The Online Photographer

It's probably my age (a tad advanced), but I think he's, um, wrong. The advantage of print is that you can walk into a newstand and...there it is! Magazines just staring you in the face with their bright colours, calling, "Look at me!"

I'm sure there are ads for a lot of life-enriching things that I really, really need floating around on the web, but I have no idea where and I'm not interested in going looking.

And, in case anyone's thinking about relying on "targeted" ads delivered right to your browser, well, I just installed a Firefox plug-in that eliminates those very things from a certain major search engine we all know and...um...like(?).

"Ads will be visual on video and electronic on the web and handheld devices" where everyone will learn to ignore them as they click through to what they want.

I see ads everywhere: trains, trams, buses, bus stops, airport terminals. And what about all those magazines grabbed for the train, bus, 'plane?

I still think the most eye-catching ads are those around me where I walk. The rest I ignore (except for TOP, where they always seems particularly targeted - one of the very few places I click-through).

I'd be really happy with the camera you describe, for just the reasons you propose.

If it were actually fast, cheap, and had good optics, wouldn't that be a winner? Isn't that where Leica started out, after all? There's a lot of photojournalism that doesn't demand high-quality prints, no? Historically, the pictures were printed on cruddy newsprint, by cruddy processes. Add really good color rendering (and never mind what LCD panels typically do to color), and I think it might go.

Like, say, a 50D in SRAW2 mode?

6. I think 6 megapixels should be the upper limit of the compacts. Look at the pixel density and Digic technology and tell me I'm wrong.

Who knows, maybe the soon to be released Sigma DP2 will be just that. I wonder if there is a setting to output the native 4.x MP resolution in RAW?

Patrick

I agree, in principle, but not in degree. I feel like a more sensible point to stop feels like 5 or 6mp. This is enough to make a decent 8x10/A4 with even a little cropping, at least on a small sensor.

Basically I'd love to have a remake of my A1 with an updated lens (down to 24mm equivalent at the wide end or a half stop to a stop faster even if it means sacrificing some of the telephoto reach) and coatings, updated 2/3" size sensor, and a big upgrade to speed and viewfinder. (The handling on the A1 and A2 were near perfect for a small camera like that, no need to change anything.)

I see 3mp digital cameras all over the place, they call them phones.
A really high quality 3mp phone camera would be something I'd be interested in. Something that sent every photo directly to the web.

I think a good 3MP camera is a good idea. In fact, the camera that's always in my pocket is a 4MP camera, bought to replace a 3.2MP camera that was stolen. The 4MP job was the closest thing I could find to replace it. That camera now needs replacing as its quite beaten up by hard use and starting to have, um, issues as a result. I think the closest thing out there at present is 8MP.

Why? An image from a 3MP camera can make a good A4 print, even with a bit of cropping. (My rule-of-thumb goes: 3MP is about ideal for A4, 6MP for A3, 12MP for A2 etc. or substitute 2MP as the base for "adequate" rather than "ideal" sizing.)

Now, most people I know don't have a printer that can print larger than A4 / letter size. And very few pay the money to have larger prints made by someone else.

It seems to me, then, that most people could get by quite nicely only using a 3MP camera or, say, 6MP to allow for fairly radical cropping while retaining the 3MP needed to print the largest size they're likely to print.

Certainly a well built 3MP pocket camera with a decent lens would fit my replacement needs nicely as I can't recall a single occasion where I've thought I'd like a photo from my pocket camera printed larger than A4 (though I have many printed at that size) and I'm not much for more than fairly minor cropping. But it seems that such a thing no longer exists.

The 8MP device that's closest to what I need seems too much for the requirement, and costs too much as a result. (While not especially expensive, it still costs way more than it should to meet my needs.)

...Mike

I'd like to add one more point Mike -
What I'd really, really, really like is an SLR or rangefinder camera that offers me the choice of replaceable, different sensors.
I'm sick of buying new bodies.
I used to buy the film I wanted to fulfil a task - now give me a range of sensors inc the 3 mp version and a 12 mp and a 24 mp and a good monochrome version....

I would buy a high quality 3-4 MB camera with a fast lens in a second. My Canon G2, which was sadly stolen, made passable 20x24" prints. The only thing I might disagree with is if that whole point is to make a web camera, even 3MB is a bit high. A 24" monitor has a typical resolution of 1920x1200 which is just over 2MB assuming you used every pixel of your monitor.

I was kinda hoping the Sigma DP1 would be just such camera, but it's pretty deficient in many respects.

In an entirely different sort of photography than is usually discussed, I routinely take 3MP or 12MP (because those are the cameras that I have) photos of damaged mechanical parts. I reduce those files to 800x600 pixels and include them in a report that is emailed to engineers. You'd think that such a small file would not have the resolution necessary to reveal the necessary detail but that is not a problem. A typical report might include 5 to 15 such .jpg files of about 100KB each. If the files were 1MB each there would definitely be a problem because the firewalls for many businesses would not accept such large attachments to an email.

The Mpixel march may have to do with these two things:

1. Although people may use a small fraction of features (or megapixels) 99% of the time, they buy a camera for its ability to handle the remaining 1%, or its potential to do so. This is the "one person car" fallacy: although a vast majority of cars carry a single person at any one time, people do buy larger in order to handle the few trips where they really need the room.

2. I suspect that for a camera with a good lens, good viewfinder and good electronics, the difference in price between putting a 3Mp vs. an 8-10Mp sensor would be marginal.

This said, even with moderate printing needs, low megapixels would work. I have never printed large enough to see the limits of my 6Mp dslr (the limits of my photographic abilities somehow do show much earlier).

Well, I think Mike is right on target, here. I’ve been astonished recently to discover how many of the quick shots taken with a cell-phone camera or P&S that I’ve done recently are really interesting but simply suffer from lack of quality. If the noise were down and the color closer I wouldn’t care a whit about massive-megapixels. Here’s a good example I found recently—historical, you see, so you can’t quibble about megapixels, It’s the, at the moment, top picture on the Helena History Site: On the Lamb Ranch in the Helena Valley, 1920s
Isn’t it wonderful? Fuzzy and all?
A 3mp with good optics and a big sensor could do much better than that but wouldn’t get in the way of the moment.

Dave

Restrict the megapixels, improve the noise. It's there, someone just has to implement it. I've lived with my 6 megapixel Nikon D100 with no difficulty whatsoever.

I'm not entirely sure why everyone gets so in thrall to the capability of doing large prints. Large sized prints may suffer from aesthetic loss, are expensive to print, and something the average photographer needs to do but very rarely, if at all. And I bet you 95% of the market doesn't recognize or notice uprezzing anyway.

On the other hand, better low light performance, higher usable ISOs, better dynamic range and color gamut/sensitivity, better lenses all have an impact that increases the usable quotient of pictures for the average shooter.

We don't need an expensive Leica, but the digital equivalent of a film Canonet or film Olympus small camera such as the XA or OM1 would be very welcome indeed.

Higher ISOs is the key to this: that's the one thing that many snapshots (at least mine) would benefit from. I have hundreds (maybe 1000s?) of photos that I've tried to take with only the light of a single 60 watt bulb. I'd love a small camera - 2 or 3 MP would be fine - that could produce a good photo in dim indoor lighting. Doesn't need to produce a print any larger than 5x7 for that sort of snapshot.

0.5 MP is plenty for an iPhone

Mike, there is just such a camera now, 4.2 MP, super-fast, super responsive, great lenses, fully professional, and you can get one for 10 - 20 percent of its new price. It's the Nikon D2H, or better still, the D2Hs. A perfect pro camera for the needs you list.

"I'm sick of buying new bodies.
I used to buy the film I wanted to fulfil a task - now give me a range of sensors inc the 3 mp version and a 12 mp and a 24 mp and a good monochrome version..."
I'm sorry, no offense meant, but this made me laugh.
Um, why don't you just buy film instead of new camera bodies? Won't that be cheaper?

I don't know if he is 100% correct, but I suspect that he is more right than wrong. A number of Japanese magazines (including some of the photo mags) have been offering extra content, first on attached DVDs/CDs and then on the Internet.

In the case of photo magazines, this works well because viewing photos on the web is a much better experience than seeing the same thing in print in a regular magazine. (Another example: a story on editing photos is much easier to understand when you can see the actual process on a computer screen.)

Other types of magazines, such as cycling, have offered videos and other materials on the Internet.

I also agree with his idea the the walls between writing, filming, and photographing will crumble. I think that is already apparent in some areas.

A lower megapixel camera doesn't really have less visible noise than a higher mp camera if the two are viewed/printed at the same size. More pixels equalling more noise is a misconception. When I print my 24mp camera's files at 6x4, ISO 6400 is virtually noiseless, and I have an option of going large as well. I would NEVER buy a 3mp camera at this point, because it doesn't have an advantage at small sizes (aside from saving hard drive space,) and would get demolished at larger sizes.

3mp Pen F anyone ?

I used to own a Nikon Coolpix 990, which was a 3.2MP camera, and I thought the 8x10"s were really nice, but not quite there. I suspect that a 4 or 6MP camera would get all the way there. I would suggest 6MP to leave a little room for cropping, and to allow great 8x10"s. I also own a 30" monitor with 2560x1600 resolution. A 4:3 aspect ratio large enough to make a desktop background image for this without upscaling would be 4.9MP, and allowing for a bit of cropping for composition: 6MP. 3MP is for me too little for what I do and would want to do. 3.2MP was already too little in 2000. 6MP would be a nice size.

What I wouldn't mind seeing is someone sticking the old Fujifilm 6+6MP SuperCCD in a compact. 6MP is pleanty to make an 8x10 and have a little breathing room to crop.

But yes, a 4-6MP chip made with the technology found in something like the D700 sensor would be very, very interesting...

Still using my 3.3 MP Coolpix 995 for close-up and macro - good A4 prints too.

I've been very impressed with the A4 prints from a borrowed iPhone - nice fixed lens, about 35mm equivalent.

My next phone is going to have a decent camera built in - I'll keep the existing one until there is something suitable.

Until a really viable color electronic paper or flexible folding display is developed along with a low cost means of content delivery, paper is not going to go away. Even after the development of such displays it will be many years before they saturate the market.

I could find a use for a good 3mp camera with video capabilities right away. However I'm sure bigger and badder cameras will rule the day.

I am currently using a Canon G3 a 4 mega pixel camera I am constantly amazed at how good the prints are from this camera. I have made 11" x 17" prints that have done very well in print competitions. No one can tell they were taken with a 4 mega pixel camera with a tiny sensor. So I guess a good 3 mega pixel camera using today's technology would be just fine for most uses.

Some folks have touched on this, but I thought I'd make it explicit. Most of the photography I do is interesting to friends and family now, but will be REALLY interesting in 30 years. And I say this with suitcases of my grandparent's photographs sitting in the attic. For me this is mostly visual record-keeping in a personal mode, although this sort of vernacular photography has some limited historical value too. But from that perspective, you really don't know what will be the significant detail that you recorded, and you won't know for some decades. The bias there is for being over rather than under some minimum threshold for the recording medium, particularly as Moore's law and the price of digi-storage continue their respective marches.

I agree though that there are many wasted 01010101010's if you use the current crop of digicams and a 6x9 inch display on the Web is your only goal.

I can see a difference between D70 vs D200/D300, 3 cameras I own. I think even 10-12 MB pixel (good one like dSLR or M8 etc.) give you something which a lower pixel does not.

Dawson: the current iPhones have 2MP cameras.

To Harry's point above: why won't Nikon take half of the D3/D700 sensor and stick into a D40 body? Is it a cost issue?

How about the upcoming Sigma DP-2? 4.7 megapixels from a Foveon sensor should be as good as about 9 megapixels from a Bayer sensor (and still only occupy 4.7 megapixels worth of space on your hard drive). Perhaps Sigmas "pixel inflation" policy of counting each site as 3 pixels will benefit us here, pleasing the masses with numbers ("14 megapixels!") while pleasing the rest of us by being sensibly small.

Great article. I agree with the spirit, this is why I have held on to my E-1; I love its ergonomics and images, and 5mp is perfectly fine for my needs. For the same reason, I wouldn't turn my nose up at a nice Digilux 2 - Loretta Lux was making world-class (ie very expensive) images with that camera for quite some time. Mike

I think what you really are after is a way to preserve RAW mode, but to use fewer pixels. Perhaps we could have 12 or 15 mp when we need it and the light is adequate, or a lower res with pixel binning for low light applications. All of these choices would be in RAW mode.
That is what I am looking for in a camera.

Bahi: Thanks, I stand corrected! I think someone on here mentioned it was a 0.5MP so I didn't check after that! Not as impressive then, but still better than my 2MP SE shots...

In my field of photography interest it is all about trains, specifically and 90 percent of the time, the locomotives. And too the so-called instant feature of the internet means for many, the ability to get your photos up there with all the other raving idiots who do so is what counts. Get your name in print or rather get your photograph on the internet, be it good bad or generally downright crap.

For most of these people, three megapixels is more than adequate. Because the picture on the internet is rarely if ever larger than what something at 72 dpi can handle, heck even a two megapixel camera will do the job.

Me, I still use film and my pictures don't appear on the internet. Besides, I know the difference between good and bad images.

My pictures are bad to the bone so I don't post them. Bad you say? Yes, lousy with poor composition and inadequate lighting. But you know what? They are mine, I can recognize them unlike all the other photographers whose images all look the same!

While a Sony A700 is my current camera of choice and I love it, my two best selling shots were both taken with an early model Kodak 3mpg camera. The IQ isn't better, but it is good enough.
Handles A4 with ease.

In response to Colin Work's astute observation about the direct cost of manufacturing a given size sensor being roughly the same whether it contain 3 MP or 12MP I agree that it would not reduce the cost of the sensor (and also acknowledge the possibility of higher costs due to smaller production runs of each). But where the smaller sensor would help lower costs is by enabling a camera that has less need of brute force processing abilities, less RAM, less storage etc. All this still just talking about the camera itself, though these factors also play into post-exposure as well.

As to how to market less is more I agree that it is a tough nut to crack, but certainly boutique manufacturers exist in many industries. Probably the most likely for this sort of thing would be either Fuji, who are quite willing and capable to produce their own sensors without third-party customers; or else Foveon/Texas Instruments as I mentioned above. I really think the Foveon at native resolution would produce outstanding results.

Patrick

Remember what Michael Reichmann wrote eight years ago?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
Not that I want D30 back, but why all these pixels?

With all the comments about the D700, having just had a chance to use one recently, I think there is an expensive solution here: use the D700 in DX crop mode. You have all the benefits of D700 IQ with a 5MP RAW file. As an added bonus, the entire image area is framed in the viewfinder with ample space outside the image area like on a Leica viewfinder to aid in predictive shooting. It is of course a steep price to pay though, both in terms of money and weight.

http://phoronix.com/forums/member.php?u=19401 [url=http://phoronix.com/forums/member.php?u=19389]viagra equivalent[/url] buy generic cialis dwoh