«

I came across a Web site that implies that a 12-megapixel camera (such as the Canon Power Shot SX260 HS) can take pictures that are as sharp as cameras with higher resolutions.

Is this true?

On the Pocketlint.com Web site (http://www.pocket-lint.com/review/58...-camera-review) in the "Mega Megapixels?" section, it says:

"With the megapixel race reaching new heights in recent releases, it’s interesting to see Canon pop a 12.1-megapixel sensor into the SX260 HS. And if that doesn’t sound particularly high in resolution then, well, that’s‘cos it’s not.

"But for good reason: the more conservative number of pixels on the sensor surface means that more light can reach each of those pixel and, in turn, you ought to get better image quality thanks to a better source signal. Add to this that the sensor’s wiring is to the back of the construction - known as "back-illuminated" - and there’s an extra brownie point on the imaging front."

And then in the "Verdict" section, the review again implies that the Canon camera' 12-megapixel resolution gives pictures as sharp as cameras with higher resolutions:

"But image quality is among the best you’ll find in such a camera. The decision to use a lower resolution 12.1-megapixel sensor pays in bucket loads: shots are sharp and the conservative ISO 100-3200 range is useable throughout. There’s some chromatic aberration in shots, but otherwise the punchy colours and decent exposures are tip top and are the camera's biggest attraction."

I'm considering buying the 18-megapixel Sony Cyber Shot HX20V to get pictures that are sharper than the 12-megapixel Canon Power Shot A1200 that I nowuse, and I don't see the benefit of trading one 12-megapixel camera to buyanother 12-megapixel camera.

It seems to me that an 18-megapixel camera should give sharper pictures when the pictures are enlarged than either my current Canon A1200 or the CanonPower Shot SXs60 HS who's review I quoted from above.

I plan to use Photoshop filters on my photos and enlarge them considerably,so I need the images to be sharp. I have a limited budget of $400.)

Robert Montgomery

Robert Montgomery <> wrote:
>And then in the "Verdict" section, the review again implies that the Canon =
>camera' 12-megapixel resolution gives pictures as sharp as cameras with hig=
>her resolutions:
>
>"But image quality is among the best you=92ll find in such a camera. The de=
>cision to use a lower resolution 12.1-megapixel sensor pays in bucket loads=
>: shots are sharp and the conservative ISO 100-3200 range is useable throug=
>hout. There=92s some chromatic aberration in shots, but otherwise the punch=
>y colours and decent exposures are tip top and are the camera's biggest att=
>raction."


The reviewer talks about "image quality" but it appears that you take
that term to mean "sharpness".

Apparent sharpness - a function of both resolution and contrast - is
just one aspect of image quality. Others include colour depth and
dynamic range.

The term "image quality" is subjective and can mean very different
things to different people. You have taken it to mean sharpness,
which is just one part of the mix.

You should try reading the review as the reviewer wrote it, rather
than try to bend it to suit your own limited understanding of the term
"image quality". Reading other reviews of the same camera might help,
but only you were prepared to be open-minded and understand what the
reviewers were actually trying to say.

Thanks, Alan and Bruce.

On digitalversus.com (http://www.digitalversus.com/digital...sus-table.html)

The Sony 18-megapixle (Cyber-shot HX20V got a five-star rating.

The Canon 12-megapixel (Powershot SX260 HS) got a four-star rating.

And the Canon Powershot A1200 that I use now got a two-star rating.

I want a compact, lightweight digital camera with at least ten times optical zoom and that gives sharper pictures because some of my customers complain that some of my enlargements that I made with my Canon A1200 are too fuzzy.

Robert

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:51:00 AM UTC-7, Robert Montgomery wrote:
> Thanks, Alan and Bruce.
>
> On digitalversus.com (http://www.digitalversus.com/digital...sus-table.html)
>
> The Sony 18-megapixle (Cyber-shot HX20V got a five-star rating.
>
> The Canon 12-megapixel (Powershot SX260 HS) got a four-star rating.
>
> And the Canon Powershot A1200 that I use now got a two-star rating.
>
> I want a compact, lightweight digital camera with at least ten times optical zoom and that gives sharper pictures because some of my customers complain that some of my enlargements that I made with my Canon A1200 are too fuzzy.
>
> Robert

I forgot to mention that the Canon Powershot A1200 that I use now is a 12-megapixel camera (the same number of megapixels as the Canon SX260 HS I listed here..

Would either of the two other cameras I listed give sharper enlargements?

Thanks.

Robert Montgomersy

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 10:51:00 AM UTC-7, Robert Montgomery wrote:
> Thanks, Alan and Bruce.
>
> On digitalversus.com (http://www.digitalversus.com/digital...sus-table.html)
>
> The Sony 18-megapixle (Cyber-shot HX20V got a five-star rating and costs about $100 more than the Canon that I list in the next paragraph. (I can't decide which of these two cameras to buy.)
>
> The Canon 12-megapixel (Powershot SX260 HS) got a four-star rating.
>
> And the Canon Powershot A1200 that I use now got a two-star rating.
>
> I want a compact, lightweight digital camera with at least ten times optical zoom and that gives sharper pictures because some of my customers complain that some of my enlargements that I made with my Canon A1200 are too fuzzy.
>
> Robert

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:10:59 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-16 13:51 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
> > Thanks, Alan and Bruce.
> >
> > On digitalversus.com
> > (http://www.digitalversus.com/digital...sus-table.html)
> >
> > The Sony 18-megapixle (Cyber-shot HX20V got a five-star rating.
> >
> > The Canon 12-megapixel (Powershot SX260 HS) got a four-star rating.

>
> That's not a site I know - I'd rather use dpreview - it may be biased
> but at least the bias is relatively clear.

DP Review doesn't mention the sensor size when I compare side-by-side. (http://www.dpreview.com/products/com...tDir=ascending).

> Consider even a DSLR with an APS-C sensor. Even with a "cheap" 10:1
> zoom it should outshine any of the cameras you mention.

Such as? Remember, I'm looking for a compact, lightweight camera that gives pictures much sharper than the Canon A1200 camera I have now, has at least ten times optical zoom and costs no more than $400.

(I have a Canon Powershot SXis20, but the camera is it's so big and heavy I'm too lazy to carry it around with me and therefore I keep on losing photoops, so the size and lightness are priorities for me (as well as ease of use 'cause I'm not good at technical things).

Thanks for the reference page about sensors. I printed the page for reference.

Robert Montgomery

What? The sensor sizes of all three cameras I'm comparing are the same!

(ensor size: 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm)).

I'm still confused. How can I tell which camera will make clearer, sharper, less fuzzy enlargements?

Robert Montgomery

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:47:50 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-06-16 14:36 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:10:59 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>
> It certainly does give sensor sizes in the side-by-side. It's near the
> bottom of the "Sensor" section on a line called "Sensor Size".
>
> All three of those cameras are ' 1/2.3" ' (6.17 x 4.55 mm)

Thanks, Alan. I see it now.

> >> Consider even a DSLR with an APS-C sensor. Even with a "cheap"
> >> 10:1 zoom it should outshine any of the cameras you mention.
> >
> > Such as? Remember, I'm looking for a compact, lightweight camera
> > that gives pictures much sharper than the Canon A1200 camera I have
> > now, has at least ten times optical zoom and costs no more than
> > $400.
>
> Understood - however you said your customers complained about your fuzzy
> images. That could be technique and it could be camera performance.
>
I try to hold the A1200 steady, but there's no image stabilization.

Also, some pictures I crop and then blow them up in Photoshop and print those, so that makes those pictures fuzzy.

> > (I have a Canon Powershot SXis20, but the camera is it's so big and
> > heavy I'm too lazy to carry it around with me and therefore I keep on
> > losing photo ops, so the size and lightness are priorities for me (as
> > well as ease of use 'cause I'm not good at technical things).
>
> Those are good enough reasons - unless your customers keep complaining.

> > Thanks for the reference page about sensors. I printed the page for
> > reference.

> Why print it? Just bookmark it.

I made two bookmarks as well (Under Cameras and Photography) but I have so many bookmarks it may be easier to find the printed page that I put into one of my binders.

Can you suggest a camera with a bigger sensor?

Robert Montgomery

Thanks, Alan.

What size of sensor should I look for that would give much sharper picturesthan the ones we've discussed, which are "Sensor size: 1/2.3” (6.17 x 4..55 mm)".

> My advice is you get to dpreview and hunt.

Okay.

And what's an example of a desirable zoom ratio to get sharp photos?

A 7.1 times zoom is not enough for me, and $800 is double the maximum I'm prepared to pay.

I hvae a five times zoom now in the Canon A1200, so it would be a downgradeto buy a Sony DSC-RX100 with its puny 3.6 times zoom.

Robert

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 11:59:16 -0700, Robert Montgomery wrote:

> On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:47:50 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2012-06-16 14:36 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
>> > On Saturday, June 16, 2012 11:10:59 AM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>
>> It certainly does give sensor sizes in the side-by-side. It's near the
>> bottom of the "Sensor" section on a line called "Sensor Size".
>>
>> All three of those cameras are ' 1/2.3" ' (6.17 x 4.55 mm)
>
> Thanks, Alan. I see it now.
>
>> >> Consider even a DSLR with an APS-C sensor. Even with a "cheap" 10:1
>> >> zoom it should outshine any of the cameras you mention.
>> >
>> > Such as? Remember, I'm looking for a compact, lightweight camera
>> > that gives pictures much sharper than the Canon A1200 camera I have
>> > now, has at least ten times optical zoom and costs no more than $400.
>>
>> Understood - however you said your customers complained about your
>> fuzzy images. That could be technique and it could be camera
>> performance.
>>
> I try to hold the A1200 steady, but there's no image stabilization.
>
> Also, some pictures I crop and then blow them up in Photoshop and print
> those, so that makes those pictures fuzzy.
>
>> > (I have a Canon Powershot SXis20, but the camera is it's so big and
>> > heavy I'm too lazy to carry it around with me and therefore I keep on
>> > losing photo ops, so the size and lightness are priorities for me (as
>> > well as ease of use 'cause I'm not good at technical things).
>>
>> Those are good enough reasons - unless your customers keep complaining.
>
>> > Thanks for the reference page about sensors. I printed the page for
>> > reference.
>
>> Why print it? Just bookmark it.
>
> I made two bookmarks as well (Under Cameras and Photography) but I have
> so many bookmarks it may be easier to find the printed page that I put
> into one of my binders.
>
> Can you suggest a camera with a bigger sensor?
>
> Robert Montgomery

Have you considered or looked at the Panasonic G3 - it's micro 4/3 and
has gotten good reviews though it's a bit more than you had indicated.