Rangefinder Magazine
Archives

January 2000


Digital Photography:Reflecting Back on 1999: There’s No Status Quo
by John Rettie

By the time you read this column we'll be in the new year/century/millennium. I doubt that much will be different. However, I suspect that within a decade or so we'll start looking back at the 20th century as the only period during which images were captured on film. For hundreds of years images were captured with paint on canvas, then along came photography with its film-based capture medium. Now film is being replaced by digital capturing methods.

With changes happening so rapidly I think it's worth looking back as the past year has seen the introduction of some very competent digital still cameras that produce images just about as good as those from a 35mm film camera. Early in 1999 I tried a Kodak DCS 560 camera with a six-megapixel CCD. It cost $29,995 and is based on the Canon EOS 1n body. I would defy anyone to be able to really see the difference in quality of images produced on this camera and those from a 35mm film camera. It is generally accepted that high-end digital backs for studio cameras are equivalent to film and the DCS 560 (and the Nikon F5 based 660 model) also comes extremely close in image quality.

A couple of months later I tried the Kodak DCS 520, which is similar to the 560 except it only has a two-megapixel CCD and cost $15,995 at the time. It proved to be an easier camera to use as the smaller image file allowed the camera to operate at virtually the same rate of speed as the film-based Canon EOS-1n film camera. I used it to shoot an auto race and it was just fine. The resolution of the captured images is sufficient for up to 5x7 without any noticeable pixelization. In reality, images reproduced up to 8x10 are fine if viewed at correct viewing distances. Not surprisingly this camera has proven to be a workhorse in the news and photojournalism fields.

Soon after I tried the $999 Nikon Coolpix 950 and was so impressed with the 2.1-megapixel prosumer camera that I purchased it with my own money. It was my first digital still-camera purchase. Many of the images in this column have been shot on this camera and I have found myself using it more than I expected. In fact it has paid for itself already in saved cost of film, processing and time taken to deliver and pickup film from a photo lab. The image quality is close to that of the Kodak DCS 520, however, it is not as fast in operation which makes it impractical as a camera where frame speed is important.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this is the fact that a $1000 digital camera aimed at the consumer can produce a picture just about as good as one from a $16,000 professional camera. It was obviously an anomaly that couldn't last. In the summer Nikon announced that it's all-new, designed from the ground up D1 digital camera body would retail for $5580 when it went on sale later in the year. This was a major breakthrough in pricing for professional digital cameras.

Kodak has not been slow to react. In November it announced a significant price reduction on its professional cameras. The DCS 520 dropped to $9995 (the 620 to $10,750) and the DCS 560 and 660 (Nikon-based) dropped to $24,995. At the same time, Kodak has continuously upgraded its cameras with new firmware and acquire software that have helped the cameras maintain a strong lead. At the time of writing, the Nikon D1 had just gone on sale in the U.S. and it has drawn a good initial response from early buyers. Kodak reported no let up in the number of people buying its cameras indicating that demand is still exceeding supply.

Indeed the strong demand for high quality digital cameras in 1999 has lead to an unusual phenomenon. Instead of prices dropping, as is usually the situation with electronic products, the newest cameras have actually hit the market at the same price as old models and in some cases higher prices. Supply shortages have allowed manufacturers to keep prices higher than they might otherwise. The situation will hopefully ease up in the next year.

Digital Focus at Computer Show
Comdex, the annual mega computer trade show in Las Vegas, has become an important show for the digital camera industry as cameras and computers merge. Digital cameras got a special showing from manufacturers that participated in the Digital Focus event the evening before Comdex got under way. Surprisingly, there was not much new at last year's show in November. Nevertheless, the digital camera displays put on by many of the exhibitors were pretty impressive. Of the major players Olympus was the one that seemed to be emphasizing its digital cameras the most, rather than copiers or laptop computers or what have you. When you realize that this was a trade computer show it's pretty amazing how important digital cameras have become to the computer industry.

Potentially the most significant announcement came from Fuji as it unveiled a new SuperCCD which has an effective resolution about 60% better than a standard CCD. According to Fuji it also has better sensitivity, dynamic range and signal/noise ratio, and better color reproduction and improved power consumption. The buzz at the show was that a three-megapixel camera using this new technology should be available in the spring, and eventually Fuji will be capable of producing a chip with 10 megapixels! Now that will really give even the most fastidious film fan a reason to switch to digital.

About the only two new cameras that had not been seen before were the Agfa CL30 Clik! which sports a 40 MB Iomega Clik! drive. In a similar vein, Panasonic unveiled a somewhat bulky digital still camera that mimics Sony's Mavica line with a built-in floppy disk drive. Both of these cameras use alternative storage mechanisms in place of a solid state memory card as used in the majority of cameras. "Why," you might ask? The cost of storing images is one reason and convenience is another. Sony has done well with its Mavica line in the U.S. because people are familiar with floppy disks and it's easy to transfer images to a computer. But obviously with a maximum storage capacity of 1.4 MB, a disk can only hold a small number of images of barely adequate quality. The Panasonic camera uses a SuperDisk drive with a capacity of 120 MB, which is very impressive except there are not many users of the SuperDisk format. The Clik drive is in the same boat with few users but like the SuperDisk the cost of the media is low, about $10 per disk.

Sony has also muddied the storage-medium market with its Memory Stick, which is a solid state memory storage similar to CompactFlash, but of an entirely different format. Overall, these storage systems are much more effective for digital cameras as they are small in size and very sturdy. The problem is that at present they are expensive, costing almost $3 a Mb. I tried a prototype of a 1.2GB flash PC card made by SanDisk which is half the size of a 540 Mb PC card hard drive, but it's likely to cost up to $3,000 when it goes on sale. History says that eventually these storage cards will drop in price and turn clunky floppy-disk based cameras into dinosaurs.

Of all the major camera companies Canon seems to be the one that is lagging somewhat in the digital camera field. It has several on the market but none of them are big sellers. The newest S10 camera sports a two-megapixel CCD with a zoom in an extremely small camera body. It is a good camera but hardly suitable for professional use. At the other end of the scale there is the D-2000 model which was introduced nearly two years ago and is essentially identical to the Kodak DCS 520 camera. When asked about this state of affairs at Comdex, a Canon official said: "wait a few months and you'll be impressed by what we will be introducing." Rumor has it that Canon will launch an important new digital camera at the PMA show in February and plans to introduce six new cameras in the first half of the year.

Digital Focus at Computer Show
Panasonic has a great reputation in the digital camcorder market but it has not made much of a name for itself as a maker of digital still cameras. Nonetheless it does have some interesting still cameras that offer features that warrant a look. I have recently tried the PalmCam PV-DC2590, which is a 1.3-megapixel camera with a regular point-and-shoot body style. It has a 2X optical and 3X digital zoom to give an equivalency of 34-102mm on a 35mm camera.

Its specifications are nothing to write home about except that it has dual CF slots, which allow for two memory cards for increased storage. But much more significant, this particular camera model has a 56K modem in the second slot. Yes you can plug a telephone line into the camera and transfer pictures to a remote computer or even a fax machine. You can also take photos via a computer through the modem. However, transferring files is slow and one cannot view an image before taking a shot. I found the software that controls the camera via the modem was a little buggy but it demonstrates the technology that's capable in digital cameras. We can expect to see these miniature modems being used in other digital cameras before long.

Overall the PalmCam produced acceptable images but nothing special. The camera can even be used to capture a short four-second small video. I found some of the controls awkward to use. For example, it was too easy to press the flash or self-timer buttons on top of the camera by mistake. If nothing else this camera has some unique features for those who enjoy trying out new technology.

Next Month
I have just started evaluating two new Kodak and Olympus digital cameras, which I will review in more detail next month. At first glance I am very impressed by both of them. The Kodak DCS 330, based on the Nikon Pronea 6i body, offers three-megapixel resolution, which is better than that in the DCS 520/620 yet the camera costs just $5995. It is much better than the previous DCS 315 and although it may not be as appealing to photojournalists it is ideal as a wedding or portrait camera. The Olympus D-2500L is the latest SLR-style camera with a 2.5 megapixel CCD and operates much like a regular film camera. It does not have a removable lens but its image quality appears to be as good as that produced by much more expensive cameras.

John Rettie is a photojournalist who resides in Santa Barbara, CA. He has been using a camera as a professional for 29 years, a computer for 19 years, and has combined his knowledge of both for the past seven years. Readers can contact him by e-mail at john@johnrettie.com or by snail-mail c/o Rangefinder.