Talk:Digital camera/Archive 1

Archive 1

Next generation of digital photographing

Hm... What do you think, this is a quite interessting discussion, we could have an article about this maybe?. The next BIG evolution will probably be 3d... So that you snap a photo and it snaps all edges, and you can move and rotate all objects as you want.. And you can take one objects and use in another photograph... It have to take throw all objects so you can remove annoying things in front of yourself or such... With laser may it be possible... Is it going to happen? --unsigned

Speculation is difficult to justify in an encyclopedia. Furthermore, there are significant technical difficulties to producing the type of 3D camera that you are talking about. Certainly, in a controlled environment or studio, techniques for 3D mapping is currently being worked on. But it to have a single camera take an instant snapshot of a 3d scene is currently not technically possible. There is no current method for capturing the texture of a non-facing surface. Some form of millimetric wave camera could possibly probe some objects, but colour information cannot yet be gained from millimetric imaging. If you are interested in the 'next big thing', look up negative-refractive index materials, allowing the production of über-compact lenses that are not constriained by the diffraction limits of traditional lenses. Stestagg 22:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

How works?

how actually it works?

---

Digital camera is one thing and digital photography is more generic. --Mac 07:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge

Take 1

I don't know why this was forked in November. Digital photography is a much more comprehensive article, and nearly all content here is duplicated there already. We should merge back. Rhobite 09:15, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

A digital camera can make much more function that only take pictures. It can take video, sounds.... And digital camera is centered in the machine, not in some results (photos).

Take 2

First off: I am not saying to consolidate the two articles (digital camera and digital photography). That said, there is definite overlap that needs to be addressed. A quick run-down of major overlap:

• storage technology
• sensor technology
• resolutions

I think those points belong in digital camera (article on the technology of the camera). I think the market & social belong in digital photography (article on the art of photography in the digital age). In short I'm proposed a merge of the following variety:

• technical points go in digital camera
• non-technical points go in digital photography

Of course non-technical should go in digital camera where appropriate and vice-versa. There's probably even some material to merge with digital imaging.

I'm up for any discussion offered and any thoughts on what should go where. Cburnett (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I previously started to do a rewrite of Digital single-lens reflex camera, got side-tracked and created a new article, Lenses for SLR and DSLR cameras, and that dragged on and on. What I discovered is the tremendous amount of time major editing and rewriting can take. :-(

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that if you really have the time and energy to do a serious rewrite of Digital camera and Digital photography, then more power to you. One suggestion: people who end up in one or the other article won't immediately realize that perhaps they're in the wrong article according to your proposed division of content. So I think that Digital camera should still have a section about the non-technical stuff, with subheadings for each section in Digital photography and a few words and a link to the other article. Correspondingly, Digital photography should have a section about technical stuff, with subheadings and a few words about each technical topic, and links to the proper section in Digital camera. So there will still be some overlap, but a systematic and motivated overlap, each article having a kind of table-of-contents for the other article, as well as the contents that belongs in that article. If you understand what I mean. --RenniePet (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because I placed the tag doesn't mean I'm volunteering (as is indicated by Dicklyon's position about the citations tag on digital photography), though I will probably take a stab at it. Ultimately it seems that these two articles further developed with each oblivious to the other. The two definitely are closely related and definitely won't be bipartite like cheese and keyboard. Cburnett (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, and I'm willing to help. If you can start, and make sections in each with "main" link to the other, that can help cue future editors to what's going on and we can sort it out incrementally. And you're right that suggesting improvements doesn't necessarily include volunteering to follow through; the tags are useful to remind other editors what direction things should go. We should leave the merge tags that link here until it's pretty much done. Dicklyon (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If I had the time I too would offer to help, but unfortunately...

If/when anybody does do a major re-write of these two articles, may I suggest also taking a look at Bridge digital camera and Live-preview digital camera, two articles full of redundant and incorrect information that should probably be simply deleted. --RenniePet 00:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Take 3

I just placed the merge template again as it remained in the other article and I see no result here so far. To add my two cents, I am against merging, because the two are totally different things - while camera is a consumer electronics device, photography is an activity and actually kind of art too. Therefore, merging is absolutelly irrelevant here.--Kozuch (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to revive take 2; the consensus above was to do a cleaner division between article, rather than a merge. Anyone who wants to help in that direction is welcome to. I'll take the tags off. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Prosumer vs long-zoom

This article does not make difference between prosumer and long-zoom, even though they are very different thing.

• most long-zooms have worse image quality than good pocket cameras
• most prosumers have about 4-7 x zoom, samsung 815, fuji S9500 and pana fz20, fz30 are the only cameras than can be classified as both prosumer and long-zoom
• most long-zooms don't have flash hot-shoe

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.230.47.19 (talk • contribs)

I don't understand what a "long-zoom" is nor get how zoom has anything to do with image quality. Cburnett (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

All-Weather (Water-resistant/Waterproof/Rugged) Digital Cameras

I couldn't find any information on the topic here, so I'm stuck doing my own thing. If anyone's interested in the research I've done on the topic, check out http://jrandomhacker.info/Low-end_digital_cameras

The topic is too young to really be fleshed out into a proper comparison of digital cameras, but I'd be interested in collaborating on such an effort. -- Sy / ^(talk) 01:50, 11 June 2005 (UTC)

External links to enthusiast sites

It seems that in the past there have been clear cases of linkspam to personal pages. However, sites like dpreview.com and imaging-resource.com are definitely not in this category.

• Unfortunately there is no way of determining this objectively. Google is a great place for finding sites like these - and Wikipedia is not a link farm, so I have reverted these edits. Not doing so will just encourage more linkspam. Cheers. --PhilipO 22:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• How do you make this judgement in regards to the other links already here? Wikipedia is nothing if not a resource for accurate and helpful information. Fears of linkspam shouldn't lead to handicaping this central purpose of Wikipedia. Past cases of linkspam were blatently obvious in this page.

Digital Cameras VS Camcorders

Since modern digital cameras can record sound, how about a section contrasting them with camcorders? Rlevse 12:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Not very Comprehensive

It seems to be more of "What digital cameras do" rather than "What digital Cameras are". This article should contain a History of digital cameras and a Critisisms section in addition to the current content. A reference is available here: [url]http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldigitalcamera.htm[/url]--Mincetro 09:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd just come to Talk to say pretty much the same thing! Unfortunately I don't have sufficient knowledge to write a proper History section myself, but digital photography has virtually nothing on it either, so there's most definitely a need to make one. Also, this:

Initially, a digital camera was characterized by the use of flash memory and USB or FireWire for storage and transfer

That "initially" as it stood was misleading, the 1994 Apple QuickTake came out before either USB or FireWire existed, and used a serial connection, as did a number of other early models. (Actually, "flash memory" is misleading too, given the Sony cameras that used floppies for storage.) I've added a very brief mention of the serial connection, but a proper History section still seems as though it should have a high priority. Loganberry (Talk) 09:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Digital Camera Reviews

I think we should add a link to a very authoritative website for Digital Camera Reviews (www.camera-reviews.net) in the external links any other opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.146.229.4 (talk • contribs) .

Nice linkspam there mate. I checked it out and what do I find? camera-reviews.net redirects to... drum roll... bargainfindsonebay.com! So I've gone and unlinked your text, leaving the hostname in parentheses. You wouldn't happen to be Nexus Goof, would you? I just removed a link to that site which he managed to sneak into one of his edits. Stupid spammers. Imroy 17:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

LSST

Thought it worth mentioning that the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope will use a 3 billion pixel digital camera. Simesa 11:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Digital Photography

Thought it also might be worth mentioning something about (www.bargainfindsonebay.com/Digital_Photography.html Digital Photography) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.202.90 (talk • contribs)

You trying to link-spam the talk page again? Stupid spammers. Imroy 05:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Near IR

I have heard that CCDs are capable of seeing in the near-infrared spectrum, and that consumer digital cameras have an IR filter so that only the visible spectrum is recorded. Is this true? If so, we should probably mention it. Identity0 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should read and link to Infrared photography. Dicklyon 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Linux link is quite dated

The page referred to is one that I had encountered in the past couple of days while trying to figure out what I needed to do to get my digital camera working on this linux box. Linux has come quite a long way since that page was written, and as it turned out all I needed to do was to come up with the proper mount statement while the camera was connected: "mount -t vfat /dev/sda1 /mnt/camera" and that did the trick, none of the other stuff mentioned at the link was necessary, though I did have to create the mountpoint. --Rtellason (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Analog Camera?

I suggest someone add an explaination for what is meant when it says early digital cameras were analog? It is pretty unclear what is being discussed. TheHYPO (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I’m also quite confused as to what is meant by early digital cameras being analog. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I already added a line about that (...it recorded pixel signals continuously, as videotape machines did, without converting them to discrete levels; it recorded television-like signals to a 2 × 2 inch "video floppy"). No bits; just analog video. If you know what digital means, analog means not digital. Let me know if that's not clear. Dicklyon (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Live Preview Digital Camera

That whole section and the article (Conventionally Generated Live Preview Digital Camera) it links to should be deleted. It is a made up term originating on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.16.115 (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

an error in the bridge camera section?

RE: Bridge cameras lack the mirror and reflex system of DSLRs, have so far been fitted with fixed (non-interchangeable) lenses (although in some cases accessory wide-angle or telephoto converters cannot be attached to the lens) ....

should that "cannot" be "can"? That seems to be the sense of the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.13.64 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.24.122 (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC) 

Image copyright problem with Image:MicroSD vs SD.jpg

The image Image:MicroSD vs SD.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Video

How do new high end Nikons take video images in HD? What type of sensor? There is no section on this emerging trend?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I replace PENTAX A3 body with any other didgital body and use my old lenses?

Can I replace PENTAX A3 body with any other didgital body and use my old lenses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.64.15 (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Geotagging_not_in_article

Seems like geotagging should be treated here somewhere. -Stevertigo 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. My Nikon Coolpix P6000 geotagging camera is a delight, but this kind of hardware is rare and not a strong trend as yet. The present article is already too long, and the much shorter Geocoded photograph article is a better place for additional information. Unless sound arguments are presented in the next couple weeks, or someone with less patience acts sooner, I intend to delete the flag early next month. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Integration

Why should we have separate sections for "Camera phones" and "Integration"? Jim.henderson (talk) 13:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Other image

The canon A95 is placed in the lead. I think this is unfair, it seems like that's the most popular/best camera all-round. I suggest removing the image and making several sub-sections with own image (best one for each type).

For the SLR, I'd take the Olympus SP590 UZ (see http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/11/active-wheel-affordable-electric-car.php) other camera sizes +pictures should also be mentioned (compact and micro) alternatively, a comparisation of digital cameras article can be made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.159.251 (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairness has no great relevance. I only use Nikon and Canon, but this particular Olympus seems common as dirt, and that's what qualifies it for the top picture. And yes, one example should be on top to introduce beginners to what is typical. Sections about less common types should be also be illustrated, though not as profusely as the specialized articles about those types. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it is a Canon. Whatever. Anyway I've been thinking that the ideal lead pic is of a cheap, commonplace camera, of a commonplace type, preferably one recently superceded by new models. Though camara phones are the majority of cameras, they aren't primarily cameras so should be mentioned in the article but not take the lead illustration spot. The present Canon A95 seems to fit all the criteria, except that it's a compact type like mine, and not a subcompact. Sub is the true commonplace camera, and anyone who has a nice picture of a cheap, commonplace, slightly obsolete subcompact should insert it at the head of this article. What we don't want is an up to date, high performance, expensive model. An encyclopedia is not, among other things, a camera fan magazine, and this article in particular is not intended for the serious photographer. At least, that's how I see it. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Add/remove suggestions

1- Keep and expand the nice classification scheme. 2- There should be only basic info + link to each camera category's main article (avoid redundancy). Some detailed info about each category may be available on this but not on the main article of the category (should be transferred to there and summarized here). 3- dSLR should be included more clearly without mixing them up with with medium and large formats in one incomprehensible category. 4- Digital rangefinders should be included. 5- Video cameras do not fit in this article (Digital camera implies still cameras only, video cameras fit in the camcorder article). 6- Camera Sensor Table This table is very valuable, I think however I think what should be included is the actual sensor size (the width and height refered to in the table actually refer to the resolution) This would throw a better perspective on the sensors used, as as already indicated in the article, it's possible to cram a large number of pixels into a small space and this will effect the quailty of the picture taken, but also the size of the sensor has a direct effect on the lenses used for instance theortically if the sensor is as large as 36mmx24mm then standard 35mm film canmera lenses can be used with it, if its size is half this then the focal lengths of the lenses need to be halved to achieve the same magnification. This change requires quite a bit of work so I'd appreciate comments.Johnchapple (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

...I agree...The intro needs better conciseness. It defines "digital camera" as any of 3 types of devices: video-only, still-only, or both. In common usage, digital camera implies a minimum of still-photo capability. (Just about all modern >$200 models also record short movie-clips, too, but video is not the defining feature of a "digital camera.") The comment about "compact digital still camera" would be rendered redundant by a better intro-sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.66.21 (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Video

An explanation is needed how a digital camera can take video images. Does anyone know? Sensors or just quick sequential photos?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.19.14 (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New page recommendation

A "List of Digital Cameras" would be a great additional page. It would list make, image size, sensor size, optical lens zoom, battery type, memory type, motion capability, sound capability, etc.

Webcams are a type of digital camera, and no mention of them. No mention of which, if any, cameras can be controlled by a computer. i.e. to photograph a plant growing. 75.5.255.162 (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

List articles for digital cameras exist, including manufacturers and formats. A comprehensive list article is a big project; better to put the effort into separate lists for manufacturers or formats or years or something. Webcams have an article; they belong in a See Also section. Same for specialist topics such as remote control, geotagging, and underwater work. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

History and the extraordinary claims of E. F. Lally

I have posted the document referenced for E. F. Lally's first-person claim of the invention of digital photography technology. Lally presents this document as a copy of a paper given at an American Rocket Society meeting in 1961. This document is available only from the author. There is no evidence that this document was ever published. There is no evidence that this document was ever subjected to any independent editorial or peer review. Does this document meet Wikipedia's standards for authority, especially for the support of extraordinary claims? Aldebaran66 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I just ordered a copy of the 1962 printed book from this 1961 meeting; I'll let you know if it's in there. But there's more to the story; you didn't mention the secondary articles that I sent you, that comment on this conference presentation; that might be enough to establish it as a reliable source. Like the article "Designers See Space Guidance Systems Turning Into Mosaics of Optical Cells" in Electronics, and the other one in Electronic Design which specifically talks about him and his presented idea. Or maybe we should cite those instead of the primary source, which is obscure and hard to get as you note. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted the two trade magazine review articles and the links are below. The first article: "Designers See Space Guidance Systems Turning Into Mosaics of Optical Cells" that appeared in Electronics magazine is a review of a different paper (also unavailable) given at a different conference by Lally and a co-author. Here is the second review article: "Space Report: Soaring Ideas-Down-to-Earth Problems". Do you think they help? Aldebaran66 (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that we should probably cite these secondary sources for what they say, rather than the inaccessible primary sources. The different paper you linked is not a Lally paper and not about mosaics, so I'm not sure how you got there. step, but it's the earlier source I know of that proposes a pixelated sensor, so a reasonable step to mention in digital camera history. The 1961 source even says "These analog methods eventually should give way to pure digital techniques, Mr. Lally predicted, so that smaller and smaller elements could be used. This would simplify the processing involved." Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I posted a link to the 1962 paper reference A Survey of Advanced Mosaic Guidance returned by the NTRS search. It is not clear that the predictions you state are the sole work of Mr. Lally as this paper is identified as a survey and has a co-author. Aldebaran66 (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Veracity of the document aside for the moment, we should limit the claims in the article to what is unambiguously contained in the reference document. The document describes concepts for a closed and automatic spacecraft control system. There is neither a method for nor mention of providing navigation information to astronauts. Aldebaran66 (talk) 15:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC) The spacecraft attitude control system described in the reference document derives the control system error signal from the difference between the star positions on the mosaic and star positions contained in the computer library. Although vague on this point, no imaging system is described and none is necessary for this concept to work. No discussion of either photography or the production of photographs appears in this document. There is no discussion of the application of any components from this proposal beyond this specific spacecraft control application, although intriguing in hindsight. Aldebaran66 (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "no imaging system is described and none is necessary for this concept to work." It's clearly a camera; it can't work without a lens focusing the stars onto the sensor mosaic. He writes, "The lens of the eye focuses light rays on the retina, where the rays are converted into electrical impulses. An electronic pattern, in the form of nervous impulses, is transmitted from the retina to the brain through a cablelike bundle of conductors known as the optic nerve. In the mosaic guidance system, the detector will perform a function parallel to that of the retina, with amplifiers analogous to the optic nerve." The contribution is clearly the mosaic sensor itself, not the optical camera system that it goes into. I'd interpret it as a lighter, lower-power, and more dimensionally stable alternative to a vacuum-tube-type image pickup, which was the electronic sensor technology of that time. He's pitching it for the application, primarily as an alternative to the inertial (gyroscope) systems. It may be a small Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not clear by what I meant by Lally's system not being an imaging system. As you state, there must be a means for focusing an image on a focal plane of the mosaic but this camera, as described, does not produce photographs. Indeed the words camera and photograph never appear in this reference document and are misleading in the main article. Aldebaran66 (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

True, there was no suggestion of using this particular camera concept for photography, and they didn't even call it a camera. Nevertheless, we can report what it was. As far as the paper being published, it appears that Google got their hands on a copy in a book of the papers from that meeting, and scanned it: [1]. It was not unusual at that time to published things from "camera ready" typewriter originals. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicated article

I found one article called Digital Cameras, added a redirect in it, as it was before someone wrote anything..., and because I don't have enough time to put the content of there in this article I'll just drop it above this message. If is your wanna you can do it :). Just remove this message after mixing the article --Henriquevicente 23:28, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

---

Digital cameras are a remarkable advance in technology. They can electronically capture images and store them as digital files. They have all the functions a standard camera has, such as, an optical viewfinder, shutter release, a variety of flashes, built-in lens, zoom features, self-timer, manual exposure and focus. However, digital cameras also offer additional features like the ability to view shots using a built-in LCD (liquid crystal display) screen.

When buying a digital camera, the following should be considered.

Image Resolution

Each digital camera uses a certain number of pixels to create an image. This is referred to as megapixels. The more megapixels, the higher the resolution and clarity will be. If the camera has at least 3 megapixels or more, the resulting photograph would be worth framing. test

Optical Zoom

Optical zoom helps bring subjects visually closer or move them further away for wide shots of the whole scene. It does this by magnifying the size of an image through adjusting the lens. Optical zoom, unlike digital zoom, enlarges the subject without giving up resolution. Digital zoom imitates a telephoto lens making the subject appear larger and closer through electronic enlargement.

Memory

Different digital cameras use a variety of different memory flash cards. It all depends on how many pictures will be taken, and how high the resolution is. The higher the resolution the more memory it takes up. Today, the available memory capacities are 16MB to 128MB.

Equipment

When a digital camera is bought, usually all required equipment will be available in the package. On the other hand, extra memory cards or rechargeable batteries would be a great backup.

To manipulate pictures, imaging software is required. Imaging software like Photoshop is quite costly, but it is always good to use the software to crop, erase, add, and edit images.

Other

When traveling, many photographs are taken, and usually a lot more are waiting to be taken. This is where those extra flash memory cards would be useful. However, if only one memory card is available, it’s very easy to reuse. All that’s needed is a computer. Photos can easily be put on a CD arranged in folders, so images can be found easily again. This makes digital cameras very convenient for a traveler. To get the images printed, some cameras have a printer to go with the camera, but photographic paper is needed. An easier way to get photos printed is to go to a retail outlet, where they have machines that assist you through the printing process.

Other things that should be considered is how much money is available to spend.

Digital Cameras VS Conventional Cameras

- Digital cameras have the ability to view images as soon as they have been recorded, whereas for conventional cameras, you cannot see the resulting shot until the film is developed.

- In digital cameras, unsuitable pictures can be deleted and therefore do not have to be processed. In conventional cameras, however, once the photo is taken, you must develop it.

- The digital camera memory can be re-used, because its photographs are stored on a flash memory card. However, the conventional camera has no storage space because all shots are recorded on film.

- There is no need to purchase film in a digital camera, because all photos, as mentioned before, are stored on a flash memory card.

Bibliography

- British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2005 [Online] http://www.specialschool.org/webforia/spsch31stdec/%7B2DD5921C-B3D7-4536-BD2A- 5C9EF8486747%7D_1155_649.htm July 1 2005

- Digital Camera Resource Page, 2005 [Online] http://www.dcresource.com/ June 30 2005

- Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2005 [CD-ROM], Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc.

- Fuji Film USA, 2005 [Online] http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/digitalGoingDigital.jsp June 30 2005

- Long’s Electronics, 2005 [Online] http://www.longselectronics.com/camguide.jsp June 30 2005

- Microsoft Encarta Encyclopaedia, 2003 [CD-ROM], Microsoft

Why I reverted 3 edits by 99.41.56.98

Seemed like too much wrong to try to fix. He should try again, more carefully. In particular:

Edit 2: Lots of new unsourced info about features and feature comparisons; esp. the comparisons need to be sourced. Lot of grammatical errors, in the form of inappropriate hyphens in compound nouns (e.g in ...exposure-control and focus.... desired quality-level to trade picture-count for image-quality ... movie-mode for recording motion-video ... burst-mode).

Edit 2: Unsourced inversion of the content; more grammar errors like line-scanner.

Edit 3: Going from bad to worse in saying "JPEG (Joint Photography Experts Group) is the de-facto standard format for storing digital-camera images," since JPEG is not a file format but a compression standard, as the linked article explains. And changing raw to RAW is something I thought we had stamped out a few years ago; let's not re-open that.

Please try again; read hyphen#Joining first, and focus on WP:V please. Dicklyon (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

^^^ Dicylon, I didn't realize how screwed up my edits were, until you pointed each one of them out, and crosslinked to the appropriate Wiki guidelines. Thank you, that was helpful, and I hope to improve in the future. I have a question about "unsourced info" -- I see a lot of unsourced/uncited statements within the article. Some are them are common sense, like "images can usually only be stored using lossy compression (JPEG)" I intended my remark about de-facto JPEG (forgive my improper wording) to be a restatement of that. There are other statements which I find controversial, such as "the gap between mainstream compact digital cameras and camera phones is closing." (IMHO, it's more accurate to say that cameraphones have replaced what used to be basic/low-end digital cameras because cameraphones have made basic camera-functionality a non-premium commodity. The article's wording implies cameraphones are replacing sales of digital cameras at all levels, and that's not true.)

I try to keep my edits in the same general style and tone as the original article. If I see a lot of uncited statements (which I consider common-sense), then I feel comfortable adding my own. Or I'll try to clean up sentences I find ambiguous. Example: "The very large sensor these medium format and large format backs use leads to enormous image sizes." I think the author meant to say "the large sensor's size allows a higher pixel count, yielding higher resolution-images than consumer digital cameras."

Why was Film Camera merged into Photographic film, vis-a-vis Digital camera and related articles?

I am not a photography expert, although I personally prefer film. however, I have a very reliable old-model camera that recently got serviced by our local pro camera shop before it went out of business, so I've never had to think about the subject of Digital vs film much, beyond having to avoid standard chains that no longer perform quality photo processing.

Leaving all that aside, however, is Film Camera no longer considered notable enough even to have its own article?

Could someone with photography expertise Be BOLD and remedy this?

(See Film camera)

What really wierded me out was a comment on another talk page where someone said "they still make 35mm film. hell, they EVEN still sell 35mm CAMERAS!" As if the product were completely obsolete, and evidence that you can find almost anything online.

So I went on Wikipedia to learn about the history of film cameras and their current availability, only to find... no page dedicated to the subject.

(There's no point in being directed to the pages on 35 mm film if Nikon, Canon etc. have decided to stop making film cameras altogether, and this info is buried on the relevant Wikipedia pages. Not to mention the fact that the article on film cameras redirects to Photographic film and that the main page for 35 mm references camera film only in passing. You have to click on an orphaned subpage, 125 film which is the only page that has extensive info on current film photography in one place.)

Having info like this would help reassure me that my old Nikon is still serviceable.

The fact that Digital camera exists is an argument for the notability of what seems like a pretty broad topic (yes, I know, WP:EXISTS. --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi berr. 'Film camera' wasn't WP:MERGEed in the wiki sense, but WP:REDIRECTed to another page. The redirect certainly is odd, and should point to camera. Might this be the article you are looking for? Describes film using cameras of various designs. Rror (talk) 13:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely questions of distribution of content among camera articles, and where film redirects should go, are important. However, wouldn't it be better to discuss them in a new and more precisely named section of Talk:Camera? Jim.henderson (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti Aliasing Filters

The article says that cameras using a beam splitter do not use an anti aliasing filter. This is just not true. Only video cameras now use a beam splitter, and all the top end ones use anti aliasing filters. Even the lower quality ones do, since the limited resolution of the lens fulfils this purpose.Wmck (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it means without a separate anti-aliasing filter. When Foveon made a 3-CMOS prism-based camera, it didn't have one (see [2]). If there are prism cameras that do have one, that would be worth pointing out. Dicklyon (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

History section

Seems to me, this section is in the wrong article. It belongs in History of the camera. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

useage opf the word power in the batteries section.

It seems like the word power is user for electrical energy rather than electrical power in the batteries section, because how much shots you can make with a battery-set is dependen on how much energy it stores, not how much poer it can deliver. --MrBurns (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Education section?

Is this really appropriate, especially in the tone it has? It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.139.228 (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I figure it belongs in Art education. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Instead, I put it into Visual learning where it is more precisely relevant. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Where someone else deleted it as messy and irrelevant. Anyone who thinks it belongs in Wikipedia can fetch it from the History Tab and move it to another article or convert it to a free-standing article. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Video!

Where is it mentioned in this article? NOWHERE. There should be paragraph on the revolution of video in DSLR that produce HD quality video.--70.240.151.74 (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the first, second, and fourth sentences. I can see why a few more links about this topic would be appropriate, and perhaps a new paragraph, but cannot see why it should only discuss DSLRs. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2010

Sales

Global digital camera shipments, by year:

• 2010: 121.6 million units [3] [4] [5] (141 million units according to IDC [6] [7])
• 2009: 106 million units (of which 10 million were SLR) [8] [9] [10]
• 2008: 119 million units [11]
• 2007: 131 million units (of which 7.5 million were DSLR) [12] [13]
• 2006: 106 million units [14] (of which 5.2 million were DSLR) [15]
• 2005: 92.3 million units (of which 3.8 million were DSLR) [16]
• 2004: 68 million units [17] [18]
• 2003: 47.9 million units [19] [20]
• 2002: 24.5 million units [21] [22]
• 2001: 17.7 million units (20% of the total camera market) [23] [24] [25]

.—  Ark25  (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sensor size and angle of view

The section is written with attention to specialists with unusual needs or wishes, for example a wish to use big filmcam lenses on digicams. This makes it too long and detailed for a broad introductory article, and most of the material should go elsewhere. DSLR, Crop factor, and Image sensor format seem good candidates, though perhaps someone can suggest better alternatives. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Shutter sounds

There seems to be no mention of the artificial shutter sounds many digital cameras will make. This surprises me, as in some cases, some countries have made such a sound legally necessary (although from what I've seen said laws perhaps only apply to the digital cameras in mobile phones). Xmoogle (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Uses of Digital Cameras Beyond Photography

Digital cameras are finding everyday uses in areas other than photography, thus impacting more industries than just traditional camera manufacturers. Examples: Scanning (Digital and smartphone cameras provide a handy alternative to bulky flatbed scanners and photocopiers ; there are many apps for photo and document scanning ); greeting cards (A decade ago, everybody bought and mailed Hallmark cards. Now people create their own personalized cards by adding captions and messages to photos on a smartphone, and email them instantly); handwriting (instead of copying or writing down stuff as we did in the past we now just take a digital photo); surveillance (can use digital camera as webcam) . Insurance surveyors, decorators, real estate agents, genealogists , police etc. are using digital cameras in their everyday work, because these are handy and you can immediately see what you captured. A section on such "alternative or extended uses" of digital cameras may be useful.125.24.124.134 (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I figure this is using photography more, rather than non-photographic uses. Yes, we make and use more pictures, mostly because photography and the use of photos is cheaper and easier. I never go out without my camera phone, and seldom without also my small real camera. Perhaps you can think of a commonplace non photographic use of cameras, but only the use of a camera phone to read QR codes occurs to me, and if that belongs in an article about cameras, I can only think of Camera phone as the right one. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

SLT Technology

Hello everyone, What do you think of including information about SLT Cameras (Single Lens Translucent) in the 'Types of Digital Camera' section? Thanks,Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

DSLT has been added on March 7, 2014. Thanks.Gsarwa (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

CMOS vs CCD

The article says: "Dramatic improvements in single-shot cameras and raw image file processing at the beginning of the 21st century made single shot, CCD-based cameras almost completely dominant, even in high-end commercial photography. CMOS-based single shot cameras remained somewhat common." This is currently all wrong. Over 90%, if not all DSLRs use CMOS elements. Almost all pocket cameras migrated from CCD to CMOS around 2010 (along with Full HD recording). Almost if not all camera phones use CMOS elements. As far as I know, there are currently no consumer still-camera products left that use CCDs. Shouldn't the wording be changed accordingly, because it now sounds like CMOS cameras have a pretty marginal existence?

There are also lots of sentences like "Single-shot capture systems use either one CCD with a Bayer filter mosaic, or three separate image sensors (one each for the primary additive colors red, green, and blue) which are exposed to the same image via a beam splitter." Why is CCD even mentioned here? The Bayer filter mosaic doesn't have anything specific with CCD elements to do. It's just the same with CMOS cameras.

195.197.254.3 (talk) 06:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Has been updated with BSI-CMOS sensor on March 26, 2014. Thank you.Gsarwa (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about categories in redirects

First of all, sorry that I'm asking this mostly unrelated question here, but I honestly didn't know where to ask. I'm kinda bothered by a bunch of redirects that have categories in them, like this one. A completely useless redirect, but it gets to appear in three categories, providing a link to an article that has nothing to do with the title you're clicking, and even to a section that's not entirely about what the link indicates. I removed the categories altogether and nominated the redirect for deletion, but someone restored them. Is this something that's encouraged? Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

UKER, neither the Sony SmartShot redirect nor the categories in it are useless at all.

One of the purposes of redirects is to forward a reader from a link or known keyword to a place where useful information about that topic may be found. Sometimes this will be used for alternative names of the target article's title, but it is also common to redirect to anchors or section headers in articles, where the titles of the target articles may not be directly related to the topic of the incoming redirects.

This is fundamental to the way we organize contents into articles by trying to group related stuff together instead of creating separate articles for each and any keyword a user might enter. This avoids unnecessary redundancy and helps to put related stuff into context, it allows to move and logically reorganize contents in an article without having to fix up all the incoming links, and to grow potential new articles inside of broader concept articles until enough stuff has accumulated to be split out into a separate article. Please reread WP:REDIR and WP:CAT about the various purposes of redirects and the category system.

More specifically, not every redirect has or needs categories, but if applicable categories exist, it is desirable to add them.

Since different readers may know a subject under different keywords or may look for different properties, it is not enough to categorize just the target articles. We aim to identify and cover keywords readers (and editors) may search for and put them in those categories where they may look for them.

The link you provided is a perfect example for this. We do not have an article on "Sony SmartShot" cameras (yet), but they are discussed in a section of the "Digital camera" article already, hence the redirect. Note, that the link uses the anchor "#SmartShot" (deliberately distinguished from the section header "Modular cameras") - this is by design (per our guideline) and allows to logically move the SmartShot related stuff in the "Digital camera" article independent of the further development and naming of section headers.

Regarding categories, it happens, that SmartShot cameras are a sub-class of both, the Sony α E-mount system (ILCE-QX1) as well as the Sony Cyber-shot families (DSC-QX10, DSC-QX100), therefore the SmartShot keyword does belong into both sub-categories. For obvious reasons, it would be inappropriate to put the "Digital camera" target article into these Sony-specific categories, as the article as a whole is about a much broader topic, hence we add the corresponding categories to the redirects. See WP:INCOMPATIBLE for further background on this.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Types of digital cameras

I think that under "Types of digital cameras" it would be useful to include a section for Light-field (plenoptic) cameras such as the Lytro. These cameras are becoming more common and while they have their own dedicated Wikipedia page, I think they should also be listed on this page. Any opinions?Loz59 (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, and I hope you'll be encouraged to help with other parts of Wikipedia including other photographical articles. I figure this technology will remain a small niche of the camera business, and ought to have a single sentence in the "types" section with link to its article. Of course, my forecasts have been wrong before; I thought holography would soon become big and did not expect film cameras to be pushed into a small niche so quickly. Such considerations are among the reasons for WP:CRYSTAL. When plenoptic photography proves me wrong and becomes as important as, say, mirrorless interchangeable lenses, naturally we will want to expand the explanation in this section. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been suggested that some of the articles about special camera types be updated. It appears that a good starting point would be to introduce in this article, or in the article "Camera", an agreed upon listing of camera types worth separate articles. For example: 1. Smartphones with camera. 2. Point and shoot cameras. 3. Compact cameras. 4. Superzoom cameras. 5. DSLRs or Digital Single Lens Reflex cameras. 6. Mirrorless system cameras. Varying sensor sizes would be described within each category. It could be argued that there are a lot more types than above. But it can also be argued that links to less common types can be included in the appropriate category above. Bengt Nyman (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Digital camera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.engadget.com/2014/03/13/nikon-1-v3/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930190707/http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-009-2010_E.pdf to http://www.cipa.jp/english/hyoujunka/kikaku/pdf/DC-009-2010_E.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the citation needed in the battery section

So it turns out that the citation needed section in the battery section, the one about how the batteries need to be high powered. It refrences http://stylishphotozone.blogspot.com/, which seems to do original research on its side, so do what you will. Civlover (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Scientific digital cameras article

Is there an article on scientific (versus consumer) digital cameras?--BeamWeaver (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

• DSC-HX90V’s Mode Dial.jpg
• DSC-WX500.webp
• Interior-of-DSC-HX90V.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Updates needed. References needed for contradicting info.

• Sales data is 5 years out of date (2015).
• Peaks are mentioned but may seem to contradict: "...sales of digital cameras is continuously declining from 148 million in 2011" OR "...digital camera sales hit their peak at 121 million units in 2010." OR "Sales of separate cameras peaked in 2008."
• These paragraphs have no references: "After a big dip of sales in 2012..." and "Film camera sales hit their peak at about...".

Misty MH (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

P.S. If you update it, can you let us know here? Misty MH (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 2 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Allisonk129.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)