Ricky

Want to buy a digital camera and would therefore appreciate anybody posting a picture and telling me how many pixels theirs has. Hopefully this would help me to see what quality, and indeed how much money I have to spend to get a good one. I like some of the cameras in the Olympus range, especially the E-10 and E-20. These are very expensive, but would appreciate anyones views on whether its wise to spend so much, or whether or not the difference in quality of pictures is noticable to my human eye. Both these cameras have 4M and 5M pixels respectively. How many has yours ? Anybody own an Olympus ? Your opinions on your camera would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks !

Ricky !

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Ricky,

Check out the Olympus forum at DPReview - I'm sure this question has been asked there many times before, and a quick search should answer your question. It will probably yield some example photos too. There's also a very comprehensive review section there.

The number of pixels a camera can resolve is a number that's often quoted in marketing literature, but although it's certainly important, it's by no means the only factor that determines image quality.

Because of the way they're made, image sensor chips can just as easily be made to resolve lots of tiny pixels as they can a few big pixels. The advantage of this is that the manufacturer can quote an impressive sounding number of megapixels for the camera, and there is certainly the potential to resolve more fine detail provided that the lenses are up to the job.

Unfortunately it's not all good news. The individual pixels are now much smaller, so they each absorb less light than they would if the sensor had fewer pixels occupying its surface. This means that they produce a smaller signal, but the noise stays roughly constant, so the overall picture is noisier. You can compensate for this by using a longer exposure, but then the camera is more prone to camera shake - which wastes the advantage that having more pixels gained in the first place. A higher resolution picture also takes longer to read out and store, and takes up more room on your memory card. Noise doesn't compress, so a noisy picture takes up even more room (or gives even less quality) than a clean one.

Finally, it's often the case that the sharpness and detail in the image is determied more by the lens than the sensor. Professionals spend thousands on lenses made to tight tolerances from exotic materials, then attach them to cameras that have between 3 and 5 megapixels.

Recommendations?

A good measure of the image quality (in terms of noise and sharpness) from a camera is the physical size of the sensor. If camera A has a sensor with twice the area of that in camera B, its pixels will each have the potential to produce twice the signal for a given amount of noise, which will probably yield a cleaner image. It is also less demanding of the accuracy of its lens.

Check out the camera reviews on DPReview, there are some great cameras out there.

I've posted an example pic here. It's just over 800k long - I've re-compressed it, but it still looks OK to me. It was taken by my Canon D30, a camera with a mere 3.1 megapixels, but a physically huge sensor.

Andy.

SPJ

Ricky,

I have an Olympus C2 which I've only had a week or so @ 169 quid from Currys.(my first digi cam)

It's got 2M pixels and from the piccies I've loaded onto my PC, they seem to be great quality.The camera has many functions which I've not even entertained yet.

I'm nowhere near an expert in this field, and am learning as I go along.I guess the question is what type of pics do you want to take, and do you need an expensive bit of kit that give 4 or 5M, when a lesser spec machine will do the job? So far, I'm well happy with mine, apart from if you use the LCD screen a lot, it eats batteries.

Steve

JoeyDeacon

I've got an Olympus C3000 Zoom that I got second hand from a friend who works as a manager in a camera shop. This thing was as good as new, boxed with unopened software and I paid £270 for the camera and the leather case.

It is a 3.3 megapixel camera and I have to say so far I have been VERY impressed with it. It has millions of features I haven't even played with yet but as a point and click camera with 3X zoom I can recomend it.

gregh

I have a Canon Ixus, fantastic small camera, 2.1m pixels

http://www.gregh.co.uk/html/chamonix_2000.htm for stills and the following for moving car pics:

http://www.gregh.co.uk/html/croft.htm

for highly compressed thumbnails, click it to see high res version.

greg



[Edited by gregh - 2/13/2002 4:21:06 PM]

GEJL

The Fuji FinePix range also get good reviews (3m or 4m pixels?). I've got a 4700, I think, that is a couple of years old now, but when printed out in (say) a 5" x 7" format on a reasonable printer looks more or less indistinguishable from a 35mm print.

I got a good price at the time from the Digital Camera Company: http://secure.venus.co.uk/dcc/350-500.html

A guy at work has just got a 6900 that looks very impressive.

Ricky

All help and advice is certainly appreciated guys ! Keep it coming please. Anybody elso able to comment on an of the Olympus range ?

Thanks !

Ricky !

pslewis

They may have sold out now - but the bargain of yesterday was the Minolta S304 at £323, superb camera, 4X OPTICAL zoom, 3.3 Million Pixels (cant see when you would ever want more), takes standard AA batteries (no stupid manufacturer only styles), I am SERIOUSLY impressed with it!!

My NIKON SLR has no space in my kit now!!

Pete

MartinM

AndyC

Nice picture. I think I can tell D30 pictures almost at a glance now - they just seem to have 'something' about them!

Just a couple of nerdy questions:
- what lens?
- taken in RAW or JPG?
- what sort of post processing?

Martin
D30, 28-105 USM, 75-300 USM, toying with the idea of 70-200 L!

rallycol

iTrader: (4)

Fuji 6900 on www.findit.co.uk for £400 boxed as new ,bargain,buy it!

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Martin,

I know what you mean about D30 pics - I think it's the smoothness and lack of noise. They also seem to compress well without showing up JPEG artifacts, again because of the lack of noise.

To answer your questions:
- Canon EF 100-300 f/5.6L. I got mine slightly used from B&H Photo in New York for $269, which is fantastic value given the sharpness that this lens is capable of. Over here they're £600
- Taken as a large/fine JPEG and re-compressed using Photoshop 5.0LE
- Gentle USM in Photoshop, nothing more.

I can't fault your thinking about the 70-200L, by all accounts it's a great lens. For a change, though, have you thought about the 50mm f/1.4? Very sharp, very fast, and lots of fun playing with DOF. I'm just waiting for the weather to improve so I can go out and play with mine

Andy.
D30, 28-135IS, 100-300L, 50 f/1.4, 1GB Microdrive & lots of batteries...

paulmon

I have to agree with Pete the Minolta is a Very Very good camera. I had one for the weekend on evaluation and found it to be very capable, especially for a novice like me.

However two things put me off. Battery life is crap. I reckon you'll need at least three sets fully charged if you were going out for the day. Thats 12 batteries. Also I didnt like the idea of having to put the images through minolta's software to get the colours, sharpness, contrast,etc.. correct.

Paul

pslewis

Yes, but the price!! think of the Bargain!!

Pete

Ricky

ttt

chiark

I'm assuming that you're looking for something with complete control over exposure (shutter priority, aperture priority), a good resolution (4MP +), a decent optical zoom (4x +) that is a full size camera, not a compact pocket thing.

I have a Fuji 6900z - top camera. I'd recommend looking at the Minolta Dimage 7, too, if that's the sort of money you're thinking of spending. The other choice could be the Sony 707, plus the Olympus E20, though that's quite a bit more money.

What Digital Camera gave "product of the year" to the Fuji 6900z. It's that good. I took over 200 pictures when skiing, and had them printed. The quality/resolution is better than APS, and IMHO up there with 35mm.

Complaints with the Fuji? Poor low light peformance. AF hunts in low light. ISO 400 is unusable due to noise. Reds can be unnatural unless you set a custom white balance. Widest angle on lens is equivalent to 35mm where 28mm would have been useful (but the optical zoom is *superb*)

Best features? 6MP really is better than 3.3MP. Colours are vibrant. EVF (electronic view finder). Usable inbuilt flash. User interface is great. It's easy to get the camera to do what you want to do. I was going to buy the Nikon coolpix 995, but the really sucky UI made me think again. I'm glad that I did.

Do not underestimate the importance of the interface. Go to a good camera shop and play with your shortlist of cameras. Annoy the assistant for an hour. Then say, "oh, and you do do pricematches, don't you" then whip out the advert for internetcamerasdirect.co.uk...

That's what I did in Jessops. Excellent assistant, excellent service in all, and an excellent price!

The Minolta DImage 7 is a true 5MP camera with a good optical zoom that supports compactflash and the IBM microdrive. I've played with one, and to be honest it's a close thing for me. but! it is more expensive.

Finally, Fuji have just announced that the successor to the 6900z will be released in June 2002. Called the 602, it's basically the same body, lens, ..., but has a higher resolution EVF, support for both compact flash (including microdrive) and smartmedia and most importantly a new generation CCD. Low light performance is greatly improved apparently, and ISO ratings up to 1600 (!!!!) will be available.

What would I do?

Play with the Minolta, Fuji and Olympus. If I liked the handling of the 6900z, I'd wait for the 602, otherwise I'd go for something now.

The other thing to be made aware of is that a new sensor type from Fovon has just been released. This may be another "revolution" so should you buy now? Dunno.

Hope this helps more than it confuses!

Nick.

chiark

BTW, the 6MP mode of the 6900z will quite happily fill a page of A4 at stunning quality.

If you want any more details on the 6900z, or sample images, just ask.

howardb

For all things digital cameras take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/.

As already mentioned by Chiark, there is a new 'system' on the horizon that is producing stunning pics. Take a look at http://www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02...nx3preview.asp

To steal a phrase: the future's bright, the futures Foveon.

Sheepsplitter

I have a DodgyCam, it has 2 pixels, that's a picture at the end of this sentence and not a full stop, I only paid £200 for it, do you think I got a bargain.

Matt Churchill

I'm with Chiark, I've got a 6900 and it is brilliant. We printed around 100 holiday pics off of it, and they came out perfect. And that was on the 3mp setting.

I've seen A4 prints at 6mp, and they look like a normal photo, having said that they also do at 3mp.

If you are used to an SLR, it has all the same tricks and it has a decent zoom - upto 210mm (35mm equiv.). Next on my shopping list is the wide angle converter.

Defintiely worth looking and comparing some, as I think the 6900 looks and feels much nicer than the Dimage 7 - which is comparable, but more expensive.

rjs1000

DONT BUY THE OLYMPUS - up to 13secs to store JPEG photo on the memory card....

For almost any use, 3 MegaPixels is MORE than enough.

6 MP & some 5 MP only manage this via software - i.e. there really 3 MP cameras.

Youll better spend your time looking at the actual results than the MP.

See: http://www4.tomshardware.com/video/02q1/020213/index.html

kryten

I've had an E10 for a while now and love it. It feels like a REAL camera! and captures some excellent photos.

The manual zoom ring is excellent: far better (IMHO) than the +/- buttons of most cheaper digi cams. Also, it has a TRUE SLR optical viewfinder so you are looking directly through the lens. Most of the others I tried gave a jerky somewhat pixellated viewfinder.

Also, autofocus times are stunningly quick - the Dimage I tried would take nearly two seconds to refocus on the same subject after taking a first shot.

I load it with a 256Mb CF card PLUS a 128MB Smartmedia so there's plenty of room for pictures (I get about 150 on that lot).

Not sure about the last comment for storing the photo, but unlike a lot of the cameras it has a buffer so you can take 4 photos immediately and it then writes them off to the storage card in the background. I've never found myself unable to take a shot because the buffer is full.

Any specific questions, feel free to ask. I'd certainly make the same decision if I was buying again...