8MP cams worth the price?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by joe bloggs, Jun 14, 2004.

  1. joe bloggs

    joe bloggs Guest

    I hear a lot about how this sensor is too small for the number of
    megapixels and therefore too much noise reduction is employed, etc.

    But when I see some of the sample pics, mainly from Oly C8080 and to a
    lesser extent the Minolta and the Sony F828, from owners on dpreview
    and me thinks, they look pretty good. To my eyes at least...

    Anyone?
     
    joe bloggs, Jun 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <>,
    says...
    > I hear a lot about how this sensor is too small for the number of
    > megapixels and therefore too much noise reduction is employed, etc.
    >
    > But when I see some of the sample pics, mainly from Oly C8080 and to a
    > lesser extent the Minolta and the Sony F828, from owners on dpreview
    > and me thinks, they look pretty good. To my eyes at least...
    >
    > Anyone?


    If you're shooting at low ISOs (50 or 100), they'll give you stunning
    image quality. They don't do very well in low-light situations for the
    reason you mentioned.

    If you have to shoot in low-light conditions, consider one of their 4 or
    5 MP brethren or better yet, a dSLR like the 300D or D70. The dSLR will
    be a step up in terms of quality and features, but not necessarily price
    compared to a 8 MP digicam. The added benefit of more lens choices
    cinches the deal as far as I'm concerned.
     
    Brian C. Baird, Jun 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Brian C. Baird <> writes:

    > In article <>,
    > says...
    > > I hear a lot about how this sensor is too small for the number of
    > > megapixels and therefore too much noise reduction is employed, etc.
    > >
    > > But when I see some of the sample pics, mainly from Oly C8080 and to a
    > > lesser extent the Minolta and the Sony F828, from owners on dpreview
    > > and me thinks, they look pretty good. To my eyes at least...
    > >
    > > Anyone?

    >
    > If you're shooting at low ISOs (50 or 100), they'll give you stunning
    > image quality. They don't do very well in low-light situations for the
    > reason you mentioned.
    >
    > If you have to shoot in low-light conditions, consider one of their 4 or
    > 5 MP brethren or better yet, a dSLR like the 300D or D70. The dSLR will
    > be a step up in terms of quality and features, but not necessarily price
    > compared to a 8 MP digicam. The added benefit of more lens choices
    > cinches the deal as far as I'm concerned.


    However, note that most consumer priced glass is 1-2 f/stops slower than the
    lens in the prosumer cameras (unless you can shoot with the 50mm prime). So
    you loose some of the advantages of having a higher ISO speed. If you are
    willing to spend the $$$$ to get the nice f/2.8 zooms or f/1.4 primes, then yes
    you should be able to get those shots lit only by candle light.....

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Jun 14, 2004
    #3
  4. On 14 Jun 2004 07:47:12 -0400, Michael Meissner
    <> wrote:

    >Brian C. Baird <> writes:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> says...
    >> > I hear a lot about how this sensor is too small for the number of
    >> > megapixels and therefore too much noise reduction is employed, etc.
    >> >
    >> > But when I see some of the sample pics, mainly from Oly C8080 and to a
    >> > lesser extent the Minolta and the Sony F828, from owners on dpreview
    >> > and me thinks, they look pretty good. To my eyes at least...
    >> >
    >> > Anyone?

    >>
    >> If you're shooting at low ISOs (50 or 100), they'll give you stunning
    >> image quality. They don't do very well in low-light situations for the
    >> reason you mentioned.
    >>
    >> If you have to shoot in low-light conditions, consider one of their 4 or
    >> 5 MP brethren or better yet, a dSLR like the 300D or D70. The dSLR will
    >> be a step up in terms of quality and features, but not necessarily price
    >> compared to a 8 MP digicam. The added benefit of more lens choices
    >> cinches the deal as far as I'm concerned.

    >
    >However, note that most consumer priced glass is 1-2 f/stops slower than the
    >lens in the prosumer cameras (unless you can shoot with the 50mm prime). So
    >you loose some of the advantages of having a higher ISO speed. If you are
    >willing to spend the $$$$ to get the nice f/2.8 zooms or f/1.4 primes, then yes
    >you should be able to get those shots lit only by candle light.....


    A very good point, and also the increased DOF over the range of the
    f-stops can be a huge advantage (or serious disadvantage depending)
    with the pro-sumer cams. f11-20 needs a suprisingly large amount of
    light where as most prosumers dont go below f4-5ish and tend to start
    about f1.8-2ish.

    If you are used to the larger DOF and fast f-stop moving to a f3.5-4
    stop lense with a shallow DOF does take a lot of getting used to...
    its a good job that the dSLR's make changing the ISO so much easier
    than the prosumers because you'll find yourself pushing the ISO up to
    200-400 quite often.


    --
    Jonathan Wilson.
    www.somethingerotic.com
     
    Jonathan Wilson, Jun 14, 2004
    #4
  5. "joe bloggs" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I hear a lot about how this sensor is too small for the number of
    > megapixels and therefore too much noise reduction is employed, etc.
    >
    > But when I see some of the sample pics, mainly from Oly C8080 and to a
    > lesser extent the Minolta and the Sony F828, from owners on dpreview
    > and me thinks, they look pretty good. To my eyes at least...
    >
    > Anyone?


    Personally, I think that the noise issue is overrated. Some noise (grain)
    in an image doesn't bother me at all, but it certainly bothers some
    people. You need to make up your own mind based on your taking, printing
    and viewing conditions.

    I have the Nikon Coolpix 5700 (5MP). I purchased the Minolta A2 (8MP)
    thinking it might be better, but on average the quality of the images from
    the Minolta was no better than those from the Nikon. I has also hoped
    that by purchasing the 2nd generation camera (Minolta had an A1 5MP), that
    firmware faults in the earlier camera would have been fixed, but they were
    not. I sent the Minolta A2 back.

    I would suggest:

    - compare the results from 5MP and 8MP under your taking and viewing
    conditions to see if the extra MP is worthwhile

    - see if the ergonomic improvements in the later cameras (Nikon 8700,
    Minolta A2 etc.) justify the extra price of these cameras.

    You may find that a discounted 5MP camera does what you want very nicely.

    BTW: please change your e-mail address to one without profanities.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 14, 2004
    #5
  6. joe bloggs

    Alfred Molon Guest

    joe bloggs <> wrote:
    >I hear a lot about how this sensor is too small for the number of
    >megapixels and therefore too much noise reduction is employed, etc.
    >
    >But when I see some of the sample pics, mainly from Oly C8080 and to a
    >lesser extent the Minolta and the Sony F828, from owners on dpreview
    >and me thinks, they look pretty good. To my eyes at least...


    Noise isn't that much of an issue, if you take care to always shoot at
    the lowest ISO (this is usually possible, even in low light, if the lens
    is bright enough). Here however the Nikon 8700 with its F2.8-4.2 lens is
    the weakest performer.

    All these 8MP 2/3" CCD cameras however are currently limited to card
    write speeds of about 1MB/s, which means that they take forever to write
    a RAW image to the card. If you only shoot RAW you might not be happy
    having to wait 12 seconds before you can take the next shot.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
    Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
    Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
    Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html
     
    Alfred Molon, Jun 14, 2004
    #6
  7. joe bloggs

    Paul Wylie Guest

    Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    [...]
    > All these 8MP 2/3" CCD cameras however are currently limited to card
    > write speeds of about 1MB/s, which means that they take forever to write
    > a RAW image to the card. If you only shoot RAW you might not be happy
    > having to wait 12 seconds before you can take the next shot.


    A valid point. However, as I discovered this week, the Dimage A2 will
    allow quickviews of previous shots and even allow new shots to be taken
    during writes to the CF card, as long as there's room in the DRAM buffer.
    That's a far cry from my Oly C2100UZ, which prohibits further operations
    of any kind once the write-to-card process starts.

    --Paul
    ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
     
    Paul Wylie, Jun 15, 2004
    #7
  8. joe bloggs

    Terry Guest

    Paul Wylie wrote:

    >Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >[...]
    >> All these 8MP 2/3" CCD cameras however are currently limited to card
    >> write speeds of about 1MB/s, which means that they take forever to write
    >> a RAW image to the card. If you only shoot RAW you might not be happy
    >> having to wait 12 seconds before you can take the next shot.

    >
    >A valid point. However, as I discovered this week, the Dimage A2 will
    >allow quickviews of previous shots and even allow new shots to be taken
    >during writes to the CF card, as long as there's room in the DRAM buffer.
    >That's a far cry from my Oly C2100UZ, which prohibits further operations
    >of any kind once the write-to-card process starts.


    That's just backwards from my experience. On my C2100, I have no
    problems taking another shot while it is writing to the SM card. And
    it doesn't have a RAW mode anyway. My A2 also can overlap another shot
    with writing to the CF card, but only when in JPG mode. When in RAW,
    or RAW+JPG, it prohibits additional shots until the write completes.
    For RAW+JPG, that's about 16-18 seconds.

    Terry
     
    Terry, Jun 15, 2004
    #8
  9. joe bloggs

    Paul Wylie Guest

    Terry <> wrote:
    > That's just backwards from my experience. On my C2100, I have no
    > problems taking another shot while it is writing to the SM card. And
    > it doesn't have a RAW mode anyway. My A2 also can overlap another shot
    > with writing to the CF card, but only when in JPG mode. When in RAW,
    > or RAW+JPG, it prohibits additional shots until the write completes.
    > For RAW+JPG, that's about 16-18 seconds.


    Yeah, our experiences are 180 degrees apart.

    Once my C2100UZ starts writing to the card, *nothing* else happens. I
    swear I was taking multiple shots in RAW mode on my A2 just the other day,
    even after the camera started writing to the CF card, but I'll have to
    double-check that.

    I wonder if your C2100UZ has a newer firmware release than mine.

    Speaking of firmware, I saw today that KM released a new firmware version
    for the A2 on July 10th.

    --Paul
    ** Note "removemunged" in email address and remove to reply. **
     
    Paul Wylie, Jun 15, 2004
    #9
  10. "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    []
    > Noise isn't that much of an issue, if you take care to always shoot at
    > the lowest ISO (this is usually possible, even in low light, if the lens
    > is bright enough). Here however the Nikon 8700 with its F2.8-4.2 lens is
    > the weakest performer.

    []
    > Alfred Molon


    Nikon 8700 - f/2.8 - f/4.2 lens, zoom 35 - 280mm

    Minolta A2 - f/2.8 - f/3.5 lens, zoom 28 - 200mm
    Sony F828 - f/2.0 - f/2.8 lens, zoom 28 - 200mm
    Olympus C-8080 - f/2.4 - f/3.5, zoom 28 - 140mm

    So Nikon is not the "weakest performer", it simply offers a different
    choice of zoom range (double the telephoto of the Olympus, for example),
    and the same light gathering power at the wide end in the same as the
    Minolta.

    In practice (with the Nikon 5700 rather than the 8700) I have found the
    extreme end of the zoom range to be very usable.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 15, 2004
    #10
  11. Paul Wylie <> writes:

    > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > [...]
    > > All these 8MP 2/3" CCD cameras however are currently limited to card
    > > write speeds of about 1MB/s, which means that they take forever to write
    > > a RAW image to the card. If you only shoot RAW you might not be happy
    > > having to wait 12 seconds before you can take the next shot.

    >
    > A valid point. However, as I discovered this week, the Dimage A2 will
    > allow quickviews of previous shots and even allow new shots to be taken
    > during writes to the CF card, as long as there's room in the DRAM buffer.
    > That's a far cry from my Oly C2100UZ, which prohibits further operations
    > of any kind once the write-to-card process starts.


    Presumably that is writing TIFF's with the UZI. Either thar or you never
    learned the trick of half pressing the shutter release, which the UZI will
    continue writing in the background while allowing you to take more shots until
    the buffer is full (~ 7 shots at SHQ, more at HQ). It works great for me.

    --
    Michael Meissner
    email:
    http://www.the-meissners.org
     
    Michael Meissner, Jun 15, 2004
    #11
  12. joe bloggs

    Terry Guest

    Paul Wylie wrote:

    >Terry <> wrote:
    >> That's just backwards from my experience. On my C2100, I have no
    >> problems taking another shot while it is writing to the SM card. And
    >> it doesn't have a RAW mode anyway. My A2 also can overlap another shot
    >> with writing to the CF card, but only when in JPG mode. When in RAW,
    >> or RAW+JPG, it prohibits additional shots until the write completes.
    >> For RAW+JPG, that's about 16-18 seconds.

    >
    >Yeah, our experiences are 180 degrees apart.
    >
    >Once my C2100UZ starts writing to the card, *nothing* else happens.
    >I wonder if your C2100UZ has a newer firmware release than mine.


    As Michael Meissner suggests, you must be shooting in TIFF mode, and
    it does work that way in that mode. I normally shoot my 2100 in JPG
    mode, and in that mode it will overlap. My mistake.

    >I swear I was taking multiple shots in RAW mode on my A2 just the other day,
    >even after the camera started writing to the CF card, but I'll have to
    >double-check that.


    I think you will find differently. Either that, or I've got a bad A2!

    Terry
     
    Terry, Jun 15, 2004
    #12
  13. In article <>, (joe bloggs) writes:
    > I hear a lot about how this sensor is too small for the number of
    > megapixels and therefore too much noise reduction is employed, etc.
    >
    > But when I see some of the sample pics, mainly from Oly C8080 and to a
    > lesser extent the Minolta and the Sony F828, from owners on dpreview
    > and me thinks, they look pretty good. To my eyes at least...
    >
    > Anyone?


    Hi,

    The pixel density is not greater with a 8 Mpx on a 2/3 " CCD than on a 6 Mpx
    1/1.8" (or even a 5 Mpx on a 1/2.4"). You need to stay at 50/100 ISO to have
    No/Low noise. 200 and 400 are usable for A4/A5 prints.

    Patrick
    --
    ===============================================================================
    (CENA) ______ ___ _ (Patrick MOREAU)
    (DECUS) / / / / /| /|
    CENA/Athis-Mons FRANCE / /___/ / / | / | __ __ __ __
    BP 205 / / / / |/ | | | |__| |__ |__| | |
    94542 ORLY AEROGARE CEDEX / / :: / / | |__| | \ |__ | | |__|
    http://www.ath.cena.fr/~pmoreau/ http://www.multimania.com/pmoreau/
    ===============================================================================
     
    Patrick MOREAU, CENA Athis, Tel: 01.69.57.68.40, Jun 16, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <4Nyzc.509$>,
    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.uk> writes:
    [...]
    > Nikon 8700 - f/2.8 - f/4.2 lens, zoom 35 - 280mm
    >
    > Minolta A2 - f/2.8 - f/3.5 lens, zoom 28 - 200mm
    > Sony F828 - f/2.0 - f/2.8 lens, zoom 28 - 200mm
    > Olympus C-8080 - f/2.4 - f/3.5, zoom 28 - 140mm
    >
    > So Nikon is not the "weakest performer", it simply offers a different
    > choice of zoom range (double the telephoto of the Olympus, for example),
    > and the same light gathering power at the wide end in the same as the
    > Minolta.
    >
    > In practice (with the Nikon 5700 rather than the 8700) I have found the
    > extreme end of the zoom range to be very usable.


    Agree. Even at 50 ISO it is not a great deal to take sharp shots at 280 mm
    equiv in daylight. You just need to watch if you can reach 1/250 sec and if not
    either zoom out a bit or bump to ISO 100. Note that you are much steady using
    the EVF than the LCD.

    Patrick
    --
    ===============================================================================
    (CENA) ______ ___ _ (Patrick MOREAU)
    (DECUS) / / / / /| /|
    CENA/Athis-Mons FRANCE / /___/ / / | / | __ __ __ __
    BP 205 / / / / |/ | | | |__| |__ |__| | |
    94542 ORLY AEROGARE CEDEX / / :: / / | |__| | \ |__ | | |__|
    http://www.ath.cena.fr/~pmoreau/ http://www.multimania.com/pmoreau/
    ===============================================================================
     
    Patrick MOREAU, CENA Athis, Tel: 01.69.57.68.40, Jun 16, 2004
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Patrick Cleburne

    Worth the price for hyperthreading technology?

    Patrick Cleburne, Apr 5, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,775
    Patrick Cleburne
    Apr 6, 2005
  2. Mike Henley

    is a leica worth its price?

    Mike Henley, May 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    38
    Views:
    6,865
    Tom Monego
    May 15, 2004
  3. Wade365
    Replies:
    57
    Views:
    1,476
    Eric R.
    Dec 22, 2003
  4. Jim Garrison

    ISO17799 Toolkit - Worth the Price?

    Jim Garrison, Mar 3, 2005, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    580
    Martin
    Mar 11, 2005
  5. Rebecca1984

    canon mkII worth price

    Rebecca1984, Apr 4, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    448
    Rebecca1984
    Apr 4, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page