John, thanks for the link on the 6.6 megapixel camera. Two important issues here: (1) The size of the chip, covering a 35mm full frame is much larger than what is used now, making it possible to achieve potentially as good resolution as one can get on the finest quality 35mm cameras. We don't know about its light sensitivity, though the description suggests it is about the same as current CCD products, which have about the same effective speed as 100 ASA film.
(2) The read/write times, I believe, are partly a function of the software in the camera or other device. For example, the Nikon 950, while it has a rather slow write speed, also has a buffer. When not using the highest resolution setting (uncompressed TIFF), you can shoot a series of photos, which are recorded almost instantly in the camera's buffer, and later written to the CF at a more liesurely pace. By increasing the size of the buffer and providing for automatic writing from the buffer to the CF, the camera designer could virtually eliminate the problem, though the somewhat long period for accessing the image from the CF and displaying it on the LCD is still there. Increasing the buffer size, of course, would increase the price and power consumption.
I have to say, though, that even with lower resolution settings, I find that the printer, not the camera, is the key limitation in the quality and sharpness of the final product. In most cases, I'm not enlarging only a small portion of the image, so the resolution of the camera is sufficient. And in terms of overall print size, I have to admit that 8x10 is about all I'm interested in, since the larger sizes use so much ink per print. |
