Going Digital

[sducoach 0]

Looking for information on digital cameras. I've started to see some great pic's & prints from digital's. Any help on what's being used, FPS, cost, etc.
Thanks,

J.E.

James 4:8

[quade 3]

The big issue, as always, is money.
In the $2000 range, it's pretty difficult to beat the Canon D60.
In the under $1000 range, it's pretty difficult to find anything that's going to work well.
What's your price range?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sducoach 0]

Quade,
That is the question of the year!?!
The $2000.00 range is okay however, the question is how have the prices changed in the past couple of years. Are the digital cameras following the digital video camera trends? If so the Canon D60 will be down in the $1200.00 range soon.
I would really like to know who's using then now and what the fps (or spf may be more accurate) you might be getting.
Thank you for your response.
J.E.

James 4:8

[quade 3]

Now that the market has opened up and things are beginning to settle down a bit, digital cameras are (I think) going to be a lot like computers -- prices will stay fundamentally the same, but functionality will progressively get "better" at the various price points. The very top of the line cameras will probably always be too cost prohibitive for skydiving ($5,000 to $15,000 range), but the $2000 range is pretty damn good and more than acceptable for magazine publication (even those really picky Euro slicks).

For instance, the Canon D60 can shoot 3 frames per second for the first 8 frames and listed for about $2200. The replacement camera, the Canon 10D (not quite yet available) will use the EXACT SAME IMAGER with slightly improved software and a slightly larger buffer that can shoot 3 fps for the first 9 frames will also list for about the same price.

Notice -slight- improvement at nearly the same price point. Actually, adjusted for inflation it's a bit better of a deal, but not quite the huge leap in price point we'd all like to see.

I'm currently shooting a D60 and I won't trade up for that -small- increase in performance. It's just not worth it to me, but it I were looking for a new camera, that's definitely where I'd go.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Deuce 1]

Any info on when the larger imager is going to come online? I've read here and elsewhere that an imager that will produce the same size images as film cameras is right around the corner. One that will produce the same size image as it would on film, with the same 24mm lens.

There's gotta be a cooler way to say that.

[AndyMan 7]

I personally think paul is underestimating the rapid progression in both CCD technology and more importantly, memory modules.

I think he hit the nail on the head with the comparison to the computer industry, but was incorrect in saying that prices are static. You can buy a $299 Pentium 4 system at walmart now. Only a few years ago you'd be hard pressed to get a 386 for under $2,500.

I think digital SLR's will eventually be in the same pricerange as analog SLR's, where you can get a pretty good one that does 99% of what guys like me need, for $350.

Digital SLR's are just now evolving out of the realm of "Early Adopters", and slowly moving towards being mainstream consumer electronics. When they do become common pieces of consumer electronics, expect the price competition to be ruthless.


If anybody is looking at buying a digital SLR, I'd say that just like buying a PC, you have to be able to justify the business logic of buying one NOW. The prices will come down, and if you're buying one just to have a cool new toy you'll be kicking yourlsef in the ass when you see a similar model a year from now for half the cost.

Manufacturers are currently competing on technology (read: bigger memory, faster processor), but in a very short time that technology will be ambiquitous, and they'll have to compete on price.

Anybody remember when "point-n'click" digital cameras STARTED at $800?

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[quade 3]

In terms of memory (flash cards & whatnot) and processing power (Jpeg compression cards) you still see some pretty interesting econmics, but Moore's Law does not hold true when it is applied to CCD imagers.

Again, I site the D60 and its' replacement the 10D. Check the specs and you won't see the kind of plumbiting prices you're talking about with your WalMart analogy.

My point was that if a few years ago the computer of your needs and desires was that 386 for $2,500, then you're probably not going to be satisfied with the $299 computer from WalMart today, but will really rather need and desire something a bit more powerful that will ultimately end up costing you around $2,500 today.

And killing two posts with one stone . . .

Going up in price . . . WAY UP . . . is the new Canon 1Ds which offers an imager the same size as a piece of 35mm film, 11.4 megapixels -- all for just $8,000! (However, you won't see me with one in the near future.)

Oh yeah, one more thing, 11.4 megapixels is pretty heinous on the cycle times.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AndyMan 7]

I disagree about Moore's law not applying to CCD. Remember that in 67 when Moore postulated the existance of this "law", he used Intel's latest memory chip available as an example - a 16K CCD.

Also remember, that Moore's law is one of the most commonly misquoted postulations. He didn't say that processor speeds would double, or memory size would double - or any metric that most users would understand, would double. He postulated that the number of transistors for dollar would double. He postulated they'd get more complicated, have more STUFF on them, and each square mm of silicon would do more magic FOR THE SAME PRICE. Either the chips get more complicated, or they get cheaper. The reality is that usually a bit of both happens - meaning if price halves and complexity doubles every year, either happen about every 18 months.

An example of this in digital photography would be the new chip by Foveon, which rather then dividing a CCD up into R, G, and B pixels, has managed to stack all three vertically on the same chip - making a one chip Foveon CCD just as cool as a standard 3-chip chipset. We can also see this in the way that low end applications formerly using CCD chips are now being done with CMOS. I imagine in 5 years we'll be using CMOS instead of CCD.

The high end will always be ludicrously expensive, just as a few years ago nobody would buy a SUN ultra-sparc for a home server, and today nobody would buy a Dell Power-Edge 8450, even though they retail for 1/4 of what the high end Sun Servers did when they were "the shit". There will always be digital cameras that I won't afford, and ones that you won't afford - it's just that both the cost of the high end and the low end will come down, just as it has in every other consumer appliance.

As for that $299 pc at walmart, actually I've got one on my shopping list. The 486-66 collecting dust in the closet cost me over $4000. The performance of PC's has increased FAR faster then software developers ability to code to it.

_Am

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[quade 3]

Quote

Remember that in 67 when Moore postulated the existance of this "law", he used Intel's latest memory chip available as an example - a 16K CCD.

Let's see . . . first off it was 1965 and he said there would be a doubling every 12 months . . . so . . .
Even if we use 1967 and a 16k chip the 4 meg chip should have hit around 1975. I'm pretty sure that didn't happen.
And last year's 6.3 megapixel camera doesn't have 12.6 megapixels for the same price this year either.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AndyMan 7]

Price, Paul, Price! The other half of the equasion is price! The number of transistors is only half the game! CCD's cost fractions of what they used to. Additionally, CCD's used to need active refrigeration to maintain the -30(C) to keep them accurate. The cooling made them even more prohibitively expensive. The significant price drop of CCD's over the years represents a GOOD part of your missing pixels.

Secondly, on a CCD - one single transistor does not equate with a 'pixel', and it's transistors that Moore postulated would grow. (technically, he used the term "feature".) In addition to the redundant green 'pixels'the CCD chips also now have basic I/O circuitry, etc. Moore's law allows for IC's to become more complicated by adding additional features.

Secondly, you can clearly see the application of the theory if you look at low end comsumer 'point and click' digital cameras. The prices continues to drop, and each model has a higher resolution, bigger zoom, and quicker and larger memory storage then the last.

HERE is an EXCELLENT primer on Moore's Law, and how it applies to intergated circuits. It' s a long read, but it clears up a lot of misconceptions. Nobody has ever offered a good explanation of why a CCD is different then any other integrated circuit.

I hate to refer to Popular Mechanics, but this one calls it a "variation" in Moore's law, but I argue they just don't understand its finer points. http://popularmechanics.com/technology/photography/1999/3/Digital_Cameras/. It was written in '99, and introduce the new 'buzzword' to watch, megapixel. They drool over this new 1MP camera that breaks under the $1000 barrier!

Astrosurf.com has a good article detailing the use of CCD's in telescopes going back to the 80's, and yes - they discuss (briefly) Moore's Law. http://www.astrosurf.com/lombry/howto-ccd.htm

Interestingly, one of Moore's chief engineers in the late 60's was a guy by the name of Carver Mead. If you do a quick web-search, you'll see this guy has it all. Bill Gates says "nobody ignores Carver Mead." Why is this important? Well, Carver Mead is of course the founding geek behind the Foveon 3-in-1 chip. In founding Foveon, Mead stated one of his goals was to guaranty to continuation of Moore's law into the future, as applied to CCD's.

Meads new 48MP chip will be the engine behind the next $8000 toy you'll drool over. It's designed to rival medium format in price, as well as resolution.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[sducoach 0]

Boys Boys Boys.................
Just kidding. I do appreciate everyone's input. Right now I'm wanting to update from medium format to digital but do not want to give up the speed yet. Paul, question on your reply. The first frames at the stated fps then I assume a 'recharge" is required or does the camera go through a file process with the image? Forgive my ignorance on digital pic's but I'm truly interested.

Second, how about exposure settings, speed, etc.?

Why all these questions are floating around my thought process is that I've looked at some great pic's in digital down in FL and want to know if it's time for this Missouri boy to upgrade.

Blues,

J.E.

James 4:8

[dragon2 0]

Quote

In the $2000 range, it's pretty difficult to beat the Canon D60.

Quade, do you really think the D60 is better than the Nikon D100?

I'm a real Canon fan, I have 3 Canon camera's right now. Including a D30. But I've also used a friends D100 (on the ground) a lot. And I've seen the pictures of the CREW and FS world records (Norman Kent/Gustavo Cabana). I really must say, the D100 pictures come out best. (I do realise this may also have something to do with the photographer/lenses.)

I've haven't gotten my hands on a D60 yet, myself. But if I had the money right now, and wanted to replace my D30, I'd get the D100. Even tho that would be more expensive, 'cause I'd need a lens as well and I'd want to have a remote installed. But still.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

[quade 3]

The typical flow for the image right now on a digital camera is imager>buffer>processing>storage.

On some of the very early cameras, once the buffer had a shot in it, you had to wait until the buffer was entirely cleared before you could start taking photos again. On the more modern designs (Canon D60 for example, which holds 8 shots) you can start taking photos again as soon as there is enough room in the buffer to do so. If there is room for one shot, then you can take the one shot.

The time it takes for the ENTIRE buffer of 8 shots to clear is something like 4 or 5 seconds. So, 8 frames at 3 fps, wait 5 seconds and you can shoot another 8 frames at 3 fps. OR, shoot your first 8 frames at 3 fps, wait a couple of seconds and shoot off another 3 or 4. OR just press and hold the trigger and it'll shoot off 8 frames at 3 fps and then continue to shoot off 1 frame every second or so.

As you can see, this isn't really a very big limitation.

Typically, I'm laying on the trigger for exit, waiting a couple of seconds for something else to happen and firing short bursts when I think things are getting interesting. Since my storage card will hold about 100 shots, I'm not too worried about running out. I'll typically shoot about 40 shots in a skydive and this still allows me to do back-to-back loads if required.

As for exposures, ASA, ect. . . . pretty much everything you already know about photography still applies.

My typical freefall settings for are;
ASA (ISO) 200 and shutter priority at 1/500th and typically this gives me an f-stop from at least f8 (at least an hour before sunset) to maybe f16 in the noon sun. Obviously compromises have to be made for sunset and really cloudy conditions.

As far as the actual output goes, these print up very well all the way up to 13x19 and look FAR better than ANYTHING you'll see out of a 35mm print or transparency and is very comparable to a medium format as far as resolution goes on the PRINT.

As far as comparing this digital camera to that digital camera, I can't really say which is better than which Nikon or Canon, because I don't really have access to both, only my D60. I would have absolutely no qualms about buying the new Canon 10D. BTW, Craig O'Brien is still shooting his Canon D30 and sure does get a hell of a lot of stuff published. Just check out past issues Parachutist in the last year and see the quality of shots he's getting -- those are ALL shot with his D30.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[sducoach 0]

Hey thanks a lot. I would appreciate you giving me a call or send your phone number to my e-mail, [email protected], and I'll call you.

J.E.

James 4:8

[quade 3]

PMed

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freakydiver 0]

Dumb question - I take it most if not all of the dig cameras mentioned here can accept some sort of remote trigger? I have never looked into it - forgive me if this subject has been hammered on before. I am just now considering goin still dig on my jump helmet.

Thanks!!

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[quade 3]

Almost all of the higher end cameras (just for the sake of agument let's call that >$2,000 Canon, Nikon, ect.) will accept some sort of contact closure remote trigger. However, almost NONE of the lower end cameras will do it without some sort of modification (which would void the warranty).

Even on the cameras that do accept a contact closure remote switch, you'll still have to buy $60 (or more) part and modify it for skydiving purposes.

On the less expensive cameras, there are 3rd party companies that build interfaces. One such company is Harbortronics and their DigiSnap product seems to work as advertised. The other issues on the less expensive cameras are the lens choices and the cycle times between photos.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freakydiver 0]

Thanks very much Quade!!!!!!

-- (N.DG) "If all else fails – at least try and look under control." --

[dragon2 0]

Quote

Dumb question - I take it most if not all of the dig cameras mentioned here can accept some sort of remote trigger? I have never looked into it - forgive me if this subject has been hammered on before. I am just now considering goin still dig on my jump helmet.

Thanks!!

The Canon camera's mentioned all accept a remote, even tho it may not always be the standard type thingie (whatsiscalled), ie my D30 has a weird looking connection, which I haven't tried yet btw.

The Nikon D100 by itself does not accept a remote. Well actually it does but it's a mechanical remote, not sure you can use that for freefall very well. You need to either get the grip, which has the standard connection ($$, and adds a lot of bulk to the camera) or get Nikon to retrofit a connection ($$$ but looks neat and adds no bulk).

ciel bleu,
Saskia