was going to throw away my http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/pa... until I discovered shooting in RAW and post processing with Noise Ninja created some truly exceptional pictures.



RE: It doesn't really matter anymore
By TomZ on 7/22/2006 8:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for that post; very interesting and informative! I haven't done much with RAW yet, but I may give it a try now.


They already have a 10.2 MP DSLR
By awer on 7/20/2006 12:42:31 PM , Rating: 2
Nikon released the D200 last November, which was a 10.2MP DSLR. This can't be too different, as major upgrades usually get a higher MP count. Nikon has had the 12MP D2X for some time now, so we know it's possible.




RE: They already have a 10.2 MP DSLR
By TomZ on 7/20/2006 1:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nikon released the D200 last November, which was a 10.2MP DSLR. This can't be too different, as major upgrades usually get a higher MP count. Nikon has had the 12MP D2X for some time now, so we know it's possible.

My guess - this new model will probably be a D70 replacement/upgrade based on the D200 model and priced just below $1000 MSRP. Based on their current product names, this would probably be called a D80 or possibly D90.


Competition for the new Sony?
By raddude9 on 7/21/2006 4:39:16 AM , Rating: 2
One of the interesting things about this announcement is that it comes just as Sony have released their first DSLR. Also, a 10.2 MP effort. I think this new Nikon is the first market response to Sony entering the market in a big way. I read somewhere that the head of Sonys camera division said that they want to be number 2 in the DSLR market in 3 years which would mean they would have to overtake Nikon. I think we're all going to benefit from Sony entering the market, competition is great.




RE: Competition for the new Sony?
By TomZ on 7/21/2006 10:02:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One of the interesting things about this announcement is that it comes just as Sony have released their first DSLR. Also, a 10.2 MP effort. I think this new Nikon is the first market response to Sony entering the market in a big way.

It could be, but you can also see this product release as the next in the natural progression of their product releases to-date.
quote:
I read somewhere that the head of Sonys camera division said that they want to be number 2 in the DSLR market in 3 years which would mean they would have to overtake Nikon. I think we're all going to benefit from Sony entering the market, competition is great.

I'm sure they will want to be #1, but Nikon and Canon are both tough competitors that have won the trust and hearts and minds of photographers for many, many years. I think that will be a tough nut to crack. Of course, competition is good for us, so I am glad to see more competition in that field.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki