2 or 3 Megapixel camera?

eden · Jul 2, 2003

Well, for the moment, the D 560 Zoom from Olympus seems damn attractive according to Imaging Resource's review. They seem to praise its detail and accuracy, while it lacking the optical viewfinder frame accuracy. It seems to do fairly well in dim-lighted moments.
Now, if noise worsens usually an image's detail, then why is a high ISO helping in night scenes if it only noises images?

--
I am my own competition. -VJK

Auburn9698 · Jul 2, 2003

Not sure how much noise you'll get with that certain model, but shooting at a setting on a digital comparable to a higher ISO film speed helps in dim light situations where you need speed.

Just like 400-speed film will show higher grain, but better performance in low-light conditions, than 100-speed or lower film.

Olympus is making good digitals right now.

<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
War EagleEdited by Auburn9698 on 07/01/03 10:07 PM.

CompSci · Jul 2, 2003

Some friends have the Olympus D460Zoom, only a 1.3, but Good cam! Sharp Pics!
And i neededa replacement stock for an old Ithaca shotgun, and the gunsmith/stockfitter sent me pics from his Oly D460Zoom showing the available blanks and detailed inletting fittings. Killer pics with Excelent detail! Olympus makes a good DigiCam. They definitey get the picture across...
If Oly D560Z is anything like D460Z, it's gonna take excelent pics.

But i noticed the D570Zoom and the A303 are both xD picture card memory!
If your gonna consider xD memory - ya gotta consider tha Fuji 2650Zoom also...
Its onhellofa digicam, i have the 2600, same cam just smartcard, and Love It!
Plus, Fuji 2650Zoom is in your budget <$200 bucks! And comes with Good fast charger and 1 set of Good recharable batteries(1800's)!
Order from <A HREF="http://www.buydig.com/shop.php?prod_id=FJFINEPIX2650&adv=bizrate" target="_new">BuyDig.com</A> at $171 To Your Door!

(or reference current image-resourges. I bought/ordered mine thru BuyDigi.com last year too. No problems, shipped well padded with original unopened factory packed inside that! I think BuyDig is in NJersey, probably ships to Canada no extra)
At ~$171, that Fiji 2650Zoom is real Nice Cam, Package and Price...
Read the <A HREF="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F2650/F265A.HTM" target="_new">Review</A> on the 2650 on image-resource - Conclusion - "Clearly one of the better bargains on the market."

If anything happened to my 2600Zoom, I'd replace it with a 2650 in a heart beat and never even consider more MPix...

You'll see, Everybody i know sets their digicams back to 1.3 and 1290*980
anyway! 1290*980 is the best working resolution for practical use! Even at that your gonna be screen capturing your pics to even smaller clips and images for including in Docs, Webpages and Email...
Believe me! Your gonna be usin "Clip'nSav" or some other screen capture program to capture, Drag, Drop and Size the image/pics anyway! A 2.1MPix/1600*1200 is a phonominal image and 1.3/1290*980 is more than enough! If Digicam makers would enable 1024*768, I and most would be usin that! Besides, anythin more than your current screen resolution is shrunk by the software - think about it! Is your current or planned purchase for screen resoultion over 1600*1200? Or even capable of 1600*1200?

Stay in Budget,
Just buy that 2650zoom, has everything ya need to get a good start!
I did and would do it again!

2.1 MPix - More than Enough!

eden · Jul 2, 2003

Hehe, my resolution is 1024*768 and I wouldn't move any higher without a bigger monitor than 17".

The thing is, when checking how resizing from 2.1MP pics to 1024*768 and from 3.3MP to 1024*768, there is a noticeable difference, which is why I moved up the scale range to higher megapixels so that resizing is better (sharper). If ya can convince me with some sample pics that 1024*768 will still be as exact, then I might reconsider. I just need excellent photo-quality 4*6 as my current film camera can do (albeit it isn't any good anymore). I doubt I'll ever even touch 8*10.
Problem is I notice good 2.1MP cams seem to love gracing the range of pricing of entry-level 3.3 ones like the Olympus one.

I will check and read on the review of the Fuji now.

--
I am my own competition. -VJK

CompSci · Jul 3, 2003

OK, Ill illustrate - MPix really has very little to do with good sharp pic...

Put these two images up in two different browser instances, so ya can scroll en both around to the same part of the pic and compare protions of each side by side...

This is the Oly D560Zoom, 3.3m Pix, really showing glass and focusing ability
<A HREF="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D560/FULLRES/D56MAC.HTM" target="_new">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D560/FULLRES/D56MAC.HTM</A>

This is the Fiji 2650 Zoom, a lessor 2.1 MPix, yet a clearer, sharper pic!
<A HREF="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F2650/FULLRES/F265MAC.HTM" target="_new">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F2650/FULLRES/F265MAC.HTM</A>

Now you Tell me! Which is the sharper pic! The Fuji 2650, By Far!
The Fiji blows the Oly away! - with better Glass quality, Focus, Sensitivity and its entire capture ability! The sharper image even though lessor MPix, will shrink to a better smaller image simply because it has better detail to start with...
Ain't no way ya can get good detail if it wasn't there to start with!!!
A bigger MPix image is just a big sloppy picture if it's not combined with the glass, focus and ability to capture! Just look at the detail and clairaty of the engravings on the bill in comparison!

I don't really want to convince ya into any particular digicam, but i will share what i've learned... That little Fuji will embarrass a whole lot of 3, 4 and 5 MPix cams...

Check this out - Even a an old <A HREF="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC240/FULLRES/D24MALF.HTM" target="_new">1.3 Kodak DC240 Zoom</A>, which was a suprizingly good cam, has better glass, focus and makes better pics than most! That's 1.3 - and ya just don't really need a better picture and detail than that!

Whatdoya think about that?

CompSci · Jul 3, 2003

As another Quick example... use
(this is to show the same works for non-macro shots also...)

Nikon, 3.3 Mp Coolpix 3100 - a Good 3Mp cam...
<A HREF="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31HMWB.HTM" target="_new">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31HMWB.HTM</A>

and a good ole
Kodak 1.3MP DC240Zoom
<A HREF="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC240/FULLRES/D24HALF.HTM" target="_new">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC240/FULLRES/D24HALF.HTM</A>

Notice the top roofline across the span of the house. The old Kodak, while smaller just has better focus and less blurred detail image. The same is noticeabe in the arched window on the left sife of the house and the arched laid bricks above the window - better, sharper focus with the much lessor MPix digicam! When sized down to a reasonable presentation size the 1.3 image will size down better than the 3.3! Actually, the bricks right above the arched window really show the better focus from the Kodak 1.3 compared to the blur of the Nikon 3.3!

Now capture (with like ClipnSav) and drop the same clip from both in a doc and size em the same, one above the other at aprox 5*7 size - and compare yourself!

Just MPix can't compare to Good Glass!, Focus! and Capture ability.
A good 1.3, at 1290*980 is all ya Need!
With any good cam ya pick you'll be settin it back to 1.3 for simple comvienience with no image loss... Perhaps even better than a biger Mp image cause it needs less size modification and any immage modification does cause some immage imprefections!

1.3 is all ya need with any good digcam!
Whatdoya think?

eden · Jul 3, 2003

This is the Oly D560Zoom, 3.3m Pix, really showing glass and focusing ability
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D560/FULLRES/D56MAC.HTM

This is the Fiji 2650 Zoom, a lessor 2.1 MPix, yet a clearer, sharper pic!
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F2650/FULLRES/F265MAC.HTM

I've read both reviews, and the reason for the second one being better is simply because the 560 just isn't equipped with a good macro focusing! It has a maximum of 20cm, while the Fuji is around 10cm IIRC. Both pics show that one is closer than the other.
I couldn't help but notice a lot of barrel distortion as well on it. I usually set as background each pic I am looking at, as most 2.1 or 3.3MP pics are more than 2 times bigger than my IE screen and of course at 1024*768, these huge pics look blurry, until I set it as background, it resizes to 1024*768 and I can clearly see which is better. I've been so far very satisfied with the 560's sharpness, but mostly the night shots. The Fuji, according to test results and the very last picture, is very weak at it. I really am shooting for something that will give me significantly better image clarity as well as brightness at night than my old cam did.

To your second post:
Upon inspection, I still felt the Nikon being much better in color and detail. I want vibrance and most of the 3MP cameras I've so far seen, in sample pictures have excellent detail.
And like I said, it's resizing from a resolution more than twice the size of the desktop one that makes the pixel-per-inch detail much better.
The thing is, image quality in the end, is relative. I do feel like those I've seen are accurate and good for me, and resizing from a 3.3MP picture yeilded the best 1024*768 image for me. I'll have to continue looking around though, nonetheless. I'm far from even decided.
--
I am my own competition. -VJKEdited by Eden on 07/02/03 08:13 PM.

CompSci · Jul 3, 2003

If you see the difference, and stuff ya like in those sample pics then youve done your homework. Now all we need is budjet! There's really good stuff out there and a digicam is really a tool. Theyre great for webwork, docs, presentation, records and cuttin and pastin in htmlformat/richtext email. Get a cam and your pushin pics everywhere... and a lota fun.

If ya think ya like em now, wait till ya pulg one in.
Go get one, plug in and post us a Pic!

bw37 · Jul 3, 2003

Eden,

Fun watching this old thread spring back to life!

To restate a point I made in my earlier post (long ago now!) in this thread: another advantage of higher MP is that the digital zoom actually is of some use. This assumes you will be shooting in less than full res mode. I still mostly shoot my 3.2 MP Canon S30 at 1024 x 768 which supports CompSci's contention that you don't really need high MP to get good pics for computer and e-mail use. However, the 3 MP of my camera gives me a "no loss" 6X zoom at this resolution though my optical zoom is only 3X.

You're coming up to speed nicely, and will find something you like in the end.

BW

Edited by bw37 on 07/02/03 10:01 PM.

aashtonkrock · Jul 4, 2003

The Cannon s230 is a nice 3.2 Megapixel camera. You should be able to print up 8x10 without much trouble. I just got on on e-bay for $320 and I've been impressed with the quality. Also picted up a few extra batteries for $5 a piece.

Read the review at http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s230-review/index.html

It also has some reviews on other small camera with good quality, I found the review for this camera to be the most favorable.

Auburn9698 · Jul 5, 2003

<A HREF="http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s230-review/index.html" target="_new">Clickable version</A>

<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
War Eagle

sirak · Jul 5, 2003

I think people overlook Sony digital cameras. I've used several and own one, which has worked really well for me. It is a 3.2 mp Sony Cybershot P-52. I bought it for ~$275. Apart from decent pictures it can take mpegs which surprised me in terms of quality (considering it is a bonus feature). It all boils down to which one you like the look of, but don't overlook Sony.

purplexed · Jul 10, 2003

I just read the reviews on the digital cams on tomshardware, and I really like the Canon Powershot A70 wich got the editors choice. anyway the only thing that bothers me is the ISO, it's from 50 to 400. not I always use 400 for my manual 35mm old reflex cam,and I was actually wanting to try even higher ISO,like a 800.

what I would like to do is take some of those pics you see in fancy travel magazines, of city lights at nighttime, for example the lamps on a Paris bridge, or the colored lights of a bistrot tables. I've been told I'd need a high ISO and a tripod to let the camera get some light.Is it actually possible with a 3Mp cam like the Canon , wich has the higher ISO as 400, take a pic like that? Or to use digital at night ,you need a professional camera with a higher ISO?

actually I still haven't tried with my analog one, so maybe it's not even possible with mine either.

Auburn9698 · Jul 10, 2003

I've gotten fine results with those situations using 400-speed film. If your subject is stationary, what's more important than the ISO rating is keeping the camera stable on a tripod. Your shutter will just be open longer. It's more when you get into action shots that the ISO speed will become a factor.

<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
War Eagle

eden · Jul 10, 2003

Speaking of the article, did anybody notice how unprofessional THG's review of the digicams (first time it grabbed my attention to read such) was?
I mean, no image quality shot comparisons, no pics of close-ups of each camera, no nitpicking, barely anything to show their test results. While their ranking was agreeable, knowing that the A70 is definitely one of the most praised 3MP cameras out there, I could only feel -after having read so many professional reviews from you guys- that this is trash at best, relatively.
I just felt it was empty and it simply is not in any way an article to rely on to help in a purchase.
What did you all think of it?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new">Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</A>

purplexed · Jul 11, 2003

I'm taking a look at the review they made time ago about 5 Mp cams and it has comparisons pics. maybe this time they didn't have the time. anyway I am not an expert in photography so I can't tell anything else then, I trust tomshardware word

dhlucke · Jul 11, 2003

I got the Olympus 550Z as the gift and I love it. That's a 3MP camera and although I probably would rather have gotten a 3MP Canon camera the price difference was the deciding factor.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=389&s=1fee5dab901bebe29da7aa1c2658fc6f" target="_new">dhlucke's system</A>

GOD BLESS AMERICA

dhlucke · Jul 11, 2003

The first thing I bought was rechargable batteries and a overnight charger for $24

I got a free 64MB card along with a 16MB card and that does pretty good taking about 100 pictures at 1984x1480

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=389&s=1fee5dab901bebe29da7aa1c2658fc6f" target="_new">dhlucke's system</A>

GOD BLESS AMERICA

eden · Jul 11, 2003

Was the free card as a gift or in the bundle?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new">Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</A>

Howard · Jul 12, 2003

I think people overlook Sony digital cameras. I've used several and own one, which has worked really well for me. It is a 3.2 mp Sony Cybershot P-52. I bought it for ~$275. Apart from decent pictures it can take mpegs which surprised me in terms of quality (considering it is a bonus feature). It all boils down to which one you like the look of, but don't overlook Sony.

I have the Olympus C2040 (old school!) I for one didn't overloook sony. I was debating between getting a olympus D-510 and a Sony DSC-P50 (2 years ago). But reasons that made me get a olympus (long story, I'll tell if someone wants me to.
1. smartmedia costs less than memory sticks
2. The P-50 was known to be a battery drainer, worse than other cameras. It was HIGHLY recommended to spend 100 to get the accessory pack which I couldn't afford!
3. Had only a 3 month labor, others had 1 year labor on wanterees

Sonys are overall good, but only ones that I'd consider are the F717 and V1. Canon and Olympus makes better lower end models.

CompSci · Jul 12, 2003

Post us a pic from that new cam...
(in a new thread)

dhlucke · Jul 13, 2003

I don't have any webspace up at the moment. I'll see if I can put a pic up along with my pic in the Lochel THGC Forum album. The pics that I did send are from that camera but they're just pictures of me. It might be helpfull to see a pic of something else as well.

Nonetheless, Scamtron hasn't posted anything yet since he's on vacation.

<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=389&s=1fee5dab901bebe29da7aa1c2658fc6f" target="_new">dhlucke's system</A>

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Auburn9698 · Jul 13, 2003

Can always use phototalk.net. It's free for the basic stuff.

<A HREF="http://www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
War Eagle

CompSci · Jul 14, 2003

Here's a quick example of 1.3 mpix picutres fom my Fiji 2600Z...
Theyre literaly <A HREF="http://home.mindspring.com/~rplewis/Casemod.htm" target="_new">quick point and shoots</A>, to relay a heat problem with a new mobo... more than enough detail to get th point across!

Interesting in the first pic - the FAN WAS RUNNING - the picture stopped it!
The auto focus wan't the best in that shot, but sure stopped that fan.

The second wasn't macro - just zooned in on the chip and mounting.
If i had thought about it i would have laid a rule across the mountin holes to insure i'm ordering the right part!
That aint bad detail! (for 1.3 MPix, 12xx by 9xx)
Infact I think it captures amazing detail!!! Perhaps too much detail, takes great pictures of Things, and not particularrly flatering with People, so sharp software 'Softening' makes people apear much better...

Both pics are screen cuts taken from a 100% native image...
(not the entire pic)

I just love these digicams.
Theyre really great Tools...

eden · Jul 15, 2003

Yeah, it seems to me alot, judging by everyone's enjoyment, that Digicams are not only tools to take pics, but simply more fun than normal cams, what with everything behind them including LCDs, features, previews, etc. and especially the ability to upload and quickly send pics, than develop and scan!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new">Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</A>

2 or 3 Megapixel camera?

Champion

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Champion

Distinguished

Polypheme

Polypheme

Champion

Distinguished

Distinguished

Polypheme

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Share this page