King Penguin: Am I correct in saying that if 35mm film was digital it would be 21mp......then this camera is an affordable digital version of film. As for high ISO, in film days to get 800 ISO you had specialist film and that was grainy........I very rarely shoot above 800 ISO and I'm sure most other people don't either. Most of the time I shoot on 100 ISO, occasionally increasing it if I need an extra stop or two.......I can't be alone in this, can I?
The arguements for film are basically stupid and illogical. Film, as a recording matrix is not 2-D in nature as digital is, and is highly variable across it's density and color range. Printfilm loses resolution rapidly when under exposed, and slide film when over exposed. Slide film records highlights as empty film base (nothing - no data). The dyes in film also vary according to emulsion type, so assigning a specific mpixel count to film is flat earth science. Also, before digital arrived, every professional I know shot MF and LF to get away from the quality limitations of 35mm. However, 35mm today in film -vs- digital arguements (like this one) is regarded as a much better medium for revionist sake. Next, volume color film processing gear costs more than a MF digital camera, and with digital I don't have to worry if the lab ran control strips that morning or if my film is scratched on the rollers. Last, a film scanner *is* a digital camera, but one that takes pictures of film.
So, where did they put the chip to prevent China from making knockoffs?
As I understand it, this camera is capable of 4:2:2 video over HDMI. I'm curious what the price is of the least expensive Canon dSLR that can shoot both FF and 4:2:2.
Prognathous: No articulated screen... bad move Pentax.
I love the idea of no AA filter, the lack of which can almost always be compensated for with PP. Why should every shot be 'dumbed down' just because you might be shooting a venetian blind at 100 meters.
I know a lot of people don't care about video, but I really wish Pentax would have really been radical and had 4:2:2 color compression mode for video. That feature alone would have wiped the floor with Canon's entire professional video line not to mention dSLR following.
I hate to buzz-kill, but what exactly is so amazing about these images other than being insipid and dull? Instagram effects are frequently regarded with a lot of disdain, but if the same effect is produced with 8x10 Polaroid (or similiar) process the thought-police declare it 'high fine art'. Puhleeeeeze.....
Large format film is a unique medium, and LF contact printing is a stunningly beautiful medium that we need to see more of. However, this is stuff is just more of the same old NY based counter-culture art critics declaring that 'worse is better'. No one was really interested in it 20years ago when film was at it's peak, and there's a reason.
Geniet: It would not surprise me that not only will photography using film be a niche but photography using conventional digital cameras and the brand names associated with these cameras also. Apple products, for one, which have the capability to do photography, video, the storage, processing, displaying etc. will replace much of the conventional digital cameras.
Most of the components used in Apple devices are licensed and made by manufacturers other than Appple, especially storage, processing and video capture. In Kodak's defense, their products and patents were typically all developed in house and didn't require manufacturing in China to gain market share.
Dirk67: After a long of list of mistakes Kodak selected a CEO who came from the printing business. He did what he knew, not what was necessary. He did not foresee that today most people share over screen and not prints. They believed that the future is to not go to the photo lab any more to get your 4x6 prints but to do this at home. It never took off. Wrong person, wrong vision, wrong path. There is no room left for Kodak unless they pull out a new, totally different vision that is not driven by risk mitigation.
Kodak is ditching their consumer divisions, and anybody that has worked inside the Kodak distortion field in the past like I have know they've been trying to do this for years. The process started in the 90's. As far as I know Kodak is keeping their professional divisions, although E-6 is dying fast. RA-4 is still lucritive on the lab end, and C-41 and RA-4 papers share a lot of the same tech. Expect those materials to hang around for quite awhile.
magneto shot: the sames goes for those insisting on shooting films. there are absolutely no advantage to it. insist there are? ur the reason Kodak thought they were right.
I stopped shooting 35mm well before I went dSLR because 35mm was an amatuer format with terrible tonality and flexibility compared to MF and LF. So, the contrived nostalgia about small format film is as bogus now as it was then. Also, lab gear and control tools to process C-41 and E-6 to consistent standards costs far more than a top end FF dSLR.
gsum: If only Apple would go the same way as Kodak.
Actually, the few film zealots that hang out in DPREVIEW pronouncing the superiority of dye and silver halide over anything we shoot with digital are far, far more annoying.
mandm: The sad part of digital is all the family images lost forever when computers fail or people do stupid things like reformat their external hard drive when they believed they were reformatting a memory card and lost 10 thousands pic's (post on DPR). For the few that backup family pic's, they buy the cheapest C/D's and DVD's that only last 10 to 20 years. 50 years from now people won't even know what a DVD is, or be able to get prints from it, remember floppies, the computer companies don't care what they made yesterday. Last week my mother showed me a picture of her grandmother made in the late 1890's and asked if I could copy it, I scanned it and made a few prints, easy. 50 or 75 years from now my kids/grand kids will still be able to scan film to view or maybe even make prints! My parents shot 35mm slide film for all vacations and special events, I copied the slides to DVD's. It's sad that in just 2 or 3 decades from now, most will not have any family pic's to view.
Mandm must still be using his 486sx, 9600baud modem along with an optical jukebox and PCX formatted files. Today, issues with digital storage and transfer have been eliminated and we have more concerns with every high rez file loaded on the internet existing forevever via endless virtualization and back-up. It's a luddite arguement at best.
p-dub: I don't understand, if they are going to continue making 35mm motion picture film, why they can't sell the exact same film stocks packaged for 35mm SLR cameras. If demand is too low to support a national distribution network, sell it directly to photographers over the internet.
Motion picture film was cut and sold in standard 35mm cannisters in the middle and late 80's. The problem is that the material is made for optimum transfer to a interpositive and not optimum print making. MP film today is a decreasing commodity and never did yield optimum results as good as premium print films.
I'm looking at the studio comparisons -vs- the 7D, and while I've seen comments that the 650D is pulling more detail than the 7D the resolution charts clearly show the obnoxious levels of moire' as a side effect of reduced AA filtering. This has become a common trait of Canon's amatuer -vs- more serious dSLR offerings, but at a certain point you'd think Canon would come up with a better solution rather than sacrificing detail and 'sludgy' looking reds at the expense of possible moire'.
I'm not by any means a NASA engineer, but I am an Engineer on the IT side of things. I realize we're working with extreme data management constraints and 2004 technology curves.
My issue is why we're using a bayer based sensor when we want the most discrete data to come from our hardware. Why waste data pathing with all that interpolated nonsese just because somebody is more familiar with Kodak. We're taking pictures of other worlds, not snaphots of your kids.
Here's to hoping Kodak is out of business so they are forced to use better hardware the next time around.
Neodp: For the record, and all the misinformation, ufraw, as a precursor to Gimp (like ACR, to Adobe CS*, AKA Photoshop), handles your 16-bit Raw files, and 16-bit light adjustments, relative to photography. ANY concern about not first adjusting in 16-bits, is done there first. This is hardly the whole game, however.
Quote:"When can we see 16-bit per channel support (or better)?
For some industries, especially photography, 24-bit colour depths (8 bits per channel) are a real barrier to entry. Once again, it's GEGL to the rescue. Work on integrating GEGL into GIMP began after 2.4 was released, and will span across several stable releases. This work will be completed in GIMP 3.0, which will have full support for high bit depths. If you need such support now and can't wait, cinepaint and krita support 16 bits per channel now.
It should be noted that for publishing to the web, the current GIMP release is good enough."
Do not use old myths, to support your choices, whatever they be.
I'll stick to Scotch rather than Kool-Aid, and until Linux supports adobe products native you can keep GIMP. People who get real paychecks can afford real software, real developers get paychecks for software development, and GIMP continues to lag behind Adobe, except for price. Because it's free doesn't make it better, and being 'free' is your only real justification.
If I use Linux, my applications choices are far more limiting than either Mac or Windows, and given I bought my PC (or Mac) with my own money *I* will chose the applications I run for my best needs. Note this response was sent from a FreeNX client machine running Ubuntu.
The vast majority of complaints about HDR images often being 'over-cooked' have NOTHING to do with HDR. HDR images when properly executed are usually subtle, if not dull because of the expanded contrast range. Further manipulation is usually required to make them look normal, or aethestically pleasing.
It's the post tone-mapping algorithms often applied to HDR images that cause all the fuss, and the cartoonish images.
I'm sure we'll get the typical goose stepping approval by the Leica crowd, but I have to agree with most of the comments in that the images are under-whelming. Anybody owning the latest Nikon / Canon and knowing how to use something like SilverEFX will simply mop the floor with this thing - per pixel sharpness aside. However, one thing that might be worth experimenting with is Tri-Color exposures with still lifes. Net results should surpass an SD-1 with ease.
Xon_Fedaa: "“The EOS 60Da is a testament to the constant desire to meet the needs of every customer, including those in specialized fields,” said Yuichi Ishizuka, executive vice president and general manager, Imaging Technologies & Communications Group, Canon U.S.A."
Really, Mr. Ishizuka? Please point out to me Canon's offerings that have user removable IR filters to enable the sizable constituency of photography enthusiasts and artisans to take infrared photos.
Indeed, it would seem Canon's "desire to meet the needs of every customer, including those in specialized fields" isn't being fully realized.
Sigma SD1, here I come.
Good riddence. Nobody cares about Sigma anyways.
DioCanon: Nik software advertising!should be in the title.it's a good sw though!
It's basically just advertising. All these actions can be performed in Photoshop with a little effort. Now we'll see a flood of images with large radii contrast masking done through layer masks.
Nice, very, very nice.
Why? Because we don't worship Sigma?
There's no center of interest and the image is lacking tonality.