[NBLUG/talk] Digital cameras

[Christopher Wagner]

S. Saunders wrote:
> On Fri, January 20, 2006 09:22, Eric Eisenhart wrote:
> 
> 
>>And, of course, Canon and Nikon are the two companies you
>>really want to go with if you want a Digital SLR.
> 
> 
> Errrr... why?
> 
> Maybe Canon & Nikon's top-of-the-line are REALLY the best ones on the
> market (tho IMHO that's open to debate), but comparing their mid-range and
> entry level models... are (e.g.) Nikon's D50 and the D70 really any better
> (either in absolute terms, "better cameras," or relative terms, "better
> values") than, say, the Olympus Evolt series (specially the 500, which you
> can get in a 2-lens kit for sub-$1K) or the KonicaMinolta's 5D or 7D, with
> antishake in the body (and thus reliably 2-3 stops faster than competitors
> without antishake (and those with all antishake in-lens = re-buying
> antishake with every lens))?
> 
> I mean, this is a linux list, so relative merit of cameras is veering OT a
> bit... but I'd really like to know if you can cite any reason for
> low-to-mid dSLR buyers to only consider Canon & Nikon...  And, of course,
> RAW files and other Linux interoperability issues are on-topic, so...  ;-)
> 
> 
> 
>>If you're interested in photography where RAW format actually makes
>>sense (high-quality images that you can adjust the whitebalance on
> 
> 
> Whitebalance, sharpening edges, etc etc etc.  There's a fair bit of lossy
> in-camera processing other than whitebalance...
> 
> 
> 
>>at home instead of before taking the picture), Adobe "Digital Negative"
>>(DNG) format seems to be where things are headed. Still proprietary,
>>but "open proprietary" like PDF.
> 
> 
> Hopefully!  Too early to tell, IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
>>Hasselblad, Leica, Ricoh and Samsung appear to be the 4
>>manufacturers with some kind of native DNG format.  If you can afford
>>a Hasselblad, please bring it to a meeting and let us all drool near it.
> 
> 
> <drooling>
> I'll even promise to wear a bib... and latex gloves.  ;-)
> 
> 
> 
>>Maybe even push some buttons; they've got some 39-megapixel units
>>now...
> 
> 
> ?:-)
> 
> Can you make a case for me, for 39MP's?  99% of even pro work, afaict,
> needs no more than about 10-15MP, really.  That gets you an 11x17(ish)
> image as crisp as ASA25 can get...  Barring some scientific work, some
> military work, and a few other applications, I really don't see 39MP's as
> all that desirable a feature, other than for bragging rights.  It's like
> the 250mph+ supercars (Maclaren F1, Bugatti Veyron) -- where ya gonna
> drive those suckers* at anything over half-speed???  And you spent a cool
> million, or more, for those bragging rights.
> 
> 
> - Steve S.
>   * Apologies if anyone reading the list is one of the
>      more-money-than-brains owners of such a car --
>      nothing personal meant, I (enviously) assure you!
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at nblug.org
> http://nblug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk

Actually, more pro work than you think requires that the image be
suitable for printing at larger sizes than that.  You certainly need to
have higher resolution than that if you want to print posters, for
instance.  Generally the advertising and professional sports industry
requires this quality level.  Also, 10-15 MP really doesn't look all
that fantastic at 11x17, professionally-speaking, I don't think it
really matches 35mm ASA 25, though it certainly comes very close.

To supplement Eric's statement:
The biggest problem we face with higher resolution cameras is more so
the quality of the lens, especially when talking 39 MP.  If the optics
can't handle it, you simply end up blurring the pixels together and
wasting a lot of disk space.  This is a problem with most of the $60-80
flat bed scanners (and the $150-250 slide scanners), as well, if the
optics are crap, it doesn't matter if the scanner CCD assembly has the
*capability* of scanning at 2400 optical resolution.

Canon and Nikon are both known for their high-quality lenses and
relatively easy-to-use features.  Olympus cameras are also easy to use,
and usually come with good quality lenses, but for some reason they
chronically (analog and digital alike) have low-light focusing problems
and generally perform poorly in low light.

As for Konica-Minolta, well:
http://www.theregister.com/2006/01/19/konica-minolta_quits_camera_biz/

I don't deny the quality of their camera products, but it sounds like
there won't be much support for them soon enough.

I do apologize for continuing the veer off-topic, but I did want to
comment ever so much on a subject I enjoy discussing. :)

..and back to our regularly scheduled topic:
I doubt that the friend of Mr. Hayes really gives a damn about being
able to print at 36x48, or cares about taking stop-motion photography at
professional sporting events. :)  The real topic of course, is Linux
compatibility ..  As far as I know, all the current series of Canon,
Nikon, and Olympus cameras all connect to the computer as USB storage
devices, when connected directly by wire.  Getting a USB card reader is
probably more sensible, though, unless the camera can charge the battery
using the USB supplied current.

Also, definitely bring the camera by the NBLUG meeting if it's a nice
Hasselblad or the like, as I would love to see it, and would certainly
be willing to carry around my own drool bucket. :)

- Chris