It could brnig a revolution to the point & shoots in the future if other companies follow suit and test the waters.
For those that don't know of it. The Sigma DP1 is a P&S, but with a DSLR size sensor. Basically, it is the image of a DSLR in a P&S; its capabilities are limited compared to a DSLR, but it is a great picture for a small camera.
Maybe Sigma will finally find a use for the Foveon X3 sensor that will actually sell. The DP1 was a beta to test the waters, not a production-ready camera, from what Sigma told me atheir booth. The news announcement now says Spring, but when Sigma last promised a camera in about 3 months it was the SD14 and it took 1-1/2 years to show up.
I think the idea is quite good, but the DP1 is NOT 14 megapixels - it is 4.6 megapixels with 3 sensors per pixel. Even the most enthusiastic reviewers say it is about equivalent to an 7 to 8 megapixel image - not 14 megapixels.
It is also seriously limited in ISO sensitivity. At low ISO it produces stunning images, but this is hardly the sensor to put in a P&S model unless Sigma can seriously fix many of the current limitations. It is doubtful the DP1 sensor is much iumproved since the Auto range for the camera is specified as 100 to 200. The DP prototype also is equipped with a fixed focal length 28mm equivalent lens with f4.0 speed which will mean the limited ISO and slow lens will make the camera all but useless for indoor shots without flash.
I do think the idea of a large sensor in a P&S is an interesting idea, but it would be more significant news if it was a model with more flexible sensor technology and a much more capable lens.
"I think the idea is quite good, but the DP1 is NOT 14 megapixels - it is 4.6 megapixels with 3 sensors per pixel. Even the most enthusiastic reviewers say it is about equivalent to an 7 to 8 megapixel image - not 14 megapixels. "
Actually it's nowhere near as simple as that - in a standard 14MP camera you don't get 14MP either, each of those can only measure red, green or blue. To produce the final output the camera mixes thsoe colours together to produce a final 14MP output. The SD14 however measures red, green and blue at each of those sites, it's just unlike a bayer sensor where they are alongside each other they are instead on top of each other. I don't know what reviews you've been reading but I found the average SD14 resolution by reviewers to be estimated at around 10-12MP with 'enthusiastic' reviewers putting it up to the full 14MP. There are some extremely detailed comparisons here with many pictures and analysis:
You may be getting mixed up with the older Foveon based Sigma cameras with your 7-8MP resolution comment.
With regards to the DP1 however I do agree, while I applaud Sigma for trying to do something different in the point and shoot market the Foveon sensor is really the wrong one for the job. I did actually have an SD14 which I primarily planned to use for landscape use but as I shoot in Scotland the ISO sensitivity was a real issue especially as ISO 50 seems to be favoured by most SD14 users. With a compact camera one of the reasons to have a larger sensor for many people is surely the better high ISO sensitivity. I think a 4/3 sensor being the smallest of the SLR sensors would be better for the job, I really think Panasonic should be working on producing a bridge camera and a point/shoot with one of their 4/3 sensors as they're struggling to find a niche in the crowded DSLR market.
The task Sigma have set themselves is no easy job and similarly I agree that they're not really up to it...I was disappointed by the SD14 body, I felt even entry level bodies were better never mind the semi-pro market the SD14 was competing in. One hope I do have is that even if the DP1 doesn't live up to expectations, if it generates enough consumer attention another company better suited to producing such a camera will take notice and produce a better model.
I wasn't confused with older models in my comments. Popular Photography was one of the few reviews of the SD14 (in July 2007 I believe) and it was fairly enthusiastic compared to the few SD14 reviews that actually appeared. From the PopPhoto SD14 review:
"Our image quality tests came down in favor of RAW files over JPEGs. In JPEG mode at ISO 100, the SD14 captures detail on par with an 8MP DSLR such as the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT."
I didn't even mention that the earleir models only did RAW and the SD14 implementation of JPEG is very poor, but that review says it better. I have always been intrigued by the concept of the Foveon sensor as it is very logical, but the implementations have left a lot to be desired - particularly in low-light sensitivity.
I agree the current E-3 sensor made by Panasonic would be a great sensor for a P&S. It is a CMOS sensor and some reviews found RAW noise at ISO 3200 about as low as ISO 100. The just released firmware update for the E-3 (1.1) has also much improved the JPEG algorythms for that sensor. Another great large sensor choice would be any of the Canon APS C CMOS sensors. A P&S based on any of those sensors would be truly interesting. Either Canon or Olympus could also pair some good optics with the larger sensor.
It wasn't the E-300 that had the dual sensor liveview, it was the E-330 - while both cameras look similar with their lack of the standard viewfinder 'hump', the E-300 and its Kodak sensor have no liveview facility at all. The E-330 with the Panasonic sensor is the one you are referring to, unlike the Sony though it offered liveview through both the main sensor and the secondary one.
Regarding contrast detect AF, you've cited Canon who have only announced a camera with this feature (I don't think the 40D has?) despite Nikon and Panasonic both having already released cameras with this feature.
To be honest, having used various liveview cameras I find the main limitatin of liveview is the lack of articulated screen. I find myself using liveview far more on the E-330 and the E-3 compared to the DMC-L1 and E-510 as it's far easier to use the screen when it can be angled rather than trying to see a fixed screen. I don't miss the secondary sensor in the E-330 nearly as much, for anything at speed I'm generally using the main optical viewfinder anyway.
The references are changed to E-330, which is of course correct. The new Sony A300 and A350 have Live View AND an articulated screen, which I am sure you saw in the PMA article.
I did notice the articulated screen but the comments were referring to liveview cameras in general rather than the Sony specifically - none of the Nikon or Canon LV cameras have an articulated screen which I think makes liveview far less useful.
I guess my point is that I don't think the second sensor liveview system is quite as useful in reality as it seems on paper. The market for this type of liveview is generally thought to be those upgrading from point and shoot cameras but I think most will use the optical viewfinder, it's not really possibly to hold an SLR at arm's length for normal shooting via liveview. I think the main benefit of liveview is shooting for all photographers is using the camera in awkward positions which often means speed isn't really needed but being able to see an articulated screen is very useful.
The problem with a second sensor liveview system is that it has to be relatively complex, in both the Sony and Olympus it affects the viewfinder, the sensor has to be small which means it breaks up quicker in low light and there's no magnification which means it really needs a liveview option through the main sensor as well.
Obviously it would be good if someone could work around these problems but I think realistically software is going to be the solution - an SLR that can put its mirror up and function entirely without moving the mirror back down in the same way as a point and shoot doesn't affect the rest of the camera and makes liveview very useful.
Everytime I read one of these articles I realize how little is actually being said. First, the point of DSLR's is the optical viewfinder - I'm not entirely sure why live view is so amazing. I specifically prefer using a viewfinder instead of an LCD screen because no matter how many pixels you cram into the LCD, the viewfinder will be better. Second, I feel like Wesley did no research into the D60. About the only good feature of the D60 is the Active D-Lighting that's come down from the D3 and the D300 (at least according to Ken Rockwell). I'm not sure how good it is (having never tried it) but it looks interesting. Third, I feel like all Wesley is doing is listing specs. That's great, but has he actually used the cameras. Can he comment on how easy they are to use, how good the actual image quality is, etc...? I've never seen him comment on flash products which are important in a lot of situations. I don't care that one camera has 10 megapixels and the other has 12. That means very little if one camera is impossible to use. I care about how convenient DSLRs are to use and how good their image quality is. I care about how fast the AF system is. This is a hardware review site, not a camera review site, and it shows.
Wow! Freaking insightful commentary bud! Do you know what the difference is between a review a preview and a tradeshow article? No? I didn't think so. Let me explain quickly. This is NOT a review in any way shape or form. It is a look at a bunch of upcoming camera products that are being shown at the PMA tradeshow. PMA stands for Photo Marketing Association if you weren't aware. So let's all die of shock that a tradeshow report doesn't contain a ton of detailed benchmarks shall we?
What I'd like to see is a lot more product coverage. A few shots of high end products from Sony, Samsung, Nikon, and then on the last page Lumix. Sweet! I've never heard of Canon, Panasonic, Kodak, Fuji.... Hopefully there are more articles planned from the show that will look at the other options. Also will we ever get point-and-shoot cameras with larger sensors or is that a pipe dream?
Poor writing and editing to not even mention once what PMA stands for. Enthusiasts might know but it's still good practice to spell it out at least once.
PMA originally was an acronym for the Photographic Manufacturers Association, but it has lost that meaning over time as photography has shifted to imaging and PMA never makes mention of what PMA stands for any more. I defined PMA in some recent blog articles referring to the show.
The second sentence in the article is 'PMA bills itself as “The Worldwide Community of Imaging Associations” '. This was mentioned at the beginning of the article to explain what PMA was about. With the introductory paragraph was it not clear that PMA was a show of imaging solutions, which included digital phtography?
Thank you Wesley Fink for your work with this article, but I have a small grip with the Sony Live View system
"The Sony Live View is clearly the best implementation of that feature on any SLR."
Well, like always lets take into account how it's going to be used
The Live View might be better for people coming from P&S cameras but it's surley not the holy grail
Canon's XSI with it's WYSIWYG Live View has it's own advantages, here is a small article on it (including downsides to the Sony design)
I think you're quite right, the comments about liveview in the article seem to misunderstand the concept. This form of liveview thinking was certainly popular when only Olympus had it but funnily enough times have changed now that various other companies have it and people have realised the benefits.
Without the facility to use the main sensor for liveview I think it leaves the Sony implementation still half baked - while the main sensor means delays with mirror flips it can be used for very accurate manual focus and generally works better in low light. In most cases when using the camera in liveview mode it's because it's in an awkward position so speed isn't really that useful. However as in these cases for me at least it's often macro having a 10x boost is very useful. While I could be lying along the ground to use the optical viewfinder, obviously it's far more comfortable to use the screen.
I have to say I remain uncovinced with the AT camera articles as they seem to consider the cameras far too much from a feature aspect without properly considering their usage. Furthermore I'm disappointed at the errors, the last camera comparison had numerous errors on 4/3 aspects alone and similarly there are errors in this article as well. As I'm only particularly familiar with the 4/3 system, I don't really trust what I'm reading on other cameras here.
I personally think Live View is very over-rated and is more a check list feature - even though I'm a fan generally of Olympus' recent 4/3 gear and Olympus invented Live View on the SLR. I spent a great deal of time at PMA walking around the show with A Sony A350 and I found the live view on their camera VERY fast and much more useful than I expected.
The down side is Sony uses a tilting Penta-mirror, which means the way they do it will not work on more expensive SLRs with full optical viewfinders like the A700. The tilting Pentamirror is by definition an entry level solution for the DSLR. However, Sony sees it as a bridge technology for buyers coming from P&S and they feel strongly it should be just as fast as optical to be of any real value. I mentioned the Canon because I do believe as done on the upcoming XSi it is the next best solution for Live View, though it the Canon approach does have a different set of limitations.
I've been a fan of Anandtech since the geocities days
This is the first article I've read here while, and felt a bit clueless in regards to the content. A camera lens thing? Whats it do? What do all these unfamiliar acronyms mean? Nikon didn't want a blower thing, but now they're adding one? I must have missed that news on cameraworld.com
If the content is going to stray away from the usual 'hardware analysis and news', then I think it should have bits of the article geared towards someone new to the topic.
If you clock on the 'Digital Cameras' tab at the top of the page you will find an article called "Digital Photography from 20,000 feet". I have mentioned in many recent reviews that you should start there if you feel lost in the terminology and concepts. As one comment pointed out nothing I said here was that unusual for those into Photography - even a little bit.
There is also a late December Buyers Guides that talsk about features of all the models available before this show - and the article links the recent blogs on the introduction of the Canon XSi and the Pentax K20D.
Heh, yeah camera news can get a bit acronym heavy. I don't think anything mentioned would be unfamiliar to anyone "into" photography though, so I'm not sure how much they should be expected to define or explain ahead of time. They don't usually spell out stuff like Front Side Bus when talking about new PCs either. It's just assumed that the reader knows what terms like FSB, L2 cache, 45 nm, and SLI mean.
But I think maybe an article explaining some of the basics would be helpful. Then they could link to it whenever there's camera news.
Briefly: the Nikon thing was talking about a sensor cleaning system that removes dust from the image sensor. SLR type cameras have the sensor sitting out in the air when you swap lenses, so they can get dirty. The VR lens has image stabilization so you get fewer blurry pictures when shooting in low light and such (very useful). Canon and Nikon have the stabilization take place in their lenses, whereas Sony, Olympus et al do it inside the camera body. The Live View stuff is confusing, but basically Sony's is the best. DSLRs didn't used to show you what you're taking a picture of in the LCD (you had to look in the viewfinder, for technical reasons). New DSLRs allow you to look at the LCD, but most can't autofocus and such while you're looking at the screen. Sony's is cool like that.
Seems like all consumers can think about is Megapixel that, megapixel here, my camera has more megapixels so its better. About 90% of consumers who buy P&S cameras don't even need that many pixels for their 4x6 prints.
Image quality is of course the most important thing with any camera and lens. With the tiny sensors in P&S cameras the current megapixel race has already reached the point of higher megapixels often creating poorer quality. With those small sensors the smaller sensor sites that come with higher res can be less sensitive to light and actually produce lower sensitivity and poorer pictures.
The situation is quite different with the relatively "huge" sensors in APS-C and full-frame DSLR sensors. Real resolution is still increasing, but buyers should always take a close look at the high ISO performance of the new higher megapixel sensors to see if sensitivity is being overly compromised for higher resolution.
The OP does have a point. More mega pixels does have an advantage IF you're going to make poster sized pictures, or larger, but dynamic range plays more of a factor in quality images in a lot of situations.
Look into it I think you'll see what 'we' are saying.
Actually, not entirely true. More megapixels add pixelation as well, which makes for lousy pictures of any size. Software can correct for that, but frequently when resolution has jumped the early adopters got so-so images because the software was not as fine tuned.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
22 Comments
Back to Article
AmbroseAthan - Monday, February 4, 2008 - link
It could brnig a revolution to the point & shoots in the future if other companies follow suit and test the waters.For those that don't know of it. The Sigma DP1 is a P&S, but with a DSLR size sensor. Basically, it is the image of a DSLR in a P&S; its capabilities are limited compared to a DSLR, but it is a great picture for a small camera.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08020301sigmadp1...">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08020301sigmadp1...
Wesley Fink - Monday, February 4, 2008 - link
Maybe Sigma will finally find a use for the Foveon X3 sensor that will actually sell. The DP1 was a beta to test the waters, not a production-ready camera, from what Sigma told me atheir booth. The news announcement now says Spring, but when Sigma last promised a camera in about 3 months it was the SD14 and it took 1-1/2 years to show up.I think the idea is quite good, but the DP1 is NOT 14 megapixels - it is 4.6 megapixels with 3 sensors per pixel. Even the most enthusiastic reviewers say it is about equivalent to an 7 to 8 megapixel image - not 14 megapixels.
It is also seriously limited in ISO sensitivity. At low ISO it produces stunning images, but this is hardly the sensor to put in a P&S model unless Sigma can seriously fix many of the current limitations. It is doubtful the DP1 sensor is much iumproved since the Auto range for the camera is specified as 100 to 200. The DP prototype also is equipped with a fixed focal length 28mm equivalent lens with f4.0 speed which will mean the limited ISO and slow lens will make the camera all but useless for indoor shots without flash.
I do think the idea of a large sensor in a P&S is an interesting idea, but it would be more significant news if it was a model with more flexible sensor technology and a much more capable lens.
Johnmcl7 - Monday, February 4, 2008 - link
"I think the idea is quite good, but the DP1 is NOT 14 megapixels - it is 4.6 megapixels with 3 sensors per pixel. Even the most enthusiastic reviewers say it is about equivalent to an 7 to 8 megapixel image - not 14 megapixels. "Actually it's nowhere near as simple as that - in a standard 14MP camera you don't get 14MP either, each of those can only measure red, green or blue. To produce the final output the camera mixes thsoe colours together to produce a final 14MP output. The SD14 however measures red, green and blue at each of those sites, it's just unlike a bayer sensor where they are alongside each other they are instead on top of each other. I don't know what reviews you've been reading but I found the average SD14 resolution by reviewers to be estimated at around 10-12MP with 'enthusiastic' reviewers putting it up to the full 14MP. There are some extremely detailed comparisons here with many pictures and analysis:
http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/">http://www.ddisoftware.com/sd14-5d/
You may be getting mixed up with the older Foveon based Sigma cameras with your 7-8MP resolution comment.
With regards to the DP1 however I do agree, while I applaud Sigma for trying to do something different in the point and shoot market the Foveon sensor is really the wrong one for the job. I did actually have an SD14 which I primarily planned to use for landscape use but as I shoot in Scotland the ISO sensitivity was a real issue especially as ISO 50 seems to be favoured by most SD14 users. With a compact camera one of the reasons to have a larger sensor for many people is surely the better high ISO sensitivity. I think a 4/3 sensor being the smallest of the SLR sensors would be better for the job, I really think Panasonic should be working on producing a bridge camera and a point/shoot with one of their 4/3 sensors as they're struggling to find a niche in the crowded DSLR market.
The task Sigma have set themselves is no easy job and similarly I agree that they're not really up to it...I was disappointed by the SD14 body, I felt even entry level bodies were better never mind the semi-pro market the SD14 was competing in. One hope I do have is that even if the DP1 doesn't live up to expectations, if it generates enough consumer attention another company better suited to producing such a camera will take notice and produce a better model.
John
Wesley Fink - Tuesday, February 5, 2008 - link
I wasn't confused with older models in my comments. Popular Photography was one of the few reviews of the SD14 (in July 2007 I believe) and it was fairly enthusiastic compared to the few SD14 reviews that actually appeared. From the PopPhoto SD14 review:"Our image quality tests came down in favor of RAW files over JPEGs. In JPEG mode at ISO 100, the SD14 captures detail on par with an 8MP DSLR such as the Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT."
I didn't even mention that the earleir models only did RAW and the SD14 implementation of JPEG is very poor, but that review says it better. I have always been intrigued by the concept of the Foveon sensor as it is very logical, but the implementations have left a lot to be desired - particularly in low-light sensitivity.
I agree the current E-3 sensor made by Panasonic would be a great sensor for a P&S. It is a CMOS sensor and some reviews found RAW noise at ISO 3200 about as low as ISO 100. The just released firmware update for the E-3 (1.1) has also much improved the JPEG algorythms for that sensor. Another great large sensor choice would be any of the Canon APS C CMOS sensors. A P&S based on any of those sensors would be truly interesting. Either Canon or Olympus could also pair some good optics with the larger sensor.
Johnmcl7 - Sunday, February 3, 2008 - link
It wasn't the E-300 that had the dual sensor liveview, it was the E-330 - while both cameras look similar with their lack of the standard viewfinder 'hump', the E-300 and its Kodak sensor have no liveview facility at all. The E-330 with the Panasonic sensor is the one you are referring to, unlike the Sony though it offered liveview through both the main sensor and the secondary one.Regarding contrast detect AF, you've cited Canon who have only announced a camera with this feature (I don't think the 40D has?) despite Nikon and Panasonic both having already released cameras with this feature.
To be honest, having used various liveview cameras I find the main limitatin of liveview is the lack of articulated screen. I find myself using liveview far more on the E-330 and the E-3 compared to the DMC-L1 and E-510 as it's far easier to use the screen when it can be angled rather than trying to see a fixed screen. I don't miss the secondary sensor in the E-330 nearly as much, for anything at speed I'm generally using the main optical viewfinder anyway.
John
Wesley Fink - Sunday, February 3, 2008 - link
John -The references are changed to E-330, which is of course correct. The new Sony A300 and A350 have Live View AND an articulated screen, which I am sure you saw in the PMA article.
Johnmcl7 - Sunday, February 3, 2008 - link
I did notice the articulated screen but the comments were referring to liveview cameras in general rather than the Sony specifically - none of the Nikon or Canon LV cameras have an articulated screen which I think makes liveview far less useful.I guess my point is that I don't think the second sensor liveview system is quite as useful in reality as it seems on paper. The market for this type of liveview is generally thought to be those upgrading from point and shoot cameras but I think most will use the optical viewfinder, it's not really possibly to hold an SLR at arm's length for normal shooting via liveview. I think the main benefit of liveview is shooting for all photographers is using the camera in awkward positions which often means speed isn't really needed but being able to see an articulated screen is very useful.
The problem with a second sensor liveview system is that it has to be relatively complex, in both the Sony and Olympus it affects the viewfinder, the sensor has to be small which means it breaks up quicker in low light and there's no magnification which means it really needs a liveview option through the main sensor as well.
Obviously it would be good if someone could work around these problems but I think realistically software is going to be the solution - an SLR that can put its mirror up and function entirely without moving the mirror back down in the same way as a point and shoot doesn't affect the rest of the camera and makes liveview very useful.
John
dblevitan - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
Everytime I read one of these articles I realize how little is actually being said. First, the point of DSLR's is the optical viewfinder - I'm not entirely sure why live view is so amazing. I specifically prefer using a viewfinder instead of an LCD screen because no matter how many pixels you cram into the LCD, the viewfinder will be better. Second, I feel like Wesley did no research into the D60. About the only good feature of the D60 is the Active D-Lighting that's come down from the D3 and the D300 (at least according to Ken Rockwell). I'm not sure how good it is (having never tried it) but it looks interesting. Third, I feel like all Wesley is doing is listing specs. That's great, but has he actually used the cameras. Can he comment on how easy they are to use, how good the actual image quality is, etc...? I've never seen him comment on flash products which are important in a lot of situations. I don't care that one camera has 10 megapixels and the other has 12. That means very little if one camera is impossible to use. I care about how convenient DSLRs are to use and how good their image quality is. I care about how fast the AF system is. This is a hardware review site, not a camera review site, and it shows.whatthehey - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
Wow! Freaking insightful commentary bud! Do you know what the difference is between a review a preview and a tradeshow article? No? I didn't think so. Let me explain quickly. This is NOT a review in any way shape or form. It is a look at a bunch of upcoming camera products that are being shown at the PMA tradeshow. PMA stands for Photo Marketing Association if you weren't aware. So let's all die of shock that a tradeshow report doesn't contain a ton of detailed benchmarks shall we?What I'd like to see is a lot more product coverage. A few shots of high end products from Sony, Samsung, Nikon, and then on the last page Lumix. Sweet! I've never heard of Canon, Panasonic, Kodak, Fuji.... Hopefully there are more articles planned from the show that will look at the other options. Also will we ever get point-and-shoot cameras with larger sensors or is that a pipe dream?
Lord Evermore - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
Poor writing and editing to not even mention once what PMA stands for. Enthusiasts might know but it's still good practice to spell it out at least once.Wesley Fink - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
PMA originally was an acronym for the Photographic Manufacturers Association, but it has lost that meaning over time as photography has shifted to imaging and PMA never makes mention of what PMA stands for any more. I defined PMA in some recent blog articles referring to the show.The second sentence in the article is 'PMA bills itself as “The Worldwide Community of Imaging Associations” '. This was mentioned at the beginning of the article to explain what PMA was about. With the introductory paragraph was it not clear that PMA was a show of imaging solutions, which included digital phtography?
Per Hansson - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
Thank you Wesley Fink for your work with this article, but I have a small grip with the Sony Live View system"The Sony Live View is clearly the best implementation of that feature on any SLR."
Well, like always lets take into account how it's going to be used
The Live View might be better for people coming from P&S cameras but it's surley not the holy grail
Canon's XSI with it's WYSIWYG Live View has it's own advantages, here is a small article on it (including downsides to the Sony design)
http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/01/31/how-the-live-...">http://photoclubalpha.com/2008/01/31/how-the-live-...
Also, on page X there are spelling mistakes, "certaihly" and "showss"
Johnmcl7 - Sunday, February 3, 2008 - link
I think you're quite right, the comments about liveview in the article seem to misunderstand the concept. This form of liveview thinking was certainly popular when only Olympus had it but funnily enough times have changed now that various other companies have it and people have realised the benefits.Without the facility to use the main sensor for liveview I think it leaves the Sony implementation still half baked - while the main sensor means delays with mirror flips it can be used for very accurate manual focus and generally works better in low light. In most cases when using the camera in liveview mode it's because it's in an awkward position so speed isn't really that useful. However as in these cases for me at least it's often macro having a 10x boost is very useful. While I could be lying along the ground to use the optical viewfinder, obviously it's far more comfortable to use the screen.
I have to say I remain uncovinced with the AT camera articles as they seem to consider the cameras far too much from a feature aspect without properly considering their usage. Furthermore I'm disappointed at the errors, the last camera comparison had numerous errors on 4/3 aspects alone and similarly there are errors in this article as well. As I'm only particularly familiar with the 4/3 system, I don't really trust what I'm reading on other cameras here.
John
Wesley Fink - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
I personally think Live View is very over-rated and is more a check list feature - even though I'm a fan generally of Olympus' recent 4/3 gear and Olympus invented Live View on the SLR. I spent a great deal of time at PMA walking around the show with A Sony A350 and I found the live view on their camera VERY fast and much more useful than I expected.The down side is Sony uses a tilting Penta-mirror, which means the way they do it will not work on more expensive SLRs with full optical viewfinders like the A700. The tilting Pentamirror is by definition an entry level solution for the DSLR. However, Sony sees it as a bridge technology for buyers coming from P&S and they feel strongly it should be just as fast as optical to be of any real value. I mentioned the Canon because I do believe as done on the upcoming XSi it is the next best solution for Live View, though it the Canon approach does have a different set of limitations.
SlinkyDink - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
I've been a fan of Anandtech since the geocities daysThis is the first article I've read here while, and felt a bit clueless in regards to the content. A camera lens thing? Whats it do? What do all these unfamiliar acronyms mean? Nikon didn't want a blower thing, but now they're adding one? I must have missed that news on cameraworld.com
If the content is going to stray away from the usual 'hardware analysis and news', then I think it should have bits of the article geared towards someone new to the topic.
Wesley Fink - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
If you clock on the 'Digital Cameras' tab at the top of the page you will find an article called "Digital Photography from 20,000 feet". I have mentioned in many recent reviews that you should start there if you feel lost in the terminology and concepts. As one comment pointed out nothing I said here was that unusual for those into Photography - even a little bit.There is also a late December Buyers Guides that talsk about features of all the models available before this show - and the article links the recent blogs on the introduction of the Canon XSi and the Pentax K20D.
AndyKH - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
If you want an introduction to the subject you could take a look on dpreview.com, a really excellent photo site.Bruce 1337 - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
Heh, yeah camera news can get a bit acronym heavy. I don't think anything mentioned would be unfamiliar to anyone "into" photography though, so I'm not sure how much they should be expected to define or explain ahead of time. They don't usually spell out stuff like Front Side Bus when talking about new PCs either. It's just assumed that the reader knows what terms like FSB, L2 cache, 45 nm, and SLI mean.But I think maybe an article explaining some of the basics would be helpful. Then they could link to it whenever there's camera news.
Briefly: the Nikon thing was talking about a sensor cleaning system that removes dust from the image sensor. SLR type cameras have the sensor sitting out in the air when you swap lenses, so they can get dirty. The VR lens has image stabilization so you get fewer blurry pictures when shooting in low light and such (very useful). Canon and Nikon have the stabilization take place in their lenses, whereas Sony, Olympus et al do it inside the camera body. The Live View stuff is confusing, but basically Sony's is the best. DSLRs didn't used to show you what you're taking a picture of in the LCD (you had to look in the viewfinder, for technical reasons). New DSLRs allow you to look at the LCD, but most can't autofocus and such while you're looking at the screen. Sony's is cool like that.
MrX8503 - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
Seems like all consumers can think about is Megapixel that, megapixel here, my camera has more megapixels so its better. About 90% of consumers who buy P&S cameras don't even need that many pixels for their 4x6 prints.Wesley Fink - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
Image quality is of course the most important thing with any camera and lens. With the tiny sensors in P&S cameras the current megapixel race has already reached the point of higher megapixels often creating poorer quality. With those small sensors the smaller sensor sites that come with higher res can be less sensitive to light and actually produce lower sensitivity and poorer pictures.The situation is quite different with the relatively "huge" sensors in APS-C and full-frame DSLR sensors. Real resolution is still increasing, but buyers should always take a close look at the high ISO performance of the new higher megapixel sensors to see if sensitivity is being overly compromised for higher resolution.
yyrkoon - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
The OP does have a point. More mega pixels does have an advantage IF you're going to make poster sized pictures, or larger, but dynamic range plays more of a factor in quality images in a lot of situations.Look into it I think you'll see what 'we' are saying.
madgonad - Saturday, February 2, 2008 - link
Actually, not entirely true. More megapixels add pixelation as well, which makes for lousy pictures of any size. Software can correct for that, but frequently when resolution has jumped the early adopters got so-so images because the software was not as fine tuned.