
Come in and BUY a camera!
Despite all its outstanding features, KODACHROME involves a highly complex development process that led photographers to experiment with and adopt newer KODAK films that deliver outstanding color images through a simpler workflow.
Although KODACHROME has very distinct characteristics and no film will give the exact same results, current users are encouraged to try other Kodak films. Kodak continues to bring innovative new film products to market, having released seven new professional films -- over the last three years alone. "Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department, has officially thrown down the gauntlet and drawn a line in the megapixel sand. "Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need," he told ZDNet this week at the annual Photo Marketing Association convention. But is he right?
Megapixels are the digital camera market's equivalent of horsepower and megahertz—a single metric that consumers and marketers latch on to tenaciously, despite the fact that it hardly describes overall performance. Over the last several years, camera manufacturers have been pumping up the megapixels on each successive camera model, regardless of whether such increases offered any real benefit (hint: it usually doesn't).
Throwing more megapixels at the digital imaging problem is akin to bumping up the processor speed on a motherboard with a slow bus and small amounts of RAM, or adding a turbo to a small engine on a car with lousy brakes and wobbly suspension.
See, throwing more megapixels at the digital imaging problem is akin to bumping up the processor speed on a motherboard with a slow bus and small amounts of RAM, or adding a turbo to a small engine on a car with lousy brakes and wobbly suspension. The number of megapixels in a camera's image sensor is just one in a number of aspects that truly define how well a camera works.
In an image sensor, larger pixels mean better light-gathering capability. This translates to better low-light performance, better color accuracy, and in some cases better dynamic range. Sensors commonly come in a few different sizes: Full frame (24 x 23mm), APC-C (17 x 25mm), Four-thirds (13.5 x 18mm), and even smaller sensors on compact point-and-shoot models. As manufactures cram more pixels on a given sensor, those pixels get smaller and smaller.
Typically, this reduction in individual pixel size on a sensor reduces its ability to gather light, reducing its sensitivity. Now, manufacturers have devised a number of technologies to try and combat this problem, but jamming more and more pixels on a sensor quickly leads to diminishing returns in terms of image quality.
The truth is, though, that 6MP is enough to make a very nice 8 x 10" print—in fact, I've seen very nice, though soft, 8 x 10" prints from early 3MP DSLRs. More pixels can mean larger prints or more room for cropping. But who's making larger prints, other than professionals? And with compact cameras offering up to 24x zoom ranges, exactly how much cropping would someone need?
"I personally believed, before starting the E-System, that 12 was enough," Watanabe said. "We interviewed many professional photographers, people in studios, about how many they needed in the future. Before we started the system, we had a rough idea we'd be at a plateau at 12 megapixels."
That figure, 12MP, is a pretty good limit for a majority of serious photographers. A large majority of professional portrait, event, and wedding photographers are using cameras in this range. But Watanabe doesn't mean to suggest that there aren't photographers with more demanding needs. "We don't think 20 megapixels is necessary for everybody. If a customer wants more than 12 megapixels, he should go to the full-frame models," he said.
And for casual users, whose images largely end up on sharing sites like Flickr, Picasa, or PhotoBucket, even 12MP is overkill. With a decent lens, something in the 6-8MP range will more than suffice. Keep in mind that with the increase in megapixels comes a resulting increase in file size. So shooting hundreds or even thousands of 12MP images means larger memory cards, more space eaten up on hard drives, and more time sorting and editing—all for images that are likely to end up viewed at no larger than 800 x 600px... or about half a megapixel.
Along with the number of megapixels in a sensor, other factors affect the image quality of a camera. The dynamic range, or the range of tones the sensor is able to reproduce, is a rather important one. A high-pixel-density sensor's ability to perform well in low light, which we mentioned above, is another. But beyond the sensor itself, the two other major factors that come into play are the on-board image processing hardware and the camera's lens. This is one reason SLRs have had a resurrection of sorts lately: DSLRs offer better lenses, larger sensors, and often better image processing.
So, manufacturers are starting to focus more on features like wider or longer zooms, higher-quality lenses, low-light performance, dynamic range, and high-def video capabilities. We've already seen a pretty significant competition between Nikon and Canon for the high-ISO crown this past year or so, and the improvements gleaned from high-end DSLR designs are trickling down to compact cameras. Further, Fuji has recently begun focusing marketing on dynamic range with its new EXR sensor technology. And some compacts, such as recent Pentax and Canon superzoom models, as well as DSLRs, like the Canon EOS 5DmkII or Nikon's D90, have already begun to exploit digital sensors to capture HD video.
Though focusing solely on the number of megapixels made marketing and buying digital cameras easier, it seems that we are at a major turning point in the direction of further developments in digital camera technology. Much like cars have shifted from horsepower to safety and efficiency, and computers have shifted from mega- (and giga-) hertz to multiple cores and... well, efficiency, digital cameras will shift toward other aspects that reflect the "bigger picture" of a camera's performance.
Today we are releasing the new official portrait for President Barack Obama.
It was taken by Pete Souza, the newly-announced official White House photographer.
It is the first time that an official presidential portrait was taken with a digital camera.
You can see the portrait below, or click here to download a copy.
“Myth 1: A digital photo is inferior to film.
Reality: Many of the first digital cameras, even the professional models, produced grainy, off-color images. Now, the better digital cameras, in all price ranges, offer photo quality that is at least on par with film. The best digital cameras often exceed the capabilities of film. Color, sharpness, lack of grain—today’s digital cameras produce great-looking photos, even when shown at large print sizes. Film is good—and improving too—but digital easily keeps pace.
Myth 2: Digital cameras are big and heavy.
Reality: Early on, it was tricky to squeeze all of a digital camera’s many components into a body that was as trim as a film camera. Camera manufacturers were also experimenting with new camera designs, to provided a new shape, size, and look to photography. The net result was big, cumbersome, and sometimes strange-looking cameras.
Today, the pendulum has swung. Professional and consumer cameras alike now have a more traditional appearance. Plus, there’s no shortage of small, featherweight digital cameras that don’t skimp on quality or features in achieving their tiny footprint.
Myth 3: Digital cameras are slow to fire.
Reality: The best digital cameras, at any level, offer a responsiveness that is equal to a comparable film camera. Put another way, it is possible to select a digital camera that will fire when you need it to. Unfortunately, there are still too many lesser digital cameras that have not been designed to take the picture quickly when the shutter button is pressed. So, while it’s not accurate to say that all digital cameras are slow to fire, it’s still true of quite a few.
Myth 4: Digital photography is expensive.
Reality: In 1994, one of the first digital cameras aimed at professional photographers sold for almost $18,000. Today, a similar—but much improved—camera for a pro can be purchased for about $2,000. The prices of digital cameras, at both the professional and consumer level, have plunged over the years, while the cameras themselves have only gotten better.
Still, the price of a digital camera is generally higher than a similarly equipped film camera. Essential peripherals, like a desktop printer or external memory card reader, add to digital’s cost. Whether digital photography is cost-effective for you is based on how you use a camera now, and how you anticipate using a camera in the future.
If you currently shoot lots of film and pay for lots of prints, or you have a business that uses photographs on a regular basis, then the higher up-front costs of a digital camera are quickly offset by savings on film, processing and perhaps even scanning your film into the computer. Some simple calculations will tell you where you stand.
Myth 5: Transferring pictures to the computer is slow.
Reality: Transferring pictures to the computer can be slow and tedious. But it doesn’t have to be. That’s because a variety of low-cost options exist that accelerate the transfer process.
For example, an external memory card reader that connects to the USB port on the computer is many times quicker than the serial port connection on many older digital cameras. And a memory card reader that connects to an IEEE 1394 (also called FireWire, or i.Link) port is noticeably faster than a USB-connected reader.
The fastest memory card readers transfer three or four high-resolution JPEG format photos to the computer in one second.
Myth 6: There is no good, affordable software for browsing and editing digital photos.
Reality: Software companies have heard the message on this one. The result has been the development of a wide range of inexpensive (less than $50), full-featured applications for viewing and adjusting photographs. Choosing from the many good software options is the tough part now. The My Pictures folder in Windows XP helps get you started—it offers the ability to organize, view, and even rotate photos.
Myth 7: Making prints from digital photos is difficult.
Reality: Software companies have heard the message on this one too. For example, the Photo Printing wizard in Windows XP streamlines the printing of photographs down to a few mouse clicks. Popular image browsers have also beefed up their photo printing capabilities.
Plus, if you’d prefer to leave the printing to someone else, online photo services manage this task for you. All you need to do is upload the photos to the service of your choice, pick the size of prints you’d like, then wait to receive the finished product in the mail.
Myth 8: Prints from digital photos look bad.
Reality: How true this used to be. In its infancy, digital photo printers produced prints that did not compare favorably with traditional photo prints. The so-so quality of images from early digital cameras didn’t help matters.
That’s all changed. Not only have digital printing technologies dramatically improved, camera and printer manufacturers are working hard to ensure that what the printer prints is of equal quality to what the camera captured. The net effect is digital photo prints that are often indistinguishable from old-fashioned film prints.
This is a good thing. Though digital photography offers many new opportunities for sharing your photographs, one of the most popular ways remains the tried-and-true print.
Myth 9: Organizing and storing digital photos is costly and time-consuming.
Reality: With Windows XP, you have all the tools you need to quickly and efficiently organize yu can reliably store your photos for years to come. The CD Writing wizard in Windows XP can help there, too.
Myth 10: Digital photography is too much fun.
Myth 10: Digital photography is too much fun.
Reality: Can’t debunk this one—it’s true! ”
Here are some links to other articles on the comparison of digital VS. film
Advantages and Disadvantages of Film and Digital
1-Year Cost Comparision for Film vs. Digital