PDA

View Full Version : 5 megapixel camera not good enough? How does 14MP sound?



lecter
25th September 2002, 05:30
Yup, Kodak has just produced the world's first 14MegaPixel digital camera....each picture occupies a nifty 8MB but thankfully the damn thing has a Firewire connection...all I can say to this is :eek: !

Pace
25th September 2002, 06:20
More digicam lovin': Kodak 13.8MP (http://www.democratandchronicle.com/biznews/0922story4_business.shtml) and Canon 11.1MP (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,528206,00.asp) :)

P.

Dr Mordrid
25th September 2002, 11:15
I like the idea of the Canon's taking existing lenses :D

Dr. Mordrid

luni
25th September 2002, 11:56
Overkill for vast majority of users IMHO.

The PIT
25th September 2002, 13:16
Well they got find a way of filling those large ide drives up.

az
25th September 2002, 13:39
It's not overkill. At 10 megapixels, you're slowly approaching the quality of analog photos. Maybe you want to have a poster of your latest shot - try that with your 800x600 digicam ;)

Now it only has to become MUCH cheaper. Print services, too.

AZ

Agent31
25th September 2002, 18:13
my old 2.1 MP Kodak takes 1790x1290 or so, prints out perfectly on a A4 laser, looks better than an enlarged print in most cases. Not talking professional development of course, but then I'm not talking about professional costs either. 14 MP is for professionals who want to shoot posters, otherwise it's just madness!

Bring it on! :D

Wombat
25th September 2002, 21:07
my old 2.1 MP Kodak takes 1790x1290 or so, prints out perfectly on a A4 laser, looks better than an enlarged print in most cases. Not talking professional development of course, but then I'm not talking about professional costs either. 14 MP is for professionals who want to shoot posters, otherwise it's just madness! You're tricking yourself. A 3MP camera isn't much good past 5"x 8" prints, if that. Just figure 300 dpi is pretty good. Your 1790x1290 (2.3MP, so an overshoot there) would be about 5" x 4" at 300dpi.

Agent31
25th September 2002, 21:50
I'm just saying, I've produced some ****ing impressive prints off this setup, maybe it's just well matched (camera-->my photoshop skills-->printer).

Are you aware that most commercial prints are interpolated 150dpi?

Claymonkey
25th September 2002, 23:29
I agree with Agent31 that at present 'we' don't need 14MP considering present storage methods at reasonable prices. Just think how fast a sony mavica would fill up its 140MB discs. However, I know a ton of graphic designers and professional photographers that would love this. If you've ever had to do graphic design from a client's 800x600 digital shots you know their pain. Plus now you can say, I want to use that small piece of the picture on this layout and have it not suck.....

luni
26th September 2002, 02:32
Guys we are talking about vas majority of users here. Not graphical designers. Not photo artists. About Jon Doe who buys the camera to take pics of his new car, baby or maybe trip to Brazil.

Anyway, its great to see how easy for them is to increase the CDD chip resolution, think that soon there will be no oldschool hardcore photographers screaming "analog is still the king!" left. Heh :)

rubank
26th September 2002, 07:22
The vast majority shouldn´t use cameras to begin with.
The output is mostly awful.
:D

Luni, good luck viewing those "digital" images 50 yrs from now.

Greebe
26th September 2002, 07:24
the same can be said about film based images...

K6-III
26th September 2002, 07:53
The vast majority won't spend $6000 on a camera...

Greebe
26th September 2002, 08:02
If I had the cash I would!

Now were is that winning lottery ticket ;)

Dr Mordrid
26th September 2002, 09:43
I'd love a 10mp camera for my studio. That or a 10mp back for my RB67 :D

Dr. Mordrid

luni
26th September 2002, 10:36
But I must say that there is something nearly magical in those high level cameras. Holding and operating such perfection gives a special feeling... or am I weird?

Greebe
26th September 2002, 10:48
Just like having anything that's made to such perfection... nothin strange about that :)

It's when you adore such things so much they take precidence over all others and or you charish them to the point of idolizing them... like buying only for the sake of having it, not that you would need or to actually use in real life.

GT98
26th September 2002, 11:25
Originally posted by K6-III
The vast majority won't spend $6000 on a camera...

But I bet you that in less then 3 years the price will be under $1K...I would get one then :D

HedsSpaz
26th September 2002, 15:17
The new Canon is incredible. If I had the dough to drop on it I would in a heart beat, as is I'm saving for a D60.

The Kodak looks nice on paper, but they've been out of the Pro SLR market for a long time now. I would much sooner go with a Canon or a Nikon.



But I bet you that in less then 3 years the price will be under $1K...I would get one then

Heh, I wish that were the case, but it's not bloody likely. The retail price on the 1Ds predecessor has dropped a grand total of... 200 some odd dollars. Pro SLR's don't drop much in price till 5 or more years after they go out of production, at least thats what I've observed in the past.

Anyway... here's to drooling over geek toys. :)

Ian

luni
26th September 2002, 15:25
Well that particular model probably wont drop in price but many cameras for home users featuring chips of same sensitivity will be made and those will be cheaper. Well, the optics wont be nearly the same, but you cant have everythign for nothing :)