Digital wishlist

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by JohnR66, Nov 13, 2005.

  1. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last few
    years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
    them will be realized in a few years:

    1) Full frame 13-16 MP DSLR - under $1,000!
    2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized perhaps)
    with good 3 or 4x zoom.
    3) Li-ion rechargable batteries that don't weaken or quit after 2 or 3 years
    (and cost a small fortune).
    3a) Better yet, reduce power requirements so that standard akaline batteries
    (AA, AAA) may be used.
    4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts. Highlights blow
    darn easy in digital.

    Well, That's it for now.
    John
     
    JohnR66, Nov 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. JohnR66

    Al Dykes Guest

    :=)

    good enough, cheap, right now. pick two.

    Santa says that if you get the 16MP camera with improved dynamic range
    (i.e. 16 bits) you'll immediatly be asking for a $8,000 quad-CPU 64
    bit system with 10krpm disks to be able to crunch those raw images.

    IMO there is a point of image print quality beyond which the consumer
    mass market won't spend *any* money and it becomes a rush to the price
    floor. The fact that I can buy an 8MP camera for a few hundred
    dollars is becasue there is a mass market demand.

    The kind of camera you propose is so far above the requirements that
    Mom and Pop need that it will *always* be expensive, at least for a
    while.

    Maybe you are a pro and tired of schleping your current rig, a
    digi-back 6x7 and a Macintosh laptop costing $20k all up.

    it's all relative.
     
    Al Dykes, Nov 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I'm not sure I'd call it a compact, but the Sony DSC-R1 fits this bill.
    APS sensor, 10 MP, 5x zoom.

    -dms
     
    Daniel Silevitch, Nov 13, 2005
    #3
  4. I hear this bandied around all the time, that digital has 10+ stops of
    image detail. Perhaps it does (I have my doubts), but the extra detail
    is all in the shadow area of the image. Film is not real great at
    recording shadows, digital generally seems to have a quite an edge on it
    in that area. But even with digital, noise increases as you get closer
    to black. I will agree though that usually it is considerably better at
    recording shadow than film is.
    But the more practical difference between film and digital occurs at the
    highlights. It isn't always possible to put the brightest part of your
    image at zone 9, thus avoiding blown highlights completely. To do so
    would quite often result in the subject being lost in the muddy/noisy
    world of shadows. With digital, the bright areas will linearly approach
    bright white, once they get there, everything from then on is pure
    white. No detail is recorded at all, and you are left with an ugly white
    splotch on the image. A blown highlight is far more noticeably than a
    jet black shadow. Film however, has a non-linear response when it starts
    to overexpose, and while ultimately you will lose the detail as a blown
    highlight, you do get more of a graduated entry into the highlight.
    Overall it appears nicer when it does this. Even slide film with it's
    susceptibility to overexposure will handle it better than digital.
    Typical photos that show this up are where items have the bright part of
    the sky behind them, or where an object has sun reflecting off something
    shiny. Night photos will also often have extra bright components that
    blow the highlights. While film will still lose the highlights, it
    manages to do so in a more graceful manner than digital.
     
    Graham Fountain, Nov 13, 2005
    #4
  5. JohnR66

    Bill Funk Guest

    For an APS size sensor, look at the DRebel XT and 20D; then look at
    their lenses. There are certain requirements for such a system that
    require the physical size of those lenses. This would preclude their
    use on a "compact caqmera" with an APS size sensor.
    That Sony's BMG is stupid doesn't alter the facts about cameras.
     
    Bill Funk, Nov 13, 2005
    #5
  6. JohnR66

    Bill Funk Guest

    If you want to compare P&S cameras with SLR-type cameras, OK.
    I can see the difference, and I think you can too.
     
    Bill Funk, Nov 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Most of the film zoom compacts have very slow lenses, in the order of
    F8-F11 at maximum aperture at full zoom. Most of the digital zooms have
    lenses in the order of F2.8-F3.5 at full zoom. This makes a huge
    difference to their usability. To make a fast lens to cover the big
    sensor areas means making big lenses. If you want a small lens, you have
    2 options - a slow lens or a small sensor.
     
    Graham Fountain, Nov 13, 2005
    #7
  8. They will be close together until they hit the peak. But the roll-over
    into blown highlights takes a completely different form. Film does it
    considerably more gracefully. Look at a print with blown highlights from
    either one and the film print looks nicer.
    I agree there, and the difference is greater in shadows - digital
    shadows are quite a bit better than film shadows. But digital's noise
    does become progressively worse the darker the image becomes, precluding
    the option of putting the desired part of the image into the shadows.
    Dark/lost shadows look better on a print than blown highlights do.
    But it isn't always possible to eliminate blown highlights. Some scenes
    don't suit that type of metering at all. For some scenes, metering in
    this fashion will put the scene that you want to record down into the
    noisy shadows and will give a worse image than blowing the highlights
    would have done. Night shots or broad daylight shots are a couple of
    examples of photos with extreme range of lighting variations. Some
    scenes can be metered by lowering exposure, some can't. This sometimes
    happens regardless of if you are using negative, slide, b&w or digital.
    I agree that you have to meter differently for different mediums, but
    sometimes you can't help blown highlights. When this happens film looks
    better than digital.
     
    Graham Fountain, Nov 13, 2005
    #8
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.