Hasta La Gadget!

If you want a backpack that carries your notebook PC, cameras, and lenses in good weather and bad, look at the Lowepro Vertex 100 AW and Vertex 200 AW all-weather backpack bags. They’ll protect your equipment from anything short of falling in a river. But beware: The features that make these bags great for serious-professional users makes them a hassle for the average person who just wants to keep the equipment from getting rained on.

The water-resistant zippers take more effort to open and close. And the extra chest- and waist strips, just the thing for climbing Mount Katahdin, snag on the underside of your coach-class airplane seat or stick in the aisle and trip the flight attendant. Most users don’t need them 90% of the time. So why not downgrade to a simpler, cheaper bag? Because the Vertex AW moveable partitions let you carry more stuff in less space than most other backpacks.

The Candy Man has made his way into consumer electronics. Jazwares is joining up with The Hershey Company to sweeten up tech products. The products aren’t not Willy Wonka style–you won’t be able to eat your digital camera after taking a photo–but they look delicious. The Hershey’s-inspired line will start at $9.99 and will be available this fall. We’ve got an assortment of eye candy for you.

FIrst, who’s not a fan of an assortment of candy? The Hershey’s Miniatures-inspired memory stick is available in Mr. Goodbar, Krackel, Twizzlers, Bubble Yum, and Hershey’s bar (the tasty art above is pending licensor approval!). The sticks comein capacities from 1GB to 4GB and range in price from $14.99 to $29.99. And the Hershey digital camera assortment comes in Jolly Rancher, Hershey’s Miniatures, and Bubble Yum. They go for $24.99.

More sugar after the jump.

Between all the new digital cameras pooped out before the upcoming PMA show and the crazy cameras buried inside cellphones at MWC, it’s a good time to go over why more megapixels isn’t necessarily better.

So, the nutshell explanation of how a digital camera works is that light lands on a sensor, which converts the light into electrical charges. Depending on the kind of camera you’re using, how the light reaches the sensor may seem different—honkin’ digital SLRs house a complicated pentaprism and mirror system that swings out of the way, while the inside of a compact point-and-shoot is mechanically far simpler. At the heart, though, the sensor fundamentals stay the same.

The sensor is where most of the megapixel machismo comes from. When you squeeze the shutter button, the sensor (like film in old-school cameras) is exposed to light for however long you have the exposure time set for. The most common metaphor to talk about how a sensor works is that it’s like an array of buckets (the pixels) that collect light, and the amount collected is turned into an electrical charge, which is converted into data. We talked a bit about the differences between the two major types of sensors, CCD and APS (CMOS) earlier.

Generally, the more pixels packed onto a sensor, the higher the resolution of the images it can produce. (Image resolution is somewhat confusingly also measured in pixels, but the term pixels doesn’t always refer to the exact same thing.) A megapixel is 1 million pixels, so a 12-megapixel photo has a resolution of about 12 million pixels. Sounds like a lot, till you consider gigapixel photos, which have over a billion pixels in them. By comparison, a 30-inch monitor with a 2560×1600 display resolution amounts to a measly four megapixels, and even the best high-definition video currently is around two megapixels, no matter how large the TV.

The most recent crop of $250ish point-and-shoot digital cameras from Canon and Nikon seem to establish 10-12 megapixels as the new norm for everyday pocket cams, and hell, Sony Ericsson crammed a 12-megapixel into their tiny Idou cellphone—the same as Canon’s entry-level XSi DSLR and Nikon’s $3000 D700 pro DSLR. Uh, what the hell?

Obviously, there’s a world of difference between the image quality you’re going to get out each of those. Most of it comes down to the size of the sensor and the pixels. You can fit a much bigger sensor inside of a DSLR than you can inside of a cellphone, which not only means you can fit more pixels on the sensor, you can fit much bigger ones—imagine bigger buckets to catch the light. Sure enough, the sensors inside of DSLRs are huge compared to the ones in compacts as DPReview’s detailed size chart shows. They also explain how to the read the sizes—which actually refer to the size of the tube around the sensor, not the sensor itself. Sensor sizes are referenced against 35mm film as a standard—cameras with sensors equivalent in size to 35mm film are called full-frame, though right now that’s limited to pricey semi-pro level DSLRs.

To get really high-resolution smaller cameras and phones, manufacturers pack as many teeny pixels as tightly as they can onto tiny sensors. The pixels in standard point-and-shoots aren’t the same kind of high-quality pixels found on DSLRs—and generally speaking, bargain bin cameras will offer lower quality pixels than higher-end shooters of the same class—which results crappier color accuracy and usually lower dynamic range too.

The other problem is noise. When you pack in pixels like delicious cows headed for slaughter, you create a lot of heat, which is one of the ways noise is generated—the rainbow colored random grain you see sometimes on digital photos. Noise gets worse as you crank the ISO, amplifying the sensor’s sensitivity to light. In newer point and shoots, it’s really noticeable around a sensitivity of ISO 800, though the D700 and 5D Mark II DSLRs can be jacked up to 3200 ISO and produce acceptable images (we’ve used some on Giz).

So, on a given sensor size, a lower megapixel count with bigger pixels will produce cleaner images—hence the D3 only rocking 12 megapixels. Most cameras mitigate noise with fancy noise reduction algorithms that are getting better all the time—Canon’s 5D Mark II manages to balance delivering 21 megapixels with images about as clean as the D700’s at higher ISOs—but for the most part, we’re happier to see bigger sensors and fewer pixels. One disadvantage of the bigger “buckets” in DSLRs is that you do need more light to fill them up, meaning you might need longer exposure times.

And when it comes to print quality—that old argument for extra megapixels—for most of the shooting the average person does, 6 megapixels is just fine, as David Pogue shows (and Ken Rockwell has more on), since you can make ginormous prints from it, and a clear, noise-free 8×10 looks better than a crappy one when its framed and hung on the wall. As Douglas Sterling told us via email, pros crave the extra detail of ginormous megapixel images, but when it comes down to buying cameras for regular people, just keep in mind that more megapixels isn’t necessarily more better. It’s how good those pixels are that matters.

Something you still wanna know? Send any questions about cameras, obscuras, or Waffle House to tips@gizmodo.com, with “Giz Explains” in the subject line.

Tonight was the coming-out party for the best cameraphone in the US, T-Mobile’s upcoming 8-megapixel Samsung Memoir. I got some time to play with it and compare its photos to a dedicated digital camera, and I really like what I saw.

As we reported earlier, the Memoir is a non-smartphone with a touch-screen interface, 3G Web browsing speeds, and a super-duper camera. During my hands-on time, I focused on checking out the camera.

According to Samsung’s Kim Titus, the Memoir is one of Samsung’s first phones to use the interface from Samsung’s dedicated digital cameras. Kick it into camera mode and turn it sideways, and it feels a lot like a digital camera.

I took a bunch of photos with the Memoir and compared them to shots taken with the Canon PowerShot SD870IS, an 8-megapixel dedicated still camera with excellent image quality. With outdoor shots, you have to zoom in to the pixel level to see any real difference between the two cameras, which is truly impressive. At that level, you see that the Memoir’s shots are ever so slightly brighter and less defined than the Canon’s – but it’s a tough call for an unpracticed eye.

When we recently posted a Vietnam-era Bolex camera with a rifle stock attached, we thought the concept was a little nuts. Then Army Reserve Staff Sgt. and wartime photographer Jeffrey Duran set us straight.

In our original post, we speculated that using a gun stock for shooting a camera seemed like a good way for a photographer to get shot. And we wondered how common these stocks could be. Duran wrote back with a short, informed response, but I was able to twist his arm into telling us a bit more.

Pointing a long lens mounted on a stock is indeed a recipe for getting shot if you’re not careful. In fact in training at Fort McCoy, Wi., I was “shot” by Soldiers on practice missions.

I was not where they expected me to be… i.e. mixed in with the opposition who happened to be shooting at them at the time. Thus, I was “shot” at with blanks during the training even though I was in uniform. They *saw* what they assumed was a rifle in an area where bad guys were shooting at them..

This, of course, is why we train. Even as military media, we need to train in realistic conditions. It was a learning event for both myself and the Soldiers in training.

At Kajaki Dam in Afghanistan, I was there to get some on the ground coverage for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the Afghan National Army. The Afghan National Army troops there are “spot on” as the Brits say and the dam has great strategic importance. There are lots of bad guys.
I took my Bushhawk stock along for the ride out to Kajaki. The stock is of limited use as in remote regions such as this, the local population has never seen a DSLR so they limited trust when you’re pointing a long lens at them. In operations where we were going patrols or at night with night vision I’d use it a lot. However, when going where the bad guys are, there is little worry as I was with some of the best Soldiers in the world.

Okay, so why risk losing your life. Good question. Lemme see if I can figure it out.

Ok. It is an extremely stable platform to shoot pictures with (i.e. that’s why rifles are designed that way). It is very natural and comfortable which results in good images. When using long lenses, holding the camera steady is damn important.

Plus, you can sling the camera stock while walking. This is very important when trying to keep up with Soldiers that are in *much* better shape than you (lost 20 pounds during the tour). Although I’m a Reservist, there’s only one standard… so I have the keep up with Olympic-grade athletes when on Active duty.

Monopods work very well but are a pain in the ass when on the move. You have to open them, then close them when you’re going to roll out. Which happens unexpectedly at times 🙂

Handholding with two hands is about the only way and how most of the world gets it done. I would not advise *any* media in a war zone to use a stock. In my case, I’m a member of the armed forces and I’m with the guys with the guns. We used to joke about it in that the Taliban would wonder if we bought some some secret weapon since we were the only Americans at Kajaki. Either way, the bad guys would shoot at me anyway on any patrols with little regard if I had a camera or a rifle.

My main thing was not to make the local population feel threatened…
I have to say that there is something inherently fun about shooting a camera like a rifle. It is really more fun than I should admit. I found myself grinning every time I used the darn thing.

I guess there’s just something obsessive with me and rifle stocks for cameras. I actually designed one in drafting class in high-school but it wasn’t until this last tour that I ponied up the cheese to buy one. It’s just a lot of fun.

– Jeff Duran

or Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Duran one weekend a month, two weeks a year (unless called to go to far away places and meet new people… and take their picture).

A special thanks to Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Duran for writing in and sharing his experiences. You can see more of his photos here and here.