2002-02-24 04:02:28+00 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 05:36:19+00 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 05:42:48+00 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 06:26:07+00 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 20:23:37+00 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 22:07:57+00 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...