Digital cameras

[Nantucket Red]

Brian, those are really nice. The shadow detail is outstanding.

What temple is that?

 

[Brian SD]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

Brian, those are really nice. The shadow detail is outstanding.

What temple is that?

I can't remember the name of it (all Korean names sound the same to me

), it's a Buddhist temple across the street from a business district in Seoul. It's pretty close to Samsung COEX mall, if you've ever been there. Not sure, but it was a really beautiful place, a very different aesthetic from Japanese temples.

 

[Huntsman]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

I'm glad i didn't buy in back them. Thankfully we're at a point where the technology is extremely good and will advance a little more slowly now (so less temptation to constantly upgrade).

I think you're right about the advance rate, at least functionally for most photogs. It's like computers now -- you don't need a seriously trick box to run Word, Photoshop, whatever. Then again, there people who lay up eight-CPU boxes for weeks.

My motto is to get a camera that does what you need and don't worry about it. The E-10 did that for me for a loooong time, and I'm so glad I bought it for all the fun I've had. It's now time to move on and I'm looking for a D200 to use all my better Nikkor glass.

Originally Posted by GQgeek

Not in 3 years. The MP race is slowing down. Nikon just released it's new $5,000 pro-level D3 and it only has 12.1MP, which isn't an increase from the D300.

Nikon could have easily put more photosites on their D3 sensor but they made a wise design decision that they would rather have larger photosites and less noise at higher ISOs. The D3 is the new low light king, ousting Canon from an area they have dominated for a long time.


Bear in mind that Nikon have always been MP conservative on their top-end DSLRs. The D1 had a pathetically low MP count compared to their consumer cameras, as did the D1x when it came out. While I think you are correct generally, I don't think the D3's seemingly low MP count supports it, that's just Nikon's way for whatever reason.

~ Huntsman

 

[MCsommerreid]

Originally Posted by retronotmetro

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "utter crap" lenses and how picky you are about ultimate IQ. I haven't shot 35mm in a long time, but a few years ago my typical travel set included a Pentax 43/1.9 Limited (IMHO, the best prime Pentax ever made) and a FA 24-90 zoom, which although slow was a very sharp prosumer grade lens that I never personally considered to be "utter crap" (many people considered the 24-90 to have near-FA* IQ at a consumer-level build and price. I could pretty readily tell the difference between shots from my 43 and my 24-90 printed at 8x10, and I would not have wanted to print anything off the 24-90 much larger than 8x10 because of softness in the corners.

My lens quality comment was more aimed at medium or large format work. With straight 35mm you would have to watch your glass a bit, but could probably get by with sub $500 lenses, especially if they're more classic lenses (I don't want to say vintage, since that word seems to increase the price of things) in good shape.

Originally Posted by GQGeek

Not in 3 years. The MP race is slowing down. Nikon just released it's new $5,000 pro-level D3 and it only has 12.1MP, which isn't an increase from the D300. The D300 ($1800) added only 2 MP over the D200 and it is 2 years newer. Olympus just released it's pro-level dSLR with 10MP. Canon's new D40 ($1400) is 10MP which isn't much of an increase from their last camera. Their pro-level $5k EOS-1D Mark III is 10MP. Only when you cough-up $8k do you get an increase to 21MP in the form of the 1Ds Mark III.

True, but that is literal MP increases. Perhaps they'll instead increase the power of the sensors in such a way that you get "virtual megapixels" like with traditional film.

That's the current limitation of digital. The few magazines that do large high DPI pictures and accept digital require 20MP or more.

 

[Brian SD]

True, but that is literal MP increases. Perhaps they'll instead increase the power of the sensors in such a way that you get "virtual megapixels" like with traditional film.

This has been going on for awhile now. They increase MP numbers to sell cameras to those who demand the latest and greatest, the real development comes in with new features, better builds and better sensors.

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by Brian SD

I can't remember the name of it (all Korean names sound the same to me

), it's a Buddhist temple across the street from a business district in Seoul. It's pretty close to Samsung COEX mall, if you've ever been there. Not sure, but it was a really beautiful place, a very different aesthetic from Japanese temples.

It looks very similar to a Chinese temple, which is not surprising given China's former dominance in Korea.

 

[von Rothbart]

One feature you'll find in future cameras is built-in GPS device which will stamp coordinates of each photo taken. I don't find that useful in urban settings but it'll cool if you're in some wilderness or on hiking trails to remind you the exact location the photo was taken. I don't know if the manufacturers will go one step further and make the cameras doubling as a navigation system.

 

[GQgeek]

Originally Posted by von Rothbart

One feature you'll find in future cameras is built-in GPS device which will stamp coordinates of each photo taken. I don't find that useful in urban settings but it'll cool if you're in some wilderness or on hiking trails to remind you the exact location the photo was taken. I don't know if the manufacturers will go one step further and make the cameras doubling as a navigation system.

I'm sure you know this but you can attach GPS devices to most dSLR cameras now, it's just nto a built-in feature. Honestly, I'm not sure it ever will be because it's a feature everyone would have to pay for that most people wouldn't use. It also adds weight to already heavy pieces of equipment. I think it's useful to a very small segment of pro photographers, but other than that...

 

[easy2earn]

Anyone familiar with this one? Bought is as a blind purchase, based on some comments on dpreview.

Kinda like a poor man's leica M8... I like it

 

[von Rothbart]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

I'm sure you know this but you can attach GPS devices to most dSLR cameras now, it's just nto a built-in feature. Honestly, I'm not sure it ever will be because it's a feature everyone would have to pay for that most people wouldn't use. It also adds weight to already heavy pieces of equipment. I think it's useful to a very small segment of pro photographers, but other than that...

I don't think it'll cost that much to add a GPS circuit, no more than $10, may be $5 and the price will come down quick; and the weight will be negligible, may be just a small chip or two. Witnessing many lightweight cell phones with GPS capability.

 

[johnapril]

Originally Posted by GQgeek

I'm sure you know this but you can attach GPS devices to most dSLR cameras now, it's just nto a built-in feature. Honestly, I'm not sure it ever will be because it's a feature everyone would have to pay for that most people wouldn't use. It also adds weight to already heavy pieces of equipment. I think it's useful to a very small segment of pro photographers, but other than that...

I see artistic value in that feature.

 

[mussel]

Originally Posted by MCsommerreid

But that's a temporary issue, I believe. With the way camera technology is progressing it wouldn't surprise me if we had 30MP cameras in 3 years priced at what 10mp cameras are now. I remember when 5MP ran something like $1000, now it can be found in quality at $400.

Seems rignt on target, Sony unveiled 24.8 MP sensor, with models available by the end of the year, that's the same resolution for 35mm SLR. It'll probably take 3 years to work its way to sub-$1000 DSLR.