2002-02-24 05:02:28+01 by Dan Lyke 5 comments
News.com claims Canon has announced the D60, 6.3 megapixels (that's as much as I ever hope to get out of Velvia), $2999. Want. Mid-April availability. If you go to the Canon web site, click on "English" (not "US customers"), you can get to a D60 page that has broken links, but confirms some of this (which I've also been seeing vague rumors of elsewhere).
[ related topics: Photography ]
comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):
#Comment made: 2002-02-24 06:36:19+01 by: Nathan
Yummy! Most of the links appear to work fine if you have javascript turned on. They have a rather nice full resolution sample image available too, as well as PDF specs of all sorts. I want it! I can't find the bit depth if the imager anywhere, but they say a raw 3072x2048 image is 7.4 megs which is about 10 bits. Now if only the imager was closer in size to a 35mm neg than it is (multiply focal length by 1.6 for this one).
#Comment made: 2002-02-24 06:42:48+01 by: Nathan [edit history]
OK, forget that part where I calculated the bit depth... I don't remember doing those drugs, and I'm not sure what the depth is. Still pretty though
#Comment made: 2002-02-24 07:26:07+01 by: Dan Lyke
You found 1.6? The rumors I'd seen earlier were 1.2, which only turns my 17-35/2.8 into a 20-42. Bummer. And I don't know bit depth either, but remembering that single CCD imagers aren't RGB, they use the Bayer pattern to get luminance overall and then do a little bit of interpolation for the color signal, that sounds like about 10 bits with the color pulled out as a post-process.
But you shoot B&W, so what do you care?
It'll also be interesting to see how much the in-camera contrast adjustment lets us screw with those 10 bits. If I could dial in a film characteristic I'd probably be happy with 8, although obviously the more that gets into the data files the better.
#Comment made: 2002-02-24 21:23:37+01 by: TheSHAD0W
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/d60.html
It is 1:1.6, which is typical of pro SLR-digicams, unfortunately.
#Comment made: 2002-02-24 23:07:57+01 by: Dan Lyke
Oh well. That article did point to a comparison of Canon's 16-35/2.8 and 17-35/2.8. Wow. Hey, I've got this really spiffy 17-35/2.8, it's my favorite lens (it really is), but I'll make you a deal...
We will not edit your comments. However, we may delete your comments, or cause them to be hidden behind another link, if we feel they detract from the conversation. Commercial plugs are fine, if they are relevant to the conversation, and if you don't try to pretend to be a consumer. Annoying endorsements will be deleted if you're lucky, if you're not a whole bunch of people smarter and more articulate than you will ridicule you, and we will leave such ridicule in place.
Flutterby™ is a trademark claimed by
Dan Lyke for the web publications at www.flutterby.com and www.flutterby.net. Also: ANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86 ANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REDACTED_THINKING_46C9A13E193C177646C7398A98432ECCCE4C1253D5E2D82641AC0E52CC2876CB