Hi, Canon is expected to come out with D 30 digital body by yearend. But it will only have 3.25 MP. Sounds a bit modest when compared to the recent 3 MP digicams under $ 1,000.- (D 30 will probably cost $ 2,500 +/-). Is the pixel comparison appropropriate in this case? Thanks for your comment. Kittiwat

-- Kittiwat Isarangkoon (kittiwat1@yahoo.com), June 25, 2000

Answers

The pixel comparison is sort of appropriate, pixels are pixels. But, there's a lot more to a digital camera than resolution. The pro models typically have considerably larger CCDs and larger diameter lenses so they're capable of capturing more light for each pixel. The differences don't stop there, pro models like the Nikon D1 are also very powerful in terms of processing power. I'd say you're also paying quite a bit for the "privilege" of using your 35mm lenses... :-) You're also paying for a sturdier professional body and other high performance features like fast continuous focus and a shutter that trips within milliseconds of your pressing the "release".

Personally, I like the idea of a $2,500 pro camera better than a $5,000 pro camera... :-) I know the larger CCD's cost more, but I have a hard time believing that a prosumer model with the D1's features couldn't be sold at a profit for under $2K. Maybe it's a matter of economics of scale, perhaps they figure they wouldn't sell enough at $2K so they kept the price higher... then again, maybe it's just a matter of supply and demand.(And they already know what kind of money pro photographers have shelled out for those nice 35mm lenses...) Don't get me wrong. I have a friend who bought a Nikon D1 for his wedding photography business. It's built like a cast titanium brick "outhouse"... very impressive. You feel like you could easily pound railroad spikes with it without putting a scratch on it.[Er, I wouldn't try that anytime soon... :-)]

That's wonderful, but I think most people would be happy with a slightly less robust case and a similar set of features and improved resolution. I imagine that the consumer market will probably top out or at least hover around 7.68 megapixels(8x10" @ 300PPI) with about 8X zoom, while the prosumer and pro market will probably continue to spiral upwards until they eventually reach resolutions in the neighborhood of 12.8 - 29MP, about what you'd need to get a 16x20" @ 200 or 300PPI image... probably with prices to match! :-)

I'm guessing those are reasonable limits based on usage and cost, but I don't have a clue how long it might be before we get anywhere near the high end of that... :-) I think there may be a lot of hurdles to packing that many sensors on a die and probably a lot of heat and power issues along the way. Maybe they'll slap them in evacuated glass envelopes with a peltier cooler like they do with Astronomy ccds? Who knows, but it's fun to consider... ;-)

-- Gerald M. Payne (gmp@francomm.com), June 25, 2000.

The megapixel rating doesn't seem like much, but the features this camera has are wonderful. The other thing you're forgetting about is it's a 36 bit camera, which means it captures a lot more detail.

The one thing I haven't seen reported is the same issue Nikon's D1 has - how did they protect the CMOS sensor in this unit? If it's not protected, it's still not its weight in gold in my opinion. Protect the sensor at all cost - or else you'll have a paperweight.

-- Sue Bald (destiny3@ix.netcom.com), June 25, 2000.

I lust in my heart for the Nikon D1 - and may actually break down and buy it. I made the mistake of playing with it at a local camera store....
...oops...
The price of these things will come down. Back in the 1940s (way before my time) an Exakta sold for around US $400. It was the first SLR. In today's dollars that would be many thousand dollars. Pro digital, or pro-sumer digital cameras won't cost a kings ransom in a few more years. The others here have said it - for this kind of camera you are buying into a more traditional and professional photographic metaphor (interchangeable lenses, rapid fire, instant release, lighting focus - etc). Apparently putting these pro-features into a digital camera is difficult - or I suspect they'd have been put in the $1000 cameras by now.

Des

-- Dan Desjardins (dan.desjardins@avstarnews.com), June 25, 2000.

One thing I did not see mentioned is that the D30 can go to ISO 1600. This combined with being able to use the 100-400mm IS lens (or any focal length I want) makes it well worth the money for me. Wish it was available now!

-- Dan Morris (dmorris@aol.com), June 28, 2000.

I also lusted for the D-1, and finally with the prospect of the FS1, and the Canon, decided to wait. Then I read some feedback about the sensor of the D-1 getting dirt on it, and it's being next to impossible to remove.........lots of dust spotting in photo shop.....I got the DSC S70 as a stopgap camera with which to play until they get the bugs worked out. I can do alot with it despite the relatively long time lag on the shutter...., and it is 36 bit internal, so yields a pretty darn nice image. In my opinion on this site, the raw image quality difference between the S70, and the D1 is pretty small, and I am not sure which one I think is better....the 990 is just a hair behind them both.

-- Richard Katris (chanan@sprynet.com), July 11, 2000.