better big optical zoom or big megapixels?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JWBH, Feb 27, 2007.

  1. JWBH

    Yoshi Guest

    So do Canon and Nikon, companies which have decades and decades of
    experience in producing quality cameras which are widely used by
    professionals and have taken some of the worlds greatest images. I won't
    waste my time with Casio, a company known for cheap digital watches and
    plastic toy music keyboards.

    Yoshi
     
    Yoshi, Mar 1, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. JWBH

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Yes, there are some good products in the Kodak line. I have been pretty
    happy with my wife's C743, except for very poor low light performance
    indoors. Are you listening Ron Baird?
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 2, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. JWBH

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I repeat, discarding a potential choice because of bias against a brand
    is unwise, and irrational. You imply that because a company newly
    entered a product category their products are sub-standard. This just
    doesn't stand up to close examination. But it's your money.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 2, 2007
    #23
  4. My son just rang to ask my advice about buying a digital camera. This is
    It depends on what he wants to take picture of.

    - For up to 8x10 prints, you won't see a difference between uncropped
    7.5 Mpix and 10Mpix.

    - For nature shots, the added zoom will be very helpful.

    - Do both cameras have equally side settings? If not, the wider one
    will be better for landscapes and some indoor settings.

    - Which camera is easier to use? (This is a matter of personal
    preference.)

    - I would recommend tryout out both cameras to see which he likes
    better, and if he can discern a quality difference in the prints.

    -Joel
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Mar 2, 2007
    #24
  5. JWBH

    ASAAR Guest

    Why should Kodak be concerned about that unless it's your wife,
    not you that's unhappy with the C743's low light performance? <g>

    Kodak could certainly fix this, but with a larger sensor and
    probably a larger lens, the new C743X would be larger, heavier and
    more expensive. How much would you (or she) be willing to pay? If
    my Fuji's 1/2.5" sensor was upgraded to the 1/1.7" sensor used in
    another model, I'd think that another $100 would be reasonable.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 2, 2007
    #25
  6. JWBH

    pjp Guest

    All other features being equal, the 10 meg would be "better" up to 3x zoom
    after that I'm not sure where the actual "line" is but I imagine you'd be
    happier with 6x zoom at 7meg over cropping a 10meg at 3x zoom. After that
    the zoom just gets better.

    I have 6x zoom on my Fuji S602Z and asap bought a 2x addon lens as there's
    nothing like having a good zoom for anything basically not indoors.
     
    pjp, Mar 2, 2007
    #26
  7. JWBH

    Ron Hunter Guest

    I suspect that adding a focus assist light would cost much less than $1
    per unit. It would make a really good camera much better for indoor
    use. The flash, like most on small P&S cameras isn't anything to write
    home about either.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 2, 2007
    #27
  8. I would even take a 7X with 3mp over an 3x any day.
    There is little difference between 10mp and 7.5mp; virtually
    unnoticeable.

    check it out:
    doubling resolution requires quadrupling the number of megapixels.
    8mp is _not_ double of 4mp.
    4sqrt = 2
    8sqrt = 2.83(not double of 2)
    16sqrt = 4(double of 2)
    16mp is double of 4mp.

    100 = 10 x 10
    200sqrt = 14.14 (not double of 10)
    400sqrt = 20(double of 10)
    400 = 20 x 20

    MPs resolution
    4mp = 2000 x 2000
    8mp = 4000 x 2000(_not_ double resolution of 4mp)
    16mp = 4000 x 4000(double resolution of 4mp)
     
    Mr.Bolshoyhuy, Mar 3, 2007
    #28
  9. While agreeing with you, why not use directly relevant figures?

    assuming a 3 x 2 aspect ratio

    7.5 megapixels is 2236 x 3354 pixels
    10 megapixels is 2582 x 3873

    The zooms cannot be directly compared unless they start at the bottom at
    the same point. If they do, then one can compare the increased
    resolution of the long focus settings at max zoom. (It's double the
    resolution for the 7.5 Mp camera.)

    But nuff said.

    Mike
    [The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
    --
    Michael J Davis
    <><
    Some newsgroup contributors appear to have confused
    the meaning of "discussion" with "digression".
    <><
     
    Michael J Davis, Mar 3, 2007
    #29
  10. But if you buy a digital point & shoot camera branded Nikon. it is
    actually made by Sanyo, who know more about digital electronics than
    Nikon. Likewise, Panasonic makes the digital Lieca.
    Sure, the traditional camera manufacturers know how to make lenses, but
    they mostly (Canon excepted) have no experience with digital
    electronics.
     
    Irwin Peckinloomer, Mar 3, 2007
    #30
  11. JWBH

    Trev Guest

    My first Digital was a Casio 3000 It had a canon lens and was the first of
    the 3MP cameras. After it had been on the market a Year a very similar model
    called a G1 was released by canon so who makes what.

    Kodak Made DSLR's using Nikon or Canon body shell's Before either
    manufacture got in to digital
    But we dont equate Kodak with Quality top end Cameras since the Retina days
     
    Trev, Mar 3, 2007
    #31
  12. JWBH

    Liz Leyden Guest

    In message <45e6fd14$0$28112$>
    Obviously, even Canon and Nikon don't put their pro glass into their
    consumer p&s digicams. In Canon's case at least, also not into their
    consumer level lenses.
    Depending on the end use, that may not matter; until recently I didn't
    even notice the severe colour fringing in my Nikon Coolpix images,
    because it didn't matter for my uses; now it leaps out at me.

    Slainte

    Liz
     
    Liz Leyden, Mar 3, 2007
    #32
  13. Liz Leyden wrote:
    []
    The optics on cameras like the Nikon Coolpix 8400 and 87/8800 are pretty
    good, and use the same aspherical and ED techniques as their "pro" lenses.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 3, 2007
    #33
  14. JWBH

    ASAAR Guest

    Yes, reviews rated those lenses as excellent, and Olympus's lens
    on their C-8080 was judged at least as good, with Sony and Minolta
    close behind. I guess they tried to get the most out of the new 8mp
    sensor, resulting in a minor P&S golden age. And (per Agatha
    Christie) Then There Were None, followed soon after by Sony's R1.
     
    ASAAR, Mar 3, 2007
    #34
  15. On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Yoshi wrote:

    Y>
    Y> So do Canon and Nikon, companies which have decades and decades of
    Y> experience in producing quality cameras which are widely used by
    Y> professionals and have taken some of the worlds greatest images. I won't
    Y> waste my time with Casio, a company known for cheap digital watches and
    Y> plastic toy music keyboards.
    Y>
    Y> Yoshi

    I have had an extremly good, and small, programmable calculator, from
    Casio for years. The functionality of the product is excellent.

    I have a solar powered, radio linked, psuedo-analgue watch from
    Casio. The fuctionality of the product is excellent.

    I would expect Casio photographic products, on the electronics side, to be
    of excellent quality with a well thought out design. And don't they have
    Pentax bits on the optical side?


    --
    Alan

    ( If replying by mail, please note that all "sardines" are canned.
    However, unless this a very old message, a "tuna" will swim right
    through. )
     
    Alan Clifford, Mar 3, 2007
    #35
  16. JWBH

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Not in the consumer areas, maybe.
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 3, 2007
    #36
  17. JWBH

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Ray:

    Do you intend posting your wildlife pictures, online? I own a P850,
    also, and would really like to see some of your sample shots.


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 4, 2007
    #37
  18. JWBH

    John Turco Guest


    Hello, Yoshi:

    Casio's cameras are far better than Nikon's watches, I'd suspect. :)

    The point is, just as Canon and Nikon helped make serious photography
    affordable to the masses - by ending the haughty reign of German
    manufacturers - Casio did its part in accomplishing a similar feat,
    wresting the market from the Swiss and bringing precision timepieces
    down to reasonable prices.

    Regardless, Casio's products are hardly junk! They're comparatively
    inexpensive, but that doesn't automatically equate to low quality -- on
    the contrary, I own some Casio watches, and find them to be finely made
    and finished.

    You elitist swine, you! <G>


    Cordially,
    John Turco <>
     
    John Turco, Mar 4, 2007
    #38
  19. JWBH

    bob_jenkins Guest

    You're right! I'd always thought zoom was measured in area, too, but
    you're right. A window that is the height of the screen of my pocket
    camera at 3x is only 1/3 the height of my screen at 1x, so it's only
    taking 1/9th the number of pixels.

    Another comparable metric would be megapixels times the square of the
    zoom.
     
    bob_jenkins, Mar 11, 2007
    #39
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.