Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Toys Graphics Software Technology

Canon's new 16.7MP Digital SLR, with WiFi 546

Posted by michael
from the whoa dept.
LoudMusic writes "Canon has recently announced the EOS 1Ds Mark II, successor to their previous excellent professional cameras. What makes this one so cool is that it can network. The early review over at dpreview.com says there is an optional part that gives it both 802.11a/g and wired networking capabilities. I can see photographers shooting sporting events with a 12" Powerbook in a backpack receiving images to its 80GB drive and automatically uploading them to SI. And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film. I wonder if it plays mp3s too ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canon's new 16.7MP Digital SLR, with WiFi

Comments Filter:
  • Live Pr0n (Score:5, Funny)

    by porkUpine (623110) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:35PM (#10376699)
    *Sigh* I can see it now... live, high resolution Pr0n. No, seriously... can I see it now???? *grin*
    • Re:Live Pr0n (Score:3, Interesting)

      by British (51765)
      Serious reply.

      It's great that we have digital cameras making leaps and bounds on resolutions, but the monitors on our desktop are not making such high leaps. I mean, a 16 megapixel image is nice and everything, but not so much useful unless you have a 16.7 megapixel monitor to enjoy it on.

      It will be fun to see the next generation of digital imagery with 500+ dpi displays. maybe someday.
      • Re:Live Pr0n (Score:5, Insightful)

        by valkraider (611225) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:47PM (#10376859) Journal
        It may not be useful on the monitor, but when blown up to a 10 foot wall poster - the high megapixel count is very important... ;)
      • samples (Score:5, Insightful)

        by macshune (628296) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:49PM (#10376896) Journal
        Here are some of the full-size samples available on the site:

        Sample 1 [dpreview.com]
        Sample 2 [dpreview.com]

        The rest of samples can be found here [dpreview.com]. I don't want to slashdot poor dpreview. I'm sure as progress marches on, their bandwidth prices skyrocket.
      • Re:Live Pr0n (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zoombat (513570) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:47PM (#10377513)
        I mean, a 16 megapixel image is nice and everything, but not so much useful unless you have a 16.7 megapixel monitor to enjoy it on.

        Other folks have mentioned the value of high-resolution images when doing large format printing. The other significant benefit is in cropping. If you take a high-res photo, you can crop and zoom in without noticing a drop in image quality.
        • Re:Live Pr0n (Score:4, Informative)

          by Chris Carollo (251937) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @05:46PM (#10378155)
          The other significant benefit is in cropping. If you take a high-res photo, you can crop and zoom in without noticing a drop in image quality.
          The optics of the camera also play a large part in how much you can crop an image and still have it look good. Even the difference in lenses between my Canon Powershot 2 and my wife's Cannon S400 is significant enough to be pretty noticable when cropping photos.

          Presumaly they paired this high a megapixel CMOS with some nice optics, so you're probably right in this case. But it's not always true that higher megapixel indicates better cropping ability.
    • Speaking of Pr0n.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MtViewGuy (197597)
      ....It will be extremely unlikely that Playboy magazine will do a centerfold shoot with a digital camera, even with the latest Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II.

      Playboy has a tradition of using view cameras with photographic plates to do such shots, and given the extremely high resolution of photographic plates used on view cameras, such a camera is necessary for pictures that are sometimes is printed at the equivalent size of four pages at the page size Playboy uses!
  • by stecoop (759508) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:35PM (#10376700) Journal
    I would like to say that only the next thing we need is a motion picture camera to capture full 35mm frames... Then I thought of the next level of using IMAX [earthlink.net] frames and realized that upgrading will never end.
    • I would like to say that only the next thing we need is a motion picture camera to capture full 35mm frames... Then I thought of the next level of using IMAX frames and realized that upgrading will never end.

      I've wondered when the MP increase will stop. When is there enough data? Lets say we hit 50MP in the next couple years - one would think that that might be enough data to replicate a picture into any printed size. So then what? How do we make cameras better?

      I guess it's the same with the home PC. 600
  • Me too! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sup4hleet (444456) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:35PM (#10376703) Homepage
    I can see me taking a laptop to a game and downloading their pictures too!

    While I'm kidding, I'm sure it's just a matter of time...
  • Full size sensor (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:35PM (#10376708)
    This is not the first digital camera with a full 35 mm size sensor. Canon 1Ds already had that at the previous Photokina two years ago.
    • Re:Full size sensor (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FooGoo (98336)
      The Kodak SLR/n and SLR/c also has a full 35mm frame at half the price of the Canon. The Kodak is 13.8MP but no WIFI. I have been using the SLR/n since March and it is a great cam. I do yearn for WIFI support though. But, I am not willing to drop another $4k just to be able to use WIFI.
      Look here for pics I shot with the Kodak SLR/n:
      http://www.onemodelplace.com/djs3
    • by jdunlevy (187745)

      Initial post [slashdot.org]: "And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film."

      At first I read that significant "and" as signifying:
      16.7MP + full-size sensor = effective reproduction of 35mm film.

      From dpreview.com [dpreview.com]: "For the first time, medium format image quality combines with access to the world's most extensive range of professional lenses, spanning from 14mm to 1200mm."

      Looks like they're saying:
      16.7MP + full (35mm)-size sensor = effective reproductio

      • Original 1Ds review (Score:5, Informative)

        by sxltrex (198448) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @05:31PM (#10377998)
        Here's a review [luminous-landscape.com] of the original 1Ds from luminous-landscape. To sum it up (it's rather lengthy), the author favorably compares the 1Ds to medium format film.
    • Re:Full size sensor (Score:5, Informative)

      by rgmoore (133276) * <glandauer@charter.net> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:32PM (#10377364) Homepage

      If you read the article closely, you'll see that it doesn't say that this is the first one with a full 35mm sensor; it's the first one that can "effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film". Of course that isn't necessarily true, either. There's considerable argument about film vs. digital quality. The 1-Ds Mark II still may not be able to match the resolution of the best film, but DSLR's absolutely crush film for signal to noise. Depending on which of those matters more to you, digital may have surpassed film some time ago, or it may not have done so yet. Of course that assumes that you're restricting yourself to 35mm format digital cameras. There have been digital backs for medium and even large format cameras that have resolution far surpassing 35mm film for a fair while.

      • by rebelcool (247749) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @05:18PM (#10377831)
        It is difficult to compare the resolution of film to digital because film "resolution" varies greatly.

        If we consider "resolution" to be the maximum size one can blow up an image before noticable grain (in the case of film) or pixelation (in the case of digital), low-ISO film still "wins". I still don't think this a fair comparison though because pixels are not grains.

        Digital cameras, regardless of ISO used, output the same resolution across all speeds. Film on the other hand, changes. At higher ISO's, the grain becomes visible at much smaller print sizes.

        There are some specialty films out there that can easily create a many meter sized print without noticible grain.

        But, in the end, for general purpose film, even a 6 mp digital SLR camera will give you better performance. Especially at higher ISO's, if you shoot in RAW. The real catch so far has been competing with the likes of velvia...

      • Re:Full size sensor (Score:3, Interesting)

        by macmurph (622189)
        Optics detract from resolution. A great lens can make a huge difference.

        I once read in a book on sensors that Fuji Velvia slide film has a theoretical resolution of over 19 megapixels.

        The problem is finding a lens that can resolve that much detail... so in practice (especially when shooting hand held) you might expect to get more like 10 megapixels out of a Velvia slide. Then if you want to digitize it, you have to scan it....through yet another optical system, onto a sensor, sacrificing more quality.

        If
  • oh great! (Score:5, Funny)

    by museumpeace (735109) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:36PM (#10376717) Journal
    people snarfing my dirty pictures before I can even get home with the camera!

    I posted first but /. put on the brakes!
  • moblogging tool? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Spydr (90990) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:37PM (#10376726) Homepage
    would be really nice if you could configure it easily on the fly to sniff out open wireless networks and upload your pics as you are taking them.

    i could see someone walking around a city taking shots and as they walk around the camera is uploading those shots to a website and resizing and posting them to their photoblog. hot.
    • by temojen (678985) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:45PM (#10376836) Journal
      I can see a reporter in a repressive country using it to get the stories out before the police take away their camera.
      • you mean something like the recent FTAA (Free Trade) conference in Miami? or all those illegally detained at the Republican convention in nyc.

        Uploading the photos before police shoot bean bag bullets above your eye would be nice. Did anybody see that horrible video? Carl Kesser's story, or GIS his name. [saveourciv...erties.org]

  • by gumbo (88087) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:37PM (#10376729) Homepage
    And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film.

    Don't most of the pro-level DSLRs already have 35mm sensors? Maybe they're trying to say it's the resolution that gets it to 35mm film, but it sounds like they're implying it's the sensor size...

    • Nope. Even the high end DSRLs still have a small crop factor. I think the 1ds has a 1.3 crop factor, small, but still there.
    • And I'd be surprised to see a 35mm CCD with better resolution than Fuji Reala.
    • Nope, they are specifically referring to the size of the sensor. Almost all digital cameras besides this one and the previous 1Ds have smaller CMOS sensors. This means there's a multiplier that must be applied when computing f-stops. To compensate, Canon and Nikon have introduced new lenses that take this into account and are easier to work with. Ideally though, it would be nice if they all just had 35mm sensors.

    • The image sensor size is not 35mm except for the high end pro DSLRs. Lesser pro DSLRs have an image sensor size closer to the smaller APS format. This affects the viewing angle of your lenses. A smaller sensor size will give you a narrower viewing angle. This has resulted in the "lens multiplier" which tends to vary between 1.3 and 1.5 on most DSLRs. (take the length of your lens, 50mm, and muliply it by 1.5, 75 mm effective.) Typically, a larger sensor is better than a smaller one, resolution kept the same
    • by Wandering Idiot (563842) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:00PM (#10377007)
      Yes, it was badly worded. As others have mentioned, the original 1Ds was full-frame as well. The big thing about this one is the 16.7 MP resolution, which if I'm not mistaken beats medium format cameras for some applications (i.e. especially for low-light photography, and if you're not making a very large print).

      Good comparison between medium format and the old 1Ds here [luminous-landscape.com].

  • Hrrr (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mobby_6kl (668092)
    with a 12" Powerbook

    Or any laptop with a 802.11 card.
  • Usually when something new comes to gadgets, you almost know it was going to happen long before it does, but this time, I was actually suprised and intrigued. This is something I never thought could use wireless networking, but now that it's been done, it seems like something that should have been done long ago.
  • Nikon (Score:5, Informative)

    by Shenkerian (577120) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:37PM (#10376737)

    To be fair, Canon (for once) took a technological idea from Nikon. The D2H [dpreview.com] had wireless FTP support back in July 2003.

    Also there have been 35mm sensors before, including Canon's own 1Ds [dpreview.com].

    • Re:Nikon (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yeah, wireless isn't first, but this one supports more standards than just FTP and it also has automation. As soon as the photographter takes a shot, the photo is instantaneously transfered with encryption over the network. This makes for a good argument to choose digital over film in business - imagine the amount of time that's saved when getting the photos ready for clients by choosing digital over film. On the other hand, I don't see this technology as being too useful for personal use.
    • by deathcow (455995) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @05:04PM (#10377654)
      I started with the Canon D30 (3 megapixel) DSLR 3 years ago and have upgraded to the D60 (6 megapixel) and the 10D body (also 6 megapixel.) I also shot thousands of frames of slide film previously and scanned them at 21.42 megapixels per picture. I've printed hundreds of prints at home, up to 12"x18" in size.

      For 98% of the slashdot crowd, I'll assure you that 6 megapixels is enough.

      Ask yourself, what is your goal? For probably half the people, it's a shot that looks decent on your monitor or in email. Well, even 2 megapixels will do that in style.

      For the other half of the users, they want to be able to make prints. This is where resolution comes in, the more, the better. With the 3 megapixel cameras, I was able to do nice 8"x10" prints. Anything bigger and it for sure suffered when compared with a print from the 21 megapixel slide scans.

      Since 6 megapixels came out, my 8x10 prints don't comparatively suffer next to slide scans printed at the same size. They both look killer.

      Now, I like to make prints on Super-A3 sized paper ( at 12" x 18" ) and at that size, I can still easily see the advantage that 21 megapixel slide scans have over the 6 megapixel DSLR shots. But, the big prints are beautiful in either case and I still make them all the time and never feel too cheated resolution wise.

      With this 16 megapixel camera, the results would be superb next to the big slide scans. There would be no problem printing at 12"x18" or larger. I would be seriously wanting one of the larger format Epson's that do 20" wide prints or even the 3 and 4 foot wide printers. This camera has the resolution.

      So whats your goal? This is kind of a swag but:

      computer screen/TV pictures: 2 megapixels
      8"x10" prints: 3 megapixels and up
      12"x18" prints: 6 megapixels and up
      bigger prints: the more pixels the better

      • by Shenkerian (577120) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @05:38PM (#10378074)

        I agree with you and have made similar explanations for camera-shopping friends, but I've started being swayed by the cropping crowd.

        Basically yes, nearly all hobbyist photographers will print 8x10 or smaller, and 3 or more megapixels will give you a great 8x10. But what if you want to blow up just a quadrant of your frame to that size? Then you want enough sensor resolution to give you at least 3 megapixels in that quadrant.

        With consumer lenses, optical resolution will start to lag sensor resolution, but pro SLR glass will almost certainly beat sensor resolutions up to 20 or 30 megapixels. Being able to print sharp 8x10's of a sixth of your entire image is kind of appealing.

        Of course if you're a former slide photographer and believe that what you frame and shoot is the photo, then cropping is distasteful to you. But the option is there.

      • by mrm677 (456727) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @06:42PM (#10378645)
        computer screen/TV pictures: 2 megapixels
        8"x10" prints: 3 megapixels and up
        12"x18" prints: 6 megapixels and up
        bigger prints: the more pixels the better

        You have low standards. To make quality 11x14 prints and bigger, I use 4x5" large format film. Although 6x7cm medium-format film would work just as well up to 16x20". In my opinion, a 6 megapixel camera does not make a good 11x14" print...especially some B&W fine art prints.

        Of course it is all subjective.

        • Hey, I wont argue with you. Individual tastes vary, and lots of photographs which undoubtably are "fine art" are anything but high resolution.

          And don't misinterpret my standards to be "low". I love high resolution. I love the look of my 21MP slide scans printed corner to corner on 12x18 paper. Like I said, I can see that my 6 megapixel can't keep up with the resolution. But I'll show those prints to 9 out of 10 people and they'll be more than happy with the resolution.

          And, if I could, I'd make 11x14 print
  • by eseiat (650560) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:38PM (#10376741) Homepage
    The joy of shooting a billboard-sized picture of Britney's latest pimple or a near nip-slip of Jessica and then jog over to a Starbucks and distribute it to the masses all while getting a mocha frap must be heaven. Why did I ever bother with a college degree when so much fun could have been had!
  • Minor Issue... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lpangelrob2 (721920) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:38PM (#10376747) Journal
    I can see photographers shooting sporting events with a 12" Powerbook in a backpack receiving images to its 80GB drive and automatically uploading them to SI.

    I can't... I'm pretty sure all PowerBooks go to sleep when you shut the computer lid. Assuming you shut it correctly, of course. You can 'trick' the computer into thinking the lid is open when it's really not, but I don't recommend it, because you don't really know what the computer's going to do when it comes to going back to sleep or staying awake. :-) I've tried.

    Nonetheless, being able to set up a 'base station' of sorts with a computer receiving pictures off the network is pretty neat. About damn time, too... I'll be waiting for the $250 version.

    • I'm pretty sure all PowerBooks go to sleep when you shut the computer lid.

      If you have a kybd attached to it, if you type with the lid closed, it wakes up...

      This is done in lieu of a docking station.

      Still, I'd be interested to see if someone hacks a snooper that will sniff photos out of the air and display them...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:39PM (#10376754)
    And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film.

    The Canon 1Ds (11 megapixel) has a full frame sensor (in other words, does not have the 1.6:1 cropping of the 300D, 10D, and now 20D).

    The original Mark II was 8 megapixels and its biggest advantage was its ability to rapid fire shots - like 8 or 9fps, out to 20 frames... something like that.

    The 1Ds was the king of image quality. Now it seems like Canon is offering the best of both worlds. If you have 8 or 10 grand or whatever they are pricing it at :)
    • The 1D Mark II is 8 mega-pixels and can shoot at 8fps with a frame depth of 40 frames with a focal length multiplier of 1.3 - read more in the dpreview.com review [dpreview.com] - the "first-generation" 1D was also 1.3x multiplier, and as others have pointed out, the 1Ds was 1.0 - i.e. "full-size" just like the 1Ds Mark II ... so nothing new there.

      The submitter is a bit mistaken that the 1Ds Mark II will be used by "photographers shooting sporting events" as the 1D Mark II (with the higher frame rate and focal length mu

  • Price... (Score:3, Informative)

    by mtrupe (156137) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:40PM (#10376771) Homepage Journal
    And it can be yours for the low, low price of $8,000! Ok, I guess its a decent price, considering that about 4 years ago a 6 mp DSLR cost upward of $20,000. Megpixels aren't everything, and Canon has really been at the forefront of other developments- like the full frame sensor. The best lowly people like me can hope for is that the advancement of both high end and mid range DSLRs continues to drive the prices down. I suspect in the next year or so we will finally see some (entry level) DSLRs at less than $500. I hope so anyway.
    http://www.rupertphotography.com
  • Not the first... (Score:5, Informative)

    by RedBear (207369) <redbear@@@redbearnet...com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:41PM (#10376778) Homepage
    We might mention that Nikon beat Canon to the punch with a wireless adapter for the D2H back in July. [dpreview.com] Still a cool development from Canon, but give credit where credit is due, I allus say.
  • Not the first (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ptomblin (1378) <ptomblin@xcski.com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:41PM (#10376786) Homepage Journal
    Maybe if you looked past the marketing hype, Kodak has had a 14 megapixel professional camera with a full 35mm CCD for a couple of years now. I used it to take pictures at AirVenture 2003 [xcski.com]. (Unfortunately I got the CCD dirty before I took it out there, and didn't notice until it was too late.)
    • Re:Not the first (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mattkime (8466)
      yes, that is true.

      unfortunately the MP count on that camera was offset by the ridiculous amount of noise it produced. its basically been ignored in the photo community.still, i'd wait to see pics from this thing to make sure it doesn't have the same problem
  • Cough (Score:4, Informative)

    by rawgod0122 (574065) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:42PM (#10376797)
    This is a great camera! I want one, but one thing wrong with the story submission. This is not recent news, many people have gone over this before, but a 6MP sensor is enough to get you better then 35mm film.

    The 16.7MP of this camera is getting very close to medium format (if not already there).

    Again awesome camera!

    see
    not file [luminous-landscape.com]
    like-it-is [luminous-landscape.com]
    shootout [luminous-landscape.com]
    This guy is one of the best. If you don't believe me check out dpreview or google
    • Re:Cough (Score:4, Informative)

      by akuzi (583164) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:59PM (#10377000)
      > The 16.7MP of this camera is getting very close to
      > medium format (if not already there).

      Not really, i'd say it's getting close to 35mm though.

      Even a consumer grade 4000 DPI scanner gives you a 21MP image from 35mm film, and drum scanners can go higher than 8000DPI and still get detail.

      Medium format film - even say 4x5" film scanned at a modest 3300 dpi gives you over a 200MP image with plenty of detail to spare.

      In the end though the amount of detail you can get is limited not just by the sensors but also by the amount of light coming in the lense, and a 35mm equivalent digital camera is only receiving roughly a 1/4 the amount of light of a medium format camera.
      • Re:Cough (Score:3, Insightful)

        Yeah, but you'd better use a damn good prime lens if you want to scan the film at 4kDPI. Otherwise it's a waste - you're limited by the lens, not by the storing medium.
  • by garcia (6573) * on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:42PM (#10376803) Homepage
    I went to the aqaurium in KY right across the river from Cincinnati. They were taking pictures with digital cameras that had wireless cards. They were free roaming... The pictures could be picked up at the end of the day when you were ready to leave.

    It was definitly pretty neat.

    If all cameras had this (or any sort of net connection, even via GPRS) it would be great to use a script like galleryadd to pump the photos into your Gallery from the road. I do it via procmail, shell scripts, and galleryadd now with my hiptop's camera (although I suppose you could do it with any camera that allows photos with email attachments).
  • by SilentChris (452960) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:43PM (#10376805) Homepage
    "I can see photographers shooting sporting events with a 12" Powerbook in a backpack receiving images to its 80GB drive and automatically uploading them to SI."

    Really? I can see uploading straight from the camera to SI. The computer is an intermediary today because it's a necessity. When every device has is on the internet, the intermediary function of computers will disolve.
  • Film Quality? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Colgate2003 (735182) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:43PM (#10376809) Homepage
    "And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film."

    It had been generally accepted that this camera's predecessor, the 1Ds, was close to the quality of medium-format film. We've been beyond the quality of 35mm film for quite some time now...
    • Re:Film Quality? (Score:5, Informative)

      by valkraider (611225) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:52PM (#10376945) Journal
      Having a 35mm CMOS has nothing to do with the image quality. It has to do with the "mental math" that the photographer has to do when he uses lenses. On most Digital SLR cameras, there is a conversion multiplier because the sensor is not the same size as a 35mm film frame. That conversion is unnecessary if the sensor is the same size as the 35mm frame. But then we all know that slashdot editors take exhaustive measures to research their stories before posting...

      What bugs me is that 35mm is considered 1, and all other sizes have to be converted. Maybe we need a better standard that could accomidate different sensor / film sizes while using standard nomenclature for lenses. I doubt it is even possible, but some genius somewhere could do it I bet... :)
  • by RobertB-DC (622190) * on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:44PM (#10376834) Homepage Journal
    I'm not a professional photographer, so I'm sure they have their reasons for needing an $8,000 digital camera [google.com]. For someone who doesn't make a living taking pictures, though, is there any way to justify a camera that costs more than a used Toyota [google.com]?
  • Engadget Article (Score:3, Informative)

    by Omega1045 (584264) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:45PM (#10376838)
    Engadget covered this camera a few days ago:

    Link [engadget.com]

  • by w1r3sp33d (593084) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:45PM (#10376839)
    Holy crap! Like I am not already working like an insane monkey trying to add hard disks to our server fast enough keeping up with my shutterbug wife and her D100 then somebody needs to make a 16 megapixel camera, damn them! At least T bytes are cheap...

    But it doesn't look like they have embraced Adobe's new DNG format yet, wonder who is going to be first with that one? http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/main.html [adobe.com]

  • by UVaRob (243769) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:49PM (#10376890)
    I don't think so!
    http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=Mo delTechSpecsAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=10 598 [canon.com]
    From here.

    4992 x 3328 pixels over a (36 x 24 mm) 1.4 x .94 inch CMOS array essentially tells you they have a cmos with a 7micron pixel pitch. This is hardly revolutionary. Assuming the optics are similar in quality to a comparable film camera, to have the same image quality that would be equivalent to saying that ordinary film has 7 micron light sensitive (silver?) particles. This is ridiculous!

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/film3.htm [howstuffworks.com]
    here says that "The imaging layers contain sub-micron sized grains of silver-halide crystals that act as the photon detectors". That's submicron.

    So it's a nice camera. That doesn't mean it's a fantastic sensor - it still suffers from the same attributes that other CMOS/CCD sensors do. They've got phenomenal ADC's but the sensors just can't be packed as tightly as silver can be.

    http://www.home.earthlink.net/~fyiglover/articles/ resolution.html [earthlink.net]
    says that "All three silver microfilm manufacturers (Agfa, Fuji & Kodak) certify their medium speed microfilms to have the ability to achieve 800 lines/mm of resolution."

    • by ChrisMaple (607946) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:18PM (#10377206)
      There are some important issues you are glossing over here.

      First, even very expensive, excellent quality lenses for 35 mm cameras do not have resolutions better than 100 lp/mm (5 micron spot) and system resolution is roughly the root-mean-sum-of-squares of the limiting factors.

      Second, the "medium speed microfilms" you cite are specialty films for black-and-white duplicating. The medium speed color negative films that most people are going to be using have MTFs that fall below fifty percent before they reach 60 lp/mm (8 micron spot size).

      Third, unless shooting is done at very high shutter speeds or a massive tripod is used or a strobe flash freezes motion, motion blur will dominate the loss-of-resolution mechanisms at this quality level.

      For practical purposes of general high quality amateur and similar use, this new Canon product meets the resolution of 35 mm film products and doesn't suffer from the randomness of film.

  • Sample Images... (Score:4, Informative)

    by gosand (234100) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:52PM (#10376942)
    Gizmodo [gizmodo.com] ran this story last week. Check out the sample images [canon.co.jp]from the Japanese site [canon.co.jp] Yikes. 16.7 megapixels is a lot! It has some other cool features too, like "The accelerated image processing of DIGIC II combines with high-speed data reading from the imaging sensor to achieve fast continuous shooting at approx. 4 frames per second for maximum bursts of 32 shots in JPEG Large (11 shots in RAW)."
  • 35mm Quality? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by verloren (523497) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @03:53PM (#10376950)
    As sites such as Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dq.sh tml) point out, we're already there on image quality. Digital and film have different characteristics that make a direct comparison difficult (there isn't really one measure of image quality), subjectively a good 6-8MP DSLR is about the same, and certainly something like a Canon EOS-1Ds is at least as good.

    What is less common is having a 35mm-sized sensor, but even that is already available (in fact you can get digital backs for medium format cameras, if you have enough money).
  • by Kalewa (561267) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:06PM (#10377061)
    I can see photographers shooting sporting events with a 12" Powerbook in a backpack receiving images to its 80GB drive

    Except Powerbooks don't work when they're closed. Think Toughbook.

  • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:06PM (#10377071) Journal
    This has the potential to have a major impact on politics and law enforcement. It combines two pieces, and puts a tool once reserved to the establishment media in the hands of the general population.

    Two pieces of background:

    Item 1: The microwave-linked minicam (where the picture was on people's screens before the billyclub finished smashing the lens) made a MAJOR change in news reporting. No longer could a corrupt administration use its police or troops to block coverage of an event by siezing or destroying the camera that had recorded it.

    (This first hit - big time - during the protests->police riot->general rioting associated with the Democratic Convention of 1968. The live images of the police brutalizing the protesters and reporters couldn't be blocked by camera-smashing. This turned the general population in mass from a "silent majority" going along with the war to a radicalized population appalled by the government's treatment of the anti-war protesters. It had a major effect on the presidential election and the ending of the Vietnam (un)War.)

    Item 2: The amateur videocam footage of the Rodney King beating - taken from nearby - created a simlar outrage against the police involved. (And led to laws against photographing "public officials in the performance of their duty" to try to head off further such incidents. B-( ) But personal videocams and still cameras still suffer from the pre-minicam issue: Destroying or confiscating the camera prevents the distribution of the image. So while such photography has some potential to expose official misconduct, it is still limited.

    A personal camera with a WiFi link can dump the image up a hotspot and across the net or to a nearby (and not easily discoverable) digital recording device. Now the image can no longer be suppressed.

    Imagine a hundred thousand people armed with such cameras, feeding images to, say, The Drudge Report, Power Line, Little Green Footballs, Free Republic, Move On dot Org, politics.slashdot.org, and the rest of the political blogosphere.

    In the next crisis this could be a significant step in the rise of the net as a news source and its replacement of the establishment media.

  • Canon's WFT-E1 Wireless Transmitter reportedly also works on Canon's three newest digital cameras, including the 1DsmkII (as mentioned), as well as the 20D [canon.com] ($1500, 8mp, 1.6x crop factor, high end consumer level) and 1DmkII [canon.com] ($4500, 8mp, 1.3x crop factor, pro body).

    Rob Galbraith has a much more information here [robgalbraith.com], as Canon's site appears to still need an update.

    For the non-pro enthusiast, the 20D looks to be a great camera. It can handle 5 frames per second, instant on, and has ISO 3200 performance that beats most ISO 400 digicams. They are finally trickling into the market, and Calumet [calumetphoto.com] likely has a few in stock (they have several kits locally here in Boston). Just give them a call.
  • Missing Feature (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bhima (46039) <Bhima,Pandava&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:25PM (#10377286) Journal
    the one feature that I was expecting and did not see (and saw on the Nikon offering) was automatic GPS meta-tagging. I do I lot of hiking and it's the primary reason I take pictures. I seldom pay attention to exactly where I am, it's more like the next stop for beer & food is (n) hours that way (shame the USians don't have that sort of thing), car is that way, &tc. I own a GPS but seldom use it over paper maps & trail markings. So with GPS met-tagging I could figure out where I took the picture of this unbelievable... water fall (close to Bruck a.d. Mur I think)
  • by abe ferlman (205607) <bgtrio.yahoo@com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:28PM (#10377328) Homepage Journal
    That's really impressive. I have one question though- how many megapixels is real life? 20? 30? If it's 20 and someone builds a 40 megapixel camera, will we call it a 2x-reality zoom camera? Will it expose the spirit world?

    Just wondering.

    • We perceive real life much differently than a camera. Our eyes have 7 million color receptors, almost all of which are within about 3 degrees of the center of the eye. As we look, our eye constantly moves to create the appearence of sharp vision everywhere. Indeed, you'll find that it's instinctually almost impossible to focus on an object without looking directly at it. Anyway, it would take about 70 to 100 megapixels to make an image whose pixels were smaller than you could resolve if the image were to co
  • by caluml (551744) <slashdot&spamgoeshere,calum,org> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @04:31PM (#10377358) Homepage
    It will be priced £5,999 (UK), $7,999 (US) and 8,000 (Europe).

    Gaaad. With a GBP/USD exchange rate of almost 2:1, it should be about £3,999. We get stiffed. Again. I bought an EOS300D, and I was thinking about going over the US to get it. If it wasn't for the warranty issues, I would have. And that was only to save £200, (when the flight costs were taken out).

  • by El Cabri (13930) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @05:18PM (#10377832) Journal
    Actually the 1Ds line, as opposed to co-existing 1D line (both are now at their Mark II), is the one that privileges pixel count over shooting frame rate. The "s" stands for "studio". A pro would make a very uninformed choice to bring a 1Ds MkII rather than a 1D MkII at a sporting event. And pros are the only one who in their right mind would pay into the 1D line.
  • by cloudance (139340) <david@NospAM.cloudance.com> on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @05:43PM (#10378132) Homepage
    And with its full 35mm CMOS it is the first camera to effectively reproduce the image quality of 35mm film

    Wrong, wrong, wrong....

    First, this isn't the first camera to have a full-frame sensor, as others have pointed out.

    But let's look at resolution, which is far more important and what people are talking about. And lets convert so we can compare oranges to oranges.

    Let's limit our discussion to color negative film... Color Transparency, Black and White, and high resolution (Technical Pan or Gigabit) films are even higher resolution and will cloud the issue.
    Film resolution is measured in Line Pairs per Millimeter (lp/mm)... and most consumer color film resolves from 40-65 lp/mm. Doing the math, this equals 1000-1625 lp/inch. To resolve a line pair, you must have 2 lines with a space between them, and to resolve 1 line pair from another, you need to discern a space between the line pairs.... so you need 4 points to resolve a line pair, the equivelent of 4 pixels giving us an effictive film resolution of 4000-6500 pixels per inch.

    Continuing the process, a 35mm film frame is approximately 1x1.5 inches, so the effective resolution of normal color film in digital terms is on average 24 to 64 megapixels. Let's take just below the middle and say that Film has an effective resolution of 40 megapixels.

    Let's now look at color depth.... The camera actually resolves 8 bits per pixel, and interpolates up to 12 bits from there. Actual depth is only 8 bits or 256 colors. Each grain of film however can register a 1000/1 contrast range, across it's spectrum of sensitivity. If you just consider the single grain you get a 1000 color depth. Since multiple grains are involved in one of the effictive pixels, the reality is closer to 3000 colors per pixel.

    References to data avilable upon request.
    I'm not a film snob..... but we're still years away from digital resolution approaching the resolution and color depth of film.
    • by egomaniac (105476) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @06:00PM (#10378293) Homepage
      Lord, not this crap again.

      Your entire argument hinges on lpm measurements. These measurements are, of course, taken on high-contrast black and white targets -- typically 1000:1 contrast ratios.

      Now, it is true that when you are taking pictures of closely spaced 1000:1 contrast black and white lines, film still kicks the crap out of digital. But suppose, just suppose, that the average photographer will NEVER IN HIS ENTIRE LIFE take such a picture. The performance in such circumstances might then be pretty meaningless, huh?

      The simple fact is that film's resolution is highly contrast dependent. It shows extremely high resolution while dealing with extreme-contrast targets, but performs much worse in real-world conditions. Digital sensor resolution, on the other hand, is largely insensitive to contrast. For real-world scenes and not 1000:1 test targets, a 16MP sensor absolutely annihilates 35mm film in terms of overall image quality.
    • by Siegecube (774438) on Tuesday September 28, 2004 @06:06PM (#10378350) Homepage
      Wrong. So wrong. Nice imposing numbers and stats, though.

      In the real world, on print, where it matters to 99.9% of all users, high-end digital capture equals or exceeds film capture. My images run full-bleed across large-format layouts in W Magazine, Vogue, and you can't see the difference between the shots I used to take on my RZ67 and the ones I now take on my 1Ds. That's all that matters. You will never meet an editor who asks you what kind of line-pair resolution you can provide.

      Could I get a theoretically sharper result with large format and film? Who cares? I've got a job to do, and digital does it better than film did. It's only about where the rubber meets the road.

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas

Working...