Damn good article. I look forward to reading the rest of them. :D

Very good review! I'm hooked!

an interesting read, i hope that you are able to cover which specifications are the most important for a buyer to look out for when buying a digital camera in your next article. I find these types of article very helpful, greatly appreciated :)

Glad you liked it. Welcome to the forums!

Only if I could afford such cameras *crys pathetically* I'm into photography ^^.

Thank you for taking the time to read the article. :) Your positive feedback is very encouraging.

Great article - make sure to cover storage and connection as well. Do you think firewire is better than USB 2.0 for transfer or do you recommend readers? Do you prefer SD to compact flash and why?

This is EXACTLY the kind of article that I've been looking for! Thank you!

The points Joe is making are very true. I have a very old (in digicam terms) Kodak DC260 that is barely a 1.2 megapixel camera. In comparision to every new camera that friends and family have, mine takes much better pictures. The color balance is better, details are clear but not oversharpened, white is not blown out and flash has power to light up at least 10' from the camera. File transfer is another story. A card reader is the only way to go for fast transfers on this old beast.

I look forward to the next article in the series. A good Signal to Noise ratio is more important than pixel count. Of course the glass has to be good too!

Ken

USB2 vs Firewire is irrelevant in digital cameras. Even up to 1GB CF cards, the difference in transfer time is less than a second -- so it is going to be dominated by software initialiastion. Firewire can shine in DV, but for still photography it is irrelevant. Readers are a personal preference issue -- they don't affect performance.

SD vs CF is more complex. The big plus of CF is that so many devices use it, the prices are _much_ better.

I had some bad experience with digital cameras in low light conditions. My Olympus Stylus 400 has very visible noise during night shots (0.5s exposure, which is the maximum). It would be great to have a list of cameras that have 'good' megapixels.

The article is right on about the megapixel myth. Just look at the current Mars Rover's cam. It is only 1 mega pixel, but the details it captures puts a lot of current crop of digit cams to shame. This is largly because of large sensor die size. The so called 8MP cams just cram more sensors into same die size. I'd rather use Mars Rover's cams over those 8MP cams.

Wonderful Start, Cant't wait for the rest.

I would love it if later there was some mention
of say if a 5MP F1.8 lense (ala Olympus 5050) would
take better photos in more situations than say
8MP F2.4 camera (ala 8080).

Ahem OPTICS *cough*

I noticed back in 1990 or so that the better, sharper images I got in 35mm were as much a function of the optics I was using as much as the film; bad optics essentially "wasted" some of the resolution that the film could do.

Digicams are the same way. I have a Sony TRV900 video cam, which can do 640x480 stills. Doesn't sound like much, but this is a top-quality 3-chip camera; when these images are blown up, they look as good as "average" 1280x960 digicams from that time did. The difference is that the Sony milks every pixel for what it's worth, while the 1280x960 doesn't.

The greater the increase in quality that results from scaling the image down x2, the crappier the camera. The ideal camera produces images that look just as good at the pixel level before being scaled down, i.e. there is no advantage incurred in supersampling.

So, just as you should choose your PC based on real-world benchmarks (i.e. the software YOU will be using), pick your digicam by finding raw sample images, either on review sites (ideal for comparos) or from existing owners.

Optics will be covered in the next article, which looks at bodies and lenses. Thanks for the feedback!

danged digital woohhaahaaa...give me a good solid wood field camera and a thirty pound tripod...and a mule...and...and...

ansel

Another issue I have seen is the speed with which you can take images. My cheap Kodak CX4230 needs a few seconds between each shot to get its act together. This can prove quite frustrating if your trying to snap off a few shots very quickly.

One small point: the SI prefix for mega is 'M', not 'm' and similarly for Giga. (see http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html)

One small comment. The article contends that cameras based on the Foveon X3 sensor produce sharper images than cameras based on Bayer sensors, due to 3-colour capture. This is not entirely true - the only Goveon base cameras, the Sigma SD-9 and SD-10, lack an anti-aliasing filter on the sensor. This leads to images which appear sharper, but can also lead to artifacting. Images from cameras with an anti-aliasing filter usually look softer out of the camera, but respond far better to sharpening techniques, with fewer undesirable artifacts. That said, pixel for pixel, Foveon sensors appear to capture more detail than Bayer type. The Sigma cameras, which are 3.4 megapixel, compete quite well with the 6 megapixel Bayer sensor cameras.

To the comment about the "speed" that you can take images with: what you're talking about is the shutter lag, the time it takes from when you hit your shutter release to the time that the camera actually takes the picture. The Nikon dSLR's are instantaneous - the smaller consumer digicams are just beginning to catch up, namely with the Pentax digicams.

One topic which needs coverage is the quality of the camera's autofocus. I recently replaced a Canon Powershot G2 with a Fujifilm FinePix S5000. Now, I'll be the first to admit that the G2 was capable of taking a MUCH better photo than the S5000 ever will. The problem with the G2 was the gap between "capable" and "actual". I'd estimate that somewhere between a quarter and a third of my G2 photos were garbage because the G2's autofocus screwed up. The S5000 turns in a quite respectable to excellent autofocus performance on practically every shot. In the long run, this more than makes up for the somewhat poorer quality of the S5000's photos (magnify a good G2 photo and a good S5000 photo and you see a dramatic difference - the G2 wins every time by a HUGE margin).

Note that lighting conditions seemed to have no impact on the G2's autofocus. I can recall MANY landscape photos taken in bright sunny conditions with lots of contrast in the field of vision that were total garbage because the G2's autofocus screwed up (i.e. set the focus at 5 or 10 feet instead of infinity).

it's the same thing as television these days. i don't care for HDTV. 525 lines, 200 channels and still nothing on! the Foveon CCD is a step in the right direction, but one large manufacturer needs to step up and support the thing!

I owned a few cheap digital cameras & got to play with some nicer ones (canon and kodak). The cheapest one was 640x480 w/ no expansion, 8MB. But it could take pictures in sucession quickly.

Now, I have a Nikon D100 DLSR and a few lenses from my wife's old nikon. I can't imagine ever going back to the other digital camera types. They're all ok for snapshots, but I want to take potraits, nature photos, sports pics, closeups, etc.

The DLSR can do all that with a change of the lense. I have found the D100 to be a bit slow for some indoor sports because it only does 3fps. If I did alot of that I'd want the D2H (8 fps).

One problem with lots of mega pixels is storage. Each image on the D100 (best JPEG, full 6.1MP) is 1.5MB. If I shot RAW, they're much bigger. For snapshots, it's way overkill.

The compact digitals are like using a spreadsheet to do database and word processing. Sure, you can do it, but it's a pain & doesn't get as good a result.

With regards to the Foveon sensors and anti-aliasing...how does the LACK of a filter lead to artifacts? Note, I'm not trolling or criticising, I honestly just don't understand and want to know more.

I think this article is "right on". But, I would like to see some DATA.

Numbers can really help make the point.

I would hope that you are going to mention http://www.dpreview.com to not would be extreemly bias since they are the only resource that does extreemly deep unbias view of just about every camera model out there.

I think the article is going the right direction. In fact, I've been following Foveon X3 for years now, but have just about given up waiting for a decent consumer-level camera using it. Year after year, their site said it'll be out within a year. Finally, we're supposed to get that Polaroid model in June, which is the ugliest thing I've ever seen with the least amount useful features one can possibly put into a camera. Seriously, is there some kind of conspiracy going on?

Something that would be good to discuss in your buyer's guide would be what features does the user actually "need". A decent 4MP camera can produce nice 11" x 14" prints or higher, and have excellent on screen images. Granted the article is about higher end cameras, but most people don't need that much camera. In regards to printing, imperfections such as noise or purple fringing is even less noticeable in prints.

The new Kodak DX6490 (with 10x zoom) or the Canon Powershot A80 are both great 4MP cameras with full manual and automatic controls that would suit most people's needs for $400 or less at a local retail store.

Not saying there's anything wrong higher end cameras, but the average user isn't going to want to have to buy a 1GB or higher microdrive to take pictures of their kid's birthday party.

I'm not a great photographer, it's a hobby for me at best, but I've found the A80 to be more than ample for my needs. You can see some of the shots I took today on my site.

http://www.frozenmilk.com/jamie/galleries/5/index....

For my own needs and for most people, an SLR digicam with 8MP would be lost on me. Just my two cents. Looking forward to reading the rest of the article.

I will be covering many different segments in my buyer's guide, worry not! My wife is still using a venerable Canon A40, and I still think it was a great buy.

I agree with the article and other comments - we need better quality pixels.

Has anyone really checked their digital pictures at all? Check the exif information and you will find some "strange" wizardary!

I have a 4mp digicam and in one picture i took a pic at max 4mp res and I got a pic with 2272x1752 (or smoewhere thereabouts) AND 72dpi information. But when I take at say 640x2480 res I got 300dpi resoultion.

Now I can use photoshop to interpolate the 300dpi into 72dpi and the 640x480 becomes 640x480x300 divided by 72 = 2667 x 2000 x 72 dpi instead of 640x480 x 300dpi. What does this mean - I can get higher resolution by taking pics at lower resolution. I get free megapixels!!!!

You can verify your pictures DPI using Photoshop, etc.

I have used a few digital cameras and I find that the current crop of digicams still have some serious shortcommings. I do not know why?

1. The tripod mount is not centered or aligned with the focal plane. Despite the many reviews at various photo sites, the manufacturers still refuse to correct this. So you cannot take good panoramas with it.

2. Manufacturers are spending unnecessary $$$ and efforts in trying to create multiple focus zones and the like. What is really needed is two buttons - focus lock and exposure lock. All you have to do is to point at the subject at the LCD dead centre and press focus lock and/or exposure lock and the camera should lock either or both. The you can freely reframe your composition. What we now have is things like 16 focusing zsoones using left//right/up/down button to select the focusing zone - this is a long winded way of do it!

3. I cannot comprehend why the manufacturers will create folders like DCIMDSCDSC0001.jpg - Why are they still trying to "advertise" right down to the level of my image file name? What I prefer is the older Oly's style - allowing dates eg. YYMMDDnn.jpg to be made the filename instead and have one folder depth. More complete filename eg YYMMDDHHMM.jpg would be better (this is a personal preference) - another question - why we cannot have longer than 8.3 filenames - most major OS now supports longer filenames.

4. If you have not used your digicam for a few weeks and have discharged your battery and decided to go on a holiday to take more pics. The photo counter resets back to DSC0001.jpg - thus can cause you to override you older picts already in your PC. What we need is a user enterable counter.

5. Digicams are beginning to be like VHS/Betamax - new format didital memory cards are appearing - the latest being SD & MS Pro. So people will have to really think carefully in choosing a camera. I wonder why manufacturers do not agree to standardize. In fact my Sony digicam was made obsolete by the introduction of MS Pro which cannot be used in my digicam which can only the older MS with max capacity of 128Mb. As much as specs and performance dictates choice of digicam, I think one should not forget about the media format.

Please don't foget to mention the optical picture stabilizers that are now appearing in some prosumer models (eg Panasonic).
This technology is borrowed from digital camcorders, and allows *much* slower shooting without sacrificing picture quality. As long as the subject is stationary or only moving slowly of course.

Regarding the file names created by cameras. The files are named this way because it is specified in the EXIF standard. There's no other reason for that, but having a standard allow us to exchange media between cameras with less risk of losing data (even though the standard may be bad...)

It's amazing how many useless "features" the camera makers are adding to jack up their marketing feature list at the expense of usability. There are just WAY too many options. They could get rid of almost all the buttons on a Digital camera for even the pros. I really wish they would simply cut out switches and menu options and make it so that you DON'T need a manual to operate it. My favorite camera is still a $100 fully-manual 35mm Nikon FM2. Either that or an 8x10. (I actually am starting to think that my 8x10 view camera is easier to use than my Nikon Coolpix. And, it takes a whole day of planning and work to set up one shot for an 8x10...)

There's so many useless switches on a modern Digital SLR that can be completely thrown away and still provide all the functionality anyone would want. It's possible to improve usability without compromising features, when you look at the design of a digital camera in a Systems Level perspective. I also desire to create the highest quality photos in all situations with the least bit of effort. Remember- each little option and each little switch adds just a little bit more complexity to the camera.
Things I wish manufacturers did:

1. Store all data ONLY in RAW format. (Thanks to Sigma for pushing this.) This get rids of the useless "low/medium/high quality" switch on the camera. There goes one pointless switch. You don't need small file sizes, JPG files, built in image processing, etc, if all you needed was to store the data in one big RAW file, like what Sigma is doing...

2. Store all data at the highest resolution. Get rid of the "small/medium/large" switch. If I needed to store more pictures on my card, I would have bought a higher-capacity CF drive. I can get 4GB CF microdrives for cheap, so it's pointless to have to micro-manage file sizes. That should be enough to store hundreds of pics. Another pointless switch, gone...

3. Get rid of in-camera white-balance setting, and do this on the computer or laptop or even palmtop to simplify the camera and force the complexity outside. (Again, thanks to Sigma) This can be done on the computer if needed with the RAW file. Most amateur users have NO idea what the hell white-balance means anyways. A third pointless switch gone..

4. Get rid of the Priority knob- Aperture, Shutter, Etc.. Instead, let there be an "Auto" option for shutter and for aperture on their own dials... When the Aperture knob is set to Auto- then that obviously means Aperture priorty. When the Shutter is set to Auto, then that means Shutter priority. When BOTH are set to Auto, then that obviously "Auto". This can also be done for auto-focusing with a Focusing ring. There- 3 buttons eliminated just like that.

5. Get rid of Program metering modes. All the programmed metering modes are also largely useless. All you need is an "auto" setting on your focus/shutter/aperture/flash knobs. Do people even use these modes? My guess is, they have no idea if they're good or not, so "Auto" mode would be fine. And, if they DO know what they're doing, then they're likely to set it on a fixed aperture or shutter speed anyways?

6. Use more traditional "obvious" lens controls instead to make manual control easier: Have your precise digital shutter/aperture/focus controls on individual lens rings with an "auto" mode when turned far left. It's extremely frustrating to get manual control working on some of the digitals.

7. Get rid of on-camera flashes settings (Keep the wimpy on-camera flash if you must, but leave it on Auto always, and auto-disable when external flash is connected) Pro photographers would have an external flash anyways, and any flash settings can be made on that. Another switch, gone... (although i'd love to have a powerful dual head external flash- one for bounce and another for fill.. maybe on a ring-flash)

8. Get rid of on-camera image processing. I'll never understand why anyone would need in-camera image-processing for a digital, when ALL digital cameras go through image processing software later in the chain- as they download into the computer or print out. I guess the people that kind of marketing are the same kind of people that want an FM radio in everything they buy- a toaster, shower faucets, their pillows..

Another "feature" I hate: modal buttons. Sometimes, a single button sets the flash, the same button in another mode trashes the image, and in another mode, adjusts the shutter. Nothing is more frustrating than having to go through menus of setup to do exactly what you need to do. If you're going to make a camera, put a seperate button for each useless feature you put in. If you find that your camera has too many buttons- then that means your camera is TOO complicated! Get rid of some of the buttons- it's all about intuition and usability.

Also, if you want image-processing, sell a seperate palmtop just for that- so that you don't have to go through menus to do any image processing. Don't sell me a camera with image processing- that's like having a shower-head with an FM radio- sure it's nice to have- but it IS possible to get by without it.

Some people may want all these useless features.. for them the camera vendors can have their own special overfeatured model. I would rather have one that's simple and obvious... Let's enable people to take more pictures, rather than confuse them with a complicated camera. The first Digital SLR vendor that comes out with a Camera that DOESN'T include an INSTRUCTION MANUAL, I'm buying.

"What is really needed is two buttons - focus lock and exposure lock. "

many cameras provide this by the traditional "hold the shutter halfway" technique.

I guess Mozumder babu and others in favour of simple, usable digital cameras need to urgently consider a Leica Digilux 2 (or its Clark Kent, the Panasonic Lumix LC1). Glass is where the picture quality comes from, not the electronics.

RAW is

SLR is not yet a practical approach given the risk of frequent & expensive sensor cleaning, especially in applications like wildlife or sports where lens changing is required in dust-laden environments.

There needs to be some more discussion on CCD vs CMOS.

I guess Mozumder babu and others in favour of simple, usable digital cameras need to urgently consider a Leica Digilux 2 (or its Clark Kent, the Panasonic Lumix LC1). Glass is where the picture quality comes from, not the electronics.

RAW is

SLR is not yet a practical approach given the risk of frequent & expensive sensor cleaning, especially in applications like wildlife or sports where lens changing is required in dust-laden environments.

There needs to be some more discussion on CCD vs CMOS.

It's mentioned only in passing, but one of my greatest problems with prosumer digital cameras is their crappy dynamic range. Try taking a picture of a subject in shadow with a bright sky showing. One or the other, or both, will be poorly exposed. Not to mention sunrise/sunset pictures are all but impossible, also due to bleeding effects. Good dynamic range is rapidly becoming one of my main factors in buying my next camera.

A few years back I developed a system for the leading photo processing company in Europe which enables them to process digital photos into prints.

The big surprise during development was that the JPEG format was the root cause of poor output quality.

You CAN NOT rescale or resample JPEG photos without causing an unbelievable reduction in output quality.

This occurs because JPEG images contain artifacts caused by lossy compression, which add together non-linearly during resampling, making the resulting images look as if moths had been at them.

This problem will occur more frequently if the image size is larger or resolution is higher. We were using approx. 800 x 1000 pixels for a 10 x 15 cm. print.

If you were to send in a larger image, you would expect to recieve better output quality. You would be extremely surprised to find that, in fact, the output quality was much less due to this phenomenon.

The moral of the story is: JPEG is crap, if you want quality, megapixels won't help unless you store in uncompressed format.

Hey, write about HDR (High Dynamic Range) please. Although I'm no photographer, I believe the main problem of current cameras is the format they store the images in. In nature, lighting can have huge differences in magnitudes, and in my opinion it's not an option to take either dark picture or a light picture. I think the cameras should store the information as floating point data, so that they could be later compressed with computer.

For example, see this url and the example pictures there to get an idea of what I'm thinking: http://www.cs.huji.ac.il/~danix/hdr/pages/cathedra...
With traditional approach, you'd get either of the bottom images. Overexposed, or underexposed. It would be better if the camera stored the lighting information as it is, with high (non-linear) dynamic range, after which techniques such as the one presented above could be used to compress the image. I believe it'd be revolutionary.

As CCD chips improve, optics is once again becoming an important factor in camera selection. Consider the following:

1) Diffraction limit!! As CCDbecomes smaller, lens reaches diffraction limit sooner. Medium format hassleblads can reach F64 without turning everything into a hexagonal blob, but some CCD cameras start showing severe diffraction effects at F5.6.

2) Quality of lens
Does it have Anti-reflection Coating(s)
Does it have elements or aspherical design to reduce abberations?

3) How many focal positions does the lens have. Some so called "auto focus" cameras can have as few as two lens focus positions, near and far!

Be careful, the marketing folks always want to hype what isn't really important. For example:

Cameras: Megapixels vs image quality
Computers: MHz vs Usability
Vacuum cleaners: AMPs drawn from house wiring vs cleaning power!
VCRs: # Heads vs picture quality
Cars:# valves and horsepower vs reliabilty

Transistor radios used to be measured by the number of transistors. People assumed that a 10 transistor was better than a 7 transistor. So some companies would solder in dummy transistors!

With respect to mozumder, settings that are "useless" to one person are often necessary to another. For example, while shelling out ~$1,000 for a 4GB CF for max-quality RAW images may be "for cheap" to some people, that's hardly universal.

Your "pointless switches" are another person's necessary features. The ideal interface is one where the maximum number of people need to do a minimum amount of fiddling to get the results they want, *not* an interface where everyone is forced to do the same thing. Leave the options in for those who want them and are willing to put a little effort into reading a manual; just keep those options out of the way of people who only want the basics.

(And write good manuals, damn it! More reviews should be better about including information about the manual provided. Is it informative and usefully laid out? Or is it a mess, and clearly written by someone who speaks fluent Techish but poor English?)

I think the article is going the right direction. In fact, I've been following Foveon X3 for years now, but have just about given up waiting for a decent consumer-level camera using it. Year after year, their site said it'll be out within a year. Finally, we're supposed to get that Polaroid model in June, which is the ugliest thing I've ever seen with the least amount useful features one can possibly put into a camera. Seriously, is there some kind of conspiracy going on?

Great article. I am about to sink $40,000 on a new camera/optics system, with half of that cost just in the sensor alone for all the reasons you mentioned. Imacon makes a camera back called the Ixpress, which has a very large, high quality sensor capable of sensitivities up to 12 f-stops. This is important for the type of work we will be producing. Currently we're using a pro-sumer 4MP system, but the dynamic range is limited for VR work. However, you can see what we've accomplished with an inexpensive camera thus far at http://www.rotopix.com. Anxious to hear your take on medium format digital. Thanks. Brian Jackson

The one big limiting factor I have been concerned about with digital photography was touchedon by earlier comments.

That is cycle time between shots. (The amount of time from when you push the button to when the camera has saved the image and recharged the flash and you can take another image.)

None of the manufacturers/cameras that I have researched have this value stated anywhere in their specifications.

I admittedly have an older Kodak DC210plus that uses CF and takes between 5-10 seconds between shots (dependent on if I have flash turned on or off).

I would like to find a good digital camera (3-5Mp or better, SLR) that will allow me to have less than 2 seconds betwen shots (sustained), or less than a second (burst for 8-10 shots...buffered then written to card as it can).

I would also like to see a good article on the card technoligies in regards to write speed and saving of images.

--WyrdOne ( wyrdone AT wyrdone.org)

I wish for a completely manual DSLR with interchangeable MANUAL lenses. Unfortunately, it would be MUCH to cheap to produce and the manufactureres would have to give up the 'padding' profit they make on bells and whistles. They don't realize that there are tons of folks out there who would pay more for less.

Reading that made me think of an article I read about the Mars Rovers' cameras. Basically, for some of the same reasons mentioned in the Beyond Megapixels article, the Mars Rovers take excellent pictures with only a megapixel sensor/CCD/whatever the name is.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology...

[[ They don't realize that there are tons of folks out there who would pay more for less.]]

Which is why Leica is making a digital rangefinder.

[[ I would like to find a good digital camera (3-5Mp or better, SLR) that will allow me to have less than 2 seconds betwen shots (sustained), or less than a second (burst for 8-10 shots...buffered then written to card as it can). ]]

What are you kiddiing me? Thee Canon 1D Mark II has that beat by miles.

Another thing - Optional Extras... Having bought a Fuji S5000 recently, I find that it has no bundled AC power adaptor. This is fine, except that when you have the thing hooked up to USB download the thing ignores all power-saving features.

The manual says to "always use the AC adaptor when linking via USB". If it's ALWAYS, package the adaptor!

[By the way, a very good article so far... the S5000 I got last week has the Super CCD - and now I know a little more... BUT how does a 3.1 Mpixel SCCD obtain a 6 Mpixel output? Oh, and by the way, this model outputs RAW files if desired]

Chris

What drives massive price-drops in these gadgets? For example, in trying to decide on cost vs performance I was considering Kodak 6440 vs Fuji S3000 (4M and top quality 4x optics versus 3M and moderate quality 3x optics). I could get them for the same price... But by the time I decided, Fuji dropped their S-series prices by over $100. So I got the S5000 (3M SCCD, 10x optical).

Is this the same phenomenon as PC marketing? Introduce the next development, and push all the older models down, or is it a reset of Brand price-points?!

Thanks

WyrdOne: Regarding write speeds of memory cards, Rob Galbraith has an extensive database, detailling write/read speeds of cards in nearly every digital camera. Web link: http://robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=60...

For fast cycle time, you could go with the Nikon D2H, Canon EOS 1D Mark II, or (if pro cameras are too expensive, and you don't really need more than 1fps in RAW) the Nikon D70. If you use flash, the limiting factor might well be the cycle time of the flash. In that case, use an external flash with an high-voltage input, then the flash cycle time will be really fast.

If you want to compare the cycle time and shutter lag of cameras, the Imaging Resource does compare those values in their reviews. Web link: http://www.imaging-resource.com/

Zeiram

yes, most excellent article. welcome aboard joe! looking forward to the follow-up articles, then i will be able to explain to my parents why their digital camera is a POS.

w00t...TTL :D

Fantastic article -- I keep checking back for the 2nd part. I'm replacing my first digital camera soon -- it is a Sony Cybershot DSC-S75. I'm thinking about taking up photography has a hobby (nothing serious) and have been told to get a SLR camera with interchangeable lenses so I can have the most control and better quality. I don't have the budget to spend on the typical DSLR out there but lately I've been focusing on the Canon Digital Rebel. Any thoughts on that camera? Would I be better off getting a DSLR-like camera – like the Nikon Coolpix 8700 (or 5700)? I really want to get a good zoom range so I can take outdoor/wildlife photos. I know I can get a lens for the Nikon but it’s just a doubler I think. It just seems like the Canon has more quality and versatility. Any expert thoughts for me? Thanks!

*Any* DSLR camera has more versatility than a DSLR-Like camera. So, of course, the Canon Digital Rebel has more versatility than the Coolpixes. But if you really are looking for as much versatility as possible (and do not want to buy an expensive pro camera), you should have a look at the Nikon D70. Same price range as the Digital Rebel, but every review says it offers more control to the photographer. (Disclaimer: I own a D70, am very happy with it, but I never laid my hands on a Digital Rebel, so I can't say by myself which one is best.)

Zeiram

The images taken by the Mars Rovers are composites of dozens or sometimes hundreds of individual 1 megapixel images. Technically, the camera is only one megapixel, but the images we've seen are the sum of dozens of megapixels. There is no other way to get that kind of detail.

What exactly is a pixel? Does a 3Mp camera have a) 3M red sensors, 3M green sensors, and 3M blue sensors, or b) only 1M of each? Can a manufacturer choose to label a) a 9Mp camera?

Very good introduction. Thank You.

For those wishing more data and detail, I highly recommend http://www.dpreview.com

The site is generally recognized as one of the best global resources for in-depth digital camera reviews and analyses.

best wishes

Most excellent to find this argument so well articulated in a beautifully judged piece that gets this information out there. Until more of us understand this mighty megapixel s numbers game that the dominant cartel of manufacturers are just ramming down our throats, the technology that is probably and rightfully going to fundamentally change our expectations of what can be achieved by digital image capture will be stifled. One word. Fovean.

Questio

re: "the 2/3”sensor size of the 8mp digicams is dramatically smaller, about the size of the tip of your pinky (8.8 x 6.6 mm)."

8.8mm is a little less than 1/3". How is the sensor size measured or was the 2/3" a 'typo'?

Regarding sensor sizes (ie. a 2/3" sensor and the actual size of the sensor being 8.8mm), the size used for the sensor type is the outer diameter of the imaging area... The glossary on dpreview.com has it worded way better than me: "The size designation does not define the diagonal of the sensor area but rather the outer diameter of the long glass envelope of the tube."

There's more information on their page at: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_Sy...

Zeiram

Does the Canon Digital Rebel 350 xt (8 MP) use the smaller, lower-quality sensor size described in this article? I'd been looking to buy one, but now I'm thinking of picking up an old Canon 300D (6 MP) instead... any advice?

http://focuspro.org
photos created on d80