FYI: http://www.dcresource.com/specials/PMA2000/index.html

Russ Arcuri

-- Russ Arcuri (arcuri@borg.com), January 31, 2000

Answers

This is really good news and is a bit ahead of when I thought we would see a camera like this with these specs for this price. For some time I have been thinking that 6 megapixels was probably the minimum for me to seriously consider a digital camera. Of course, $4000 is still too much. I would love to see a digital SLR with specs similar to the Canon Elan IIe or A2e or Minolta 800si that had 6 or more megapixels and cost less than $1300. With 64mb and 128mb CompactFlash and SmartMedia plus the new 340mb compact hard drive the capacity is getting very good too. Maybe within a couple of years we'll see it. Whether it uses current 35mm lenses or new, smaller ones is not a problem for me. About 3 years ago I bought my first film scanner and use it for scanning slides and negatives for the web and also to make prints. Other than 4x6 snapshots I haven't had a traditional print made in a couple of years. Of course, the work of getting a good scan and dealing with dust make scanning a less than enjoyable task. I have also used Kodak PhotoCDs, but, ultimately I have preferred the immediacy of doing my own scans.

Recently I bought my wife a digital 1.31 megapixel P&S and, naturally, I have played with it some myself. I already love using it because there is no film and the results can be used immediately with no processing. Of course, the resolution is too low for anything other than the web and since it is a P&S I can't change lenses or have much control over exposure.

Oh well, I'm just rambling. After using the digital P&S I almost don't even want to take my 35mm gear with me on my trip to Vietnam in a couple of weeks. :-)

World Photography

-- Henry Richardson (hrich2@bigfoot.com), January 31, 2000.

It sounds good, and I would love one.

BUT... It took people a while to realise that a camera pixel had one- third of the information as a computer pixel. Now we have a camera that doesn't actually have 6.1 M pixels, but creates images of that size, without interpolation. Huh?

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), February 01, 2000.

Here is much more info about the new Fuji Super CCD:

http://photo.askey.net/news/0001/00013103fujipixel.asp

-- Henry Richardson (hrich2@bigfoot.com), February 02, 2000.

Too bad it had to be based on the flimsy N60 body.

-- chuck fan (chaohui@msn.com), February 02, 2000.

The 6 million pixels Fuji is only half of the price of the 2.7 milion pixels D1, unlike the D1, it includes all the essentials software. If I were the boss of press, the price would absolutely kill the D1 without mercy.

-- Eric Ung (eung@hongkong.com), February 04, 2000.

The Fuji isn't half the price of the Nikon D1. The Fuki ia $4000 compared with the D1 at $5000. I've been looking into digital cameras for photojournalism recently, and the D1 remains my top choice for several reason.

First: the Fuji shoots only 1.5 frames per second, while the D1 fires away at 4.5 frames per second. This is a huge difference when shooting sports.

Second: the D1 is based on a much more rugged and advanced body. The autofocus rate should be much higher, leading to more in-focus shots of those pesky athletes.

Third: The D1 has a much better metering system. Again, more good shots per attempt.

While the Fuji is an interesting camera it is not good enough for the work I do, while the D1 will get the job done.

-- Darron Spohn (dspohn@photobitstream.com), April 17, 2000.

It's 6.1 with 'some form of interpolation'. My cousin works in the chip industry as an engineer and according to him CCD's are fast approaching their theoretical maximum resolution, around 4.5 megapixels, using current technology. He wouldnt give me any real specifics because of confidentiality agreements he's signed, but an entirely new CCD type technology would have to be developed, and is being worked on atm, to break this max.

-- Jeff Graeber (narial@hotmail.com), May 20, 2000.

The D 1x appears to have a good improvement in image quality compared to the D1. I use a D1 on occasion for work, have only images on a D1x on my flashcard from the parking lot of a photo store to compare. Even though the price and quality is improving - $5k is certainly better than the $15k Kodak models a few years ago, I am hoping and holding out for a "D2" or whatever digital slr Nikon releases next for my own personal/professional use, especially after the recent release of the Canon EOS-1D. I am sure that it will make my life easier, but am afraid of buying a D1x then seeing a D2 released right after. I really love my Coolpix 990 and have taken some amazing photos with it, but even though its digital, its still a "point & shoot" I also think that size doesn't matter - to a point. The quality of the 990 images exceeds the D1 images, but without the true slr, its limited to point & shoot and take a chance action photos. I know I am rambling at this point but know the price and depreciation of new technology is inevitable, but it still doesn't help ease the "pain". Anyhow, I am on the lookout for any information concerning the next Nikon professional digital slr and will happily go into debt to buy it upon its release.

-- douglasnic (douglasnic@go.com), January 12, 2002.