Doctor's choice - Kodak C875 or Canon A630?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by davek57, Apr 8, 2007.

  1. davek57

    davek57 Guest

    Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.

    Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    smaller cameras would you choose, and why?

    Thank you.

    -David
     
    davek57, Apr 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. davek57

    davy Guest

    Here's a sight that you can find all the test results on which may help
    in the comparison-:

    'Steve's Digicams - Main Menu' (http://www.steves-digicams.com/) and
    'Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums,
    Glossary, FAQ' (http://www.dpreview.com/)

    Davy
     
    davy, Apr 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. davek57

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 05:42:04 -0700, davek57 wrote:

    > Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    > C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    > LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.
    >
    > Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    > snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    > smaller cameras would you choose, and why?
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > -David


    Seeing as how you already have a P880, I'd lean towards the C875 - I
    assume they use the same printer dock which would be useful.
     
    ray, Apr 8, 2007
    #3
  4. davek57 wrote:
    > Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    > C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    > LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.
    >
    > Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    > snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    > smaller cameras would you choose, and why?
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > -David
    >

    Neither: too many pixels in too small an area.

    see:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Apr 8, 2007
    #4
  5. davek57

    Ron Hunter Guest

    davek57 wrote:
    > Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    > C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    > LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.
    >
    > Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    > snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    > smaller cameras would you choose, and why?
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > -David
    >

    I would choose the Kodak because it is lighter, and the extra zoom can
    be a very good thing. I doubt you would be unhappy with either camera.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 8, 2007
    #5
  6. davek57

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:05:15 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

    >> Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    >> C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    >> LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.
    >>
    >> Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    >> snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    >> smaller cameras would you choose, and why?
    >>
    >> Thank you.
    >>
    >> -David

    >
    > I would choose the Kodak because it is lighter, and the extra zoom can
    > be a very good thing. I doubt you would be unhappy with either camera.


    I'd choose the A630, but only because it's quite like the A620
    which I've used and which is a very good camera. But the OP wants a
    pocketable camera, and if the C875 is significantly smaller, which
    I'm assuming is the case since it doesn't have the articulated LCD
    and uses only two AA batteries, so the Kodak might be the better
    choice for him. On the other hand, Canon's A-series cameras that
    only use two AA batteries don't focus as quickly or (especially in
    low light) as accurately as the 4 AA models, so the C875 may have
    similar shortcomings. Probably not enough to matter very much
    though. My suggestion would be to go one step beyond asking for
    advice here, and to download the manuals for both cameras and read
    each one a time or two.
     
    ASAAR, Apr 8, 2007
    #6
  7. davek57

    Ron Hunter Guest

    ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 15:05:15 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >>> Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    >>> C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    >>> LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.
    >>>
    >>> Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    >>> snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    >>> smaller cameras would you choose, and why?
    >>>
    >>> Thank you.
    >>>
    >>> -David

    >> I would choose the Kodak because it is lighter, and the extra zoom can
    >> be a very good thing. I doubt you would be unhappy with either camera.

    >
    > I'd choose the A630, but only because it's quite like the A620
    > which I've used and which is a very good camera. But the OP wants a
    > pocketable camera, and if the C875 is significantly smaller, which
    > I'm assuming is the case since it doesn't have the articulated LCD
    > and uses only two AA batteries, so the Kodak might be the better
    > choice for him. On the other hand, Canon's A-series cameras that
    > only use two AA batteries don't focus as quickly or (especially in
    > low light) as accurately as the 4 AA models, so the C875 may have
    > similar shortcomings. Probably not enough to matter very much
    > though. My suggestion would be to go one step beyond asking for
    > advice here, and to download the manuals for both cameras and read
    > each one a time or two.
    >

    Good suggestion. Having the manuals available before you buy is a
    definite advantage once the field has been narrowed to only a few
    possible choices.
    I can't say for the C875, but the C743 certainly does have low light
    focus problems. Often, it simply won't. Needs a low light focus assist
    lamp.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 9, 2007
    #7
  8. davek57 wrote:
    > Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    > C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    > LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.
    >
    > Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    > snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    > smaller cameras would you choose, and why?


    On these facts, the Canon. I consider the vari-angle LCD *highly*
    desirable (for high-angle and low-angle shots; my knees aren't as young
    as they once were).

    You may have to change batteries more often on the Kodak, but I wouldn't
    care; at least they both use AAs.

    What I'd want to look at is how they held up at high ISOs, and how fast
    the lenses were (maximum aperture, for low-light work). And how easy
    the manual controls were to access.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 11, 2007
    #8
  9. davek57

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > davek57 wrote:
    >> Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    >> C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    >> LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.
    >>
    >> Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    >> snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    >> smaller cameras would you choose, and why?

    >
    > On these facts, the Canon. I consider the vari-angle LCD *highly*
    > desirable (for high-angle and low-angle shots; my knees aren't as young
    > as they once were).
    >
    > You may have to change batteries more often on the Kodak, but I wouldn't
    > care; at least they both use AAs.
    >
    > What I'd want to look at is how they held up at high ISOs, and how fast
    > the lenses were (maximum aperture, for low-light work). And how easy
    > the manual controls were to access.
    >

    If a person does lots of macro (extreme closeup) work where the camera
    position makes use of a fixed LCD inconvenient, then one would probably
    prefer the A630. If not, then it is pretty much a matter of which one
    you like the look and feel of better.
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 12, 2007
    #9
  10. Ron Hunter wrote:

    > If a person does lots of macro (extreme closeup) work where the camera
    > position makes use of a fixed LCD inconvenient, then one would probably
    > prefer the A630. If not, then it is pretty much a matter of which one
    > you like the look and feel of better.


    The flexible LCD is certainly useful for macro, but I would use it a lot
    for high and low angle shots of people, too. I spent 7 of the last 8
    days (not yesterday) climbing on chairs, holding my camera over my
    head, or getting down on my knees, or trying to guess where the camera
    was aiming while hanging around my neck because I didn't have a way to
    look through the viewfinder except with the camera right up to my eye
    (DSLR). I've seriously considered a Zigview, but I'm not sure they turn
    sideways, and they're nearly $300 for the simplest version.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 12, 2007
    #10
  11. davek57

    Ron Hunter Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> If a person does lots of macro (extreme closeup) work where the camera
    >> position makes use of a fixed LCD inconvenient, then one would
    >> probably prefer the A630. If not, then it is pretty much a matter of
    >> which one you like the look and feel of better.

    >
    > The flexible LCD is certainly useful for macro, but I would use it a lot
    > for high and low angle shots of people, too. I spent 7 of the last 8
    > days (not yesterday) climbing on chairs, holding my camera over my
    > head, or getting down on my knees, or trying to guess where the camera
    > was aiming while hanging around my neck because I didn't have a way to
    > look through the viewfinder except with the camera right up to my eye
    > (DSLR). I've seriously considered a Zigview, but I'm not sure they turn
    > sideways, and they're nearly $300 for the simplest version.


    I guess I never felt I had to take pictures of people's behinds, or the
    top of their heads... Maybe you should raise your sights, or get
    elevator shoes...?
     
    Ron Hunter, Apr 12, 2007
    #11
  12. davek57

    Guest

    On Apr 12, 2:21 pm, David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Ron Hunter wrote:
    > > If a person does lots of macro (extreme closeup) work where the camera
    > > position makes use of a fixed LCD inconvenient, then one would probably
    > > prefer the A630. If not, then it is pretty much a matter of which one
    > > you like the look and feel of better.

    >
    > The flexible LCD is certainly useful for macro, but I would use it a lot
    > for high and low angle shots of people, too. I spent 7 of the last 8
    > days (not yesterday) climbing on chairs, holding my camera over my
    > head, or getting down on my knees, or trying to guess where the camera
    > was aiming while hanging around my neck because I didn't have a way to
    > look through the viewfinder except with the camera right up to my eye
    > (DSLR). I've seriously considered a Zigview, but I'm not sure they turn
    > sideways, and they're nearly $300 for the simplest version.



    I've had rotating LCDs on my last two cameras (currently a 640) and I
    take the whole gamut of kinds of shots and I haven't not used the LCD
    out and rotated in forever. It's not just for way up high or down to
    the knees or macros. I can comfortably hold it chest high and braced
    against myself and I wouldn't know what was in the frame if not for
    the LCD flexed out.
     
    , Apr 13, 2007
    #12
  13. Ron Hunter wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
    >> Ron Hunter wrote:
    >>
    >>> If a person does lots of macro (extreme closeup) work where the
    >>> camera position makes use of a fixed LCD inconvenient, then one would
    >>> probably prefer the A630. If not, then it is pretty much a matter of
    >>> which one you like the look and feel of better.

    >>
    >> The flexible LCD is certainly useful for macro, but I would use it a
    >> lot for high and low angle shots of people, too. I spent 7 of the
    >> last 8 days (not yesterday) climbing on chairs, holding my camera
    >> over my head, or getting down on my knees, or trying to guess where
    >> the camera was aiming while hanging around my neck because I didn't
    >> have a way to look through the viewfinder except with the camera right
    >> up to my eye (DSLR). I've seriously considered a Zigview, but I'm not
    >> sure they turn sideways, and they're nearly $300 for the simplest
    >> version.

    >
    > I guess I never felt I had to take pictures of people's behinds, or the
    > top of their heads... Maybe you should raise your sights, or get
    > elevator shoes...?


    I think maybe you need to take pictures from somewhere other than eye
    level; you're missing about half the great possibilities.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Apr 13, 2007
    #13
  14. davek57

    John Turco Guest

    davek57 wrote:
    >
    > Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    > C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    > LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.
    >
    > Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    > snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    > smaller cameras would you choose, and why?
    >
    > Thank you.
    >
    > -David



    Hello, David:

    Doctor, or not, this is a tough decision. These two cameras are
    comparable in overall quality, yet, each has its advantages and
    disadvantages.

    Kodak C875 -

    Pros: Smaller (3.6 x 2.5 x 1.5 in)

    Higher Optical Zoom Ratio (5x, 37mm-185mm; 35mm equivalent)

    Schneider-Kreuznach Variogon lens

    Cheaper ($166-$196 USD)

    --

    Cons: Lacks Optical Viewfinder

    Fixed LCD Panel
    ----

    Canon A630 -

    Pros: Optical Viewfinder

    "Flip-out & Twist" LCD Panel

    --

    Cons: Larger (4.3 x 2.6 x 1.9 in)

    Lower Optical Zoom Ratio (4x, 35mm-140mm; 35mm equivalent)

    More Expensive: ($200-$250 USD)

    In summary, the C875 is the better bargain. It's significantly less
    costly, boasts a Schneider-Kreuznach lens, and owns a distinct advantage
    at the telephoto end of its zoom range.

    However, the A630's optical viewfinder and movable LCD, may make it
    easier and more enjoyable to use. You should handle both models, in
    stores, in order to gain the best "feel" for them.

    Good luck, and please, tell us how everything goes!


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Apr 14, 2007
    #14
  15. davek57

    John Turco Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" wrote:
    >
    > davek57 wrote:
    > > Both are 8MP, both have 2.5-inch LCD's with so-so 115K pixel quality.
    > > C875 has a 5X Schneider lens (Canon has 4X). Canon has the vari-angle
    > > LCD. Canon uses 4 AA's, Kodak uses 2.
    > >
    > > Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    > > snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of the two
    > > smaller cameras would you choose, and why?
    > >
    > > Thank you.
    > >
    > > -David
    > >

    > Neither: too many pixels in too small an area.
    >
    > see:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
    >
    > Roger



    Hello, Roger:

    You seem to have misunderstood the original poster's inquiry. He already
    owns an advanced small-sensor camera (i.e., Kodak P880), which is quite
    bulky; now, he wants a compact P&S digicam, for common snapshooting.

    Everybody doesn't require a DSLR, you know what I mean? <g>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Apr 14, 2007
    #15
  16. davek57

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:02:01 -0500, John Turco wrote:

    >>> Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    >>> snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of
    >>> the two smaller cameras would you choose, and why?
    >>>
    >>> Thank you.
    >>>
    >>> -David
    >>>

    >> Neither: too many pixels in too small an area.
    >>
    >> see:
    >> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
    >>
    >> Roger

    >
    >
    > Hello, Roger:
    >
    > You seem to have misunderstood the original poster's inquiry. He already
    > owns an advanced small-sensor camera (i.e., Kodak P880), which is quite
    > bulky; now, he wants a compact P&S digicam, for common snapshooting.
    >
    > Everybody doesn't require a DSLR, you know what I mean? <g>


    Maybe he's a Mae West fan that thinks that only a 1DS will do, and
    has outfitted himself with especially capacious cargo pocket jeans,
    waiting for the magic words that a P&S owner is unlikely to hear:

    "Is that a Canon in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?"
     
    ASAAR, Apr 14, 2007
    #16
  17. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:02:01 -0500, John Turco wrote:
    >
    >>>> Both of these are candidates for riding in my pocket for everyday
    >>>> snapshots when I'm not hauling around my Kodak P880. Which of
    >>>> the two smaller cameras would you choose, and why?
    >>>>
    >>>> Thank you.
    >>>>
    >>>> -David
    >>>>
    >>> Neither: too many pixels in too small an area.
    >>>
    >>> see:
    >>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter
    >>>
    >>> Roger

    >>
    >> Hello, Roger:
    >>
    >> You seem to have misunderstood the original poster's inquiry. He already
    >> owns an advanced small-sensor camera (i.e., Kodak P880), which is quite
    >> bulky; now, he wants a compact P&S digicam, for common snapshooting.
    >>
    >> Everybody doesn't require a DSLR, you know what I mean? <g>

    >
    > Maybe he's a Mae West fan that thinks that only a 1DS will do, and
    > has outfitted himself with especially capacious cargo pocket jeans,
    > waiting for the magic words that a P&S owner is unlikely to hear:
    >
    > "Is that a Canon in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?"
    >

    No, you both seem to misunderstand. Too many pixel in too small
    an area simply means if you want a small camera, choose a
    camera with the largest sensor for the size camera you want and
    cut the number of megapixels down. Many people have expressed
    frustration with the noise of the latest crop of 8 megapixel
    point and shoots. So step back and get one with 5 or 6 megapixels.
    You can save some money too, while improving overall performance.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Apr 14, 2007
    #17
  18. davek57

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:14:00 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark) wrote:

    >> Maybe he's a Mae West fan that thinks that only a 1DS will do, and
    >> has outfitted himself with especially capacious cargo pocket jeans,
    >> waiting for the magic words that a P&S owner is unlikely to hear:
    >>
    >> "Is that a Canon in your pocket, or are you happy to see me?"
    >>

    > No, you both seem to misunderstand. Too many pixel in too small
    > an area simply means if you want a small camera, choose a
    > camera with the largest sensor for the size camera you want and
    > cut the number of megapixels down. Many people have expressed
    > frustration with the noise of the latest crop of 8 megapixel
    > point and shoots. So step back and get one with 5 or 6 megapixels.
    > You can save some money too, while improving overall performance.


    Absolutely not! The only thing that has been proved it that
    you're tone deaf to humor. I was neither agreeing or disagreeing
    with what you or John had to say. Now I will add that I do agree
    with John's point. What you said about pixels and sensor sizes is
    obviously true, but it in no way provided information that would be
    useful in choosing between the two cameras that was asked. It also
    wasn't said to the OP, but came in a later reply to John, trying to
    defend your original, unhelpful reply. Telling the OP that *you*
    would choose neither is kind of ridiculous since it only tells
    everyone that you have different standards, standards that are
    highly unlikely to be the same as someone contemplating a small,
    portable camera "for riding in my pocket" when he doesn't feel like
    hauling around his larger Kodak P880. The OP is also probably
    unaware of the extreme degree that you go to to promote large pixel
    sensors. They have their places, and I just chose a camera that has
    a sensor that has relatively large pixels, but such sensors aren't a
    one size fits all solution. Nor will this camera come close to
    fitting into any of my pockets.

    If you wanted to really be helpful you'd probably have to ask
    several questions to get a feel for which factors are important to
    the OP. Then after getting his answers, if sensor size was still an
    important consideration you'd be able to suggest either certain
    types of P&S cameras or specific models. Instead, you did what you
    invariably do. You didn't provide a useful or meaningful response,
    but left a link to one of your web pages. A web page I should add
    that while of interest to a small number of technophiles here, would
    probably be of absolutely no interest to most of the people that ask
    the kinds of questions commonly voiced by relative novices. In
    fact, you start that web page by indicating that you will show that
    a small point and shoot camera will never provide what you want
    unless "someone comes up with a way to break the laws of physics."
    Why weren't you straightforward enough to say that as far as you're
    concerned, you don't think that *any* P&S, let alone a small
    pocketable model, would satisfy the OP, and here's a web page that
    will attempt to prove it? Is it possible for you to play something
    other than your one note sensor/pixel/noisy samba?

    I can't helping but think that you're pointing people to your web
    pages not to help *them* most of the time, but to do what you can to
    boost your image and perceived stature. It would have been more
    helpful to the OP if you said in your original reply that looking
    for a small camera with fewer pixels might have some advantages, and
    then explain why. But you instead pointed to your web page that is
    dense with talk of "Theoretical Photon Statistics", "Sensor Unity
    Gain" "full well capacity", "read noise", "quantum efficiency",
    "diffraction spot diameter", "Poisson Statistics" and far from lucid
    formulae such as:

    > The noise from the sensor in electrons is, to a good approximation:
    >
    > N = (#electrons² + read_noise²)½
    >
    > But we are concerned with noise in our images, so the 16-bit integer scaled noise is:
    >
    > N16b = {([(DN*fw/65535)½] * 65535/fw)² + (read_noise * 16/gain)²}½
    >
    > where N16b is the 16-bit noise in image data numbers (DN), fw is the pixel
    > full well capacity in electrons, read_noise is the read noise (e.g. from Table 2)
    > in electrons, and the gain is the gain in electrons/DN (e.g. from Table 2).


    Your web page also shows that Canon's EOS-1D Mark II is able to
    produce higher image quality than one of Canon's P&S cameras. Do
    you think that anyone isn't already aware that a relatively
    inexpensive P&S won't be able to match the image quality of a DSLR
    that costs many thousands of dollars more? What the OP wanted was
    some guidance to help select one small P&S over another. You only
    provided the same boilerplate that you've used to provide many
    similarly misguided responses in the past.
     
    ASAAR, Apr 14, 2007
    #18
  19. davek57

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 21:01:56 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark) wrote:

    > You have jumped to conclusions again. The simple fact that
    > the web page illustrates pixel size effects with a
    > Canon S70 P&S and 1D Mark II is because they represent
    > almost the extremes in pixel sizes available to consumers today.


    The correct conclusion, which still eludes you. Did you miss the
    fact that I agreed with your conclusions about the benefits provided
    by large pixels? My point was that your points often have little to
    do with helping to enlighten those that you reply to about what
    *they* want to know. When it's appropriate, as for instance, if a
    photographer is complaining about problems they're having getting
    good quality pictures when shooting indoors or in low light
    conditions, *then* it's appropriate to "educate" them about how a
    P&S having a relatively large sensor and a modest number of
    megapixels would help. But even then, unless you see that they're
    likely to have no problem understanding your web page, it's *much*
    better to provide a clear explanation in a reply using the kind of
    English that doesn't require an aptitude in math. and physics that's
    well beyond the grasp of the average person. From messaging here
    you know which regulars won't be put off by your highly technical
    web pages. If you think that most people would get much out of
    reading your web pages you're quite mistaken.


    > Data like that in Figure 6 illustrate that there is a large
    > continuum between the large and small pixel size cameras.
    > Anyone objectively examining the data sees that. The OP called
    > himself a doctor, so I assumed he would would have the
    > intelligence to understand the web page, and could ask questions
    > if he needed more information.


    Get serious, Roger. There are all kinds of doctors, and the more
    common types, that one hopes have good bedside manners, are not
    likely to have doctorates in physics or higher math. As I said,
    before pushing even a doctor off the deep end into your web page's
    murky waters, ask a question or two. Try to find out what kind of
    technical level the OP might have. And don't forget that you're not
    only answering the OP but many lurkers as well. If you give what
    you feel is too simplistic an answer you're much more likely to be
    asked more specific followup questions. When you provide a terse
    answer and a URL pointing to a physicist's delight, that probably
    only helps a very small number of people, and usually leads to few
    followup questions.


    >> Regarding your contention that:
    >> Do you think that anyone isn't already aware that a relatively
    >> inexpensive P&S won't be able to match the image quality of a DSLR
    >> that costs many thousands of dollars more?

    > Simply read Ken Rockwell, or see the thread in this newsgroup
    > titled "P&S and SLR" starting on April 10 to see your statement
    > is false.


    I read Rockwell's essay ($150 P&S vs. the then $5000 DSLR) and as
    usual, you misconstrue what his point was. He didn't say that a
    DSLR couldn't take better pictures in all or most cases. What he
    said was that for many people, an inexpensive P&S would usually
    provide images just as good when they'd be satisfied with small
    snapshots. Also that simple cameras are in general simpler to
    operate. You may find it hard to believe that anyone would return a
    DSLR for a P&S, but there are millions of people that wouldn't use a
    DSLR if they got one as a gift. Just today someone posted a message
    here stating just that. That he would return the DSLR that he just
    purchased because it (IIRC) was to large and inconvenient to use.
    Once again you seem to be assuming that your own preferences must be
    what any other reasonable person would share. Unfortunately it
    doesn't work that way. There's a reason why the word starts with
    the letters "prefer".


    > In my opinion, anyone asking for information about choosing a camera,
    > they should understand the effects of pixel size because I would
    > wager MOST do not understand that small pixels mean noisier
    > images and poor low light or high iso performance. You constantly
    > see references by people believing moors law and constantly
    > improving electronics will solve this "current" problem.


    It would be nice if everyone understood everything that they need
    to know about cameras from birth. Few do. There are *many* topics
    that should be known and the effects of pixel size is only one of
    many, and probably not the most important even though it's worth
    knowing. It's arrogant to try to "educate" so many people about
    your pet topic just because it's been of so much interest to *you*
    that you've extensively researched it and have written treatises on
    it. What it boils down to in the end is that a "Doctor" asked which
    one of two cameras would make a more suitable, pocketable
    replacement for his larger P880. You could have provided a useful
    answer and then add "by the way, if you don't mind sacrificing some
    image quality under normal lighting conditions, you can get better
    image quality in dim light if you get a camera that has a sensor
    that has fewer than the 8MP of those two models." And then,
    depending on what kind of response you'd get, either provide a more
    detailed explanation or if warranted, provide one of your URLs.
     
    ASAAR, Apr 15, 2007
    #19
  20. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:14:00 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username
    > to rnclark) wrote:


    >> No, you both seem to misunderstand. Too many pixel in too small
    >> an area simply means if you want a small camera, choose a
    >> camera with the largest sensor for the size camera you want and
    >> cut the number of megapixels down. Many people have expressed
    >> frustration with the noise of the latest crop of 8 megapixel
    >> point and shoots. So step back and get one with 5 or 6 megapixels.
    >> You can save some money too, while improving overall performance.

    >
    > Absolutely not! The only thing that has been proved it that
    > you're tone deaf to humor. I was neither agreeing or disagreeing
    > with what you or John had to say. Now I will add that I do agree
    > with John's point. What you said about pixels and sensor sizes is
    > obviously true, but it in no way provided information that would be
    > useful in choosing between the two cameras that was asked. It also
    > wasn't said to the OP, but came in a later reply to John, trying to
    > defend your original, unhelpful reply. Telling the OP that *you*
    > would choose neither is kind of ridiculous since it only tells
    > everyone that you have different standards, standards that are
    > highly unlikely to be the same as someone contemplating a small,
    > portable camera "for riding in my pocket" when he doesn't feel like
    > hauling around his larger Kodak P880. The OP is also probably
    > unaware of the extreme degree that you go to to promote large pixel
    > sensors. They have their places, and I just chose a camera that has
    > a sensor that has relatively large pixels, but such sensors aren't a
    > one size fits all solution. Nor will this camera come close to
    > fitting into any of my pockets.
    >
    > If you wanted to really be helpful you'd probably have to ask
    > several questions to get a feel for which factors are important to
    > the OP. Then after getting his answers, if sensor size was still an
    > important consideration you'd be able to suggest either certain
    > types of P&S cameras or specific models. Instead, you did what you
    > invariably do. You didn't provide a useful or meaningful response,
    > but left a link to one of your web pages. A web page I should add
    > that while of interest to a small number of technophiles here, would
    > probably be of absolutely no interest to most of the people that ask
    > the kinds of questions commonly voiced by relative novices. In
    > fact, you start that web page by indicating that you will show that
    > a small point and shoot camera will never provide what you want
    > unless "someone comes up with a way to break the laws of physics."
    > Why weren't you straightforward enough to say that as far as you're
    > concerned, you don't think that *any* P&S, let alone a small
    > pocketable model, would satisfy the OP, and here's a web page that
    > will attempt to prove it? Is it possible for you to play something
    > other than your one note sensor/pixel/noisy samba?
    >
    > I can't helping but think that you're pointing people to your web
    > pages not to help *them* most of the time, but to do what you can to
    > boost your image and perceived stature. It would have been more
    > helpful to the OP if you said in your original reply that looking
    > for a small camera with fewer pixels might have some advantages, and
    > then explain why. But you instead pointed to your web page that is
    > dense with talk of "Theoretical Photon Statistics", "Sensor Unity
    > Gain" "full well capacity", "read noise", "quantum efficiency",
    > "diffraction spot diameter", "Poisson Statistics" and far from lucid
    > formulae such as:
    >
    >> The noise from the sensor in electrons is, to a good approximation:
    >>
    >> N = (#electrons² + read_noise²)½
    >>
    >> But we are concerned with noise in our images, so the 16-bit integer scaled noise is:
    >>
    >> N16b = {([(DN*fw/65535)½] * 65535/fw)² + (read_noise * 16/gain)²}½
    >>
    >> where N16b is the 16-bit noise in image data numbers (DN), fw is the pixel
    >> full well capacity in electrons, read_noise is the read noise (e.g. from Table 2)
    >> in electrons, and the gain is the gain in electrons/DN (e.g. from Table 2).

    >
    > Your web page also shows that Canon's EOS-1D Mark II is able to
    > produce higher image quality than one of Canon's P&S cameras. Do
    > you think that anyone isn't already aware that a relatively
    > inexpensive P&S won't be able to match the image quality of a DSLR
    > that costs many thousands of dollars more? What the OP wanted was
    > some guidance to help select one small P&S over another. You only
    > provided the same boilerplate that you've used to provide many
    > similarly misguided responses in the past.


    You have jumped to conclusions again. The simple fact that
    the web page illustrates pixel size effects with a
    Canon S70 P&S and 1D Mark II is because they represent
    almost the extremes in pixel sizes available to consumers today.
    Data like that in Figure 6 illustrate that there is a large
    continuum between the large and small pixel size cameras.
    Anyone objectively examining the data sees that. The OP called
    himself a doctor, so I assumed he would would have the
    intelligence to understand the web page, and could ask questions
    if he needed more information.

    Regarding your contention that:
    > Do you think that anyone isn't already aware that a relatively
    > inexpensive P&S won't be able to match the image quality of a DSLR
    > that costs many thousands of dollars more?

    Simply read Ken Rockwell, or see the thread in this newsgroup
    titled "P&S and SLR" starting on April 10 to see your statement
    is false.

    In my opinion, anyone asking for information about choosing a camera,
    they should understand the effects of pixel size because I would
    wager MOST do not understand that small pixels mean noisier
    images and poor low light or high iso performance. You constantly
    see references by people believing moors law and constantly
    improving electronics will solve this "current" problem.

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Apr 15, 2007
    #20
    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. my buying question, a canon a610 or a630?

    , Oct 8, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    647
    freestonew
    Oct 9, 2006
  2. Canon a630 Red-Eye Problem

    , Oct 13, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    667
  3. hfs2

    c875 power adapter

    hfs2, Nov 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    302
    Ron Baird
    Nov 14, 2006
  4. hfs2

    c875 comments

    hfs2, Dec 21, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    284
    John Turco
    Dec 24, 2006
  5. Doug White

    Canon SD850 IS vs Kodak C875 vs ?

    Doug White, Jul 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    634
    ASAAR
    Aug 5, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page