s6500 still going...!

[SIMON40]

Dusted down my old s6500 today to see if it still worked!!
No surprise that it still does....!!

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day Simon

Always nice to see shots from 'old faithful' friends

also -
Q- just wondering ... whether it would be possible for you to take/post some side-by-side comparisons of the old 6500 vs a 'current' camera, particularly showing resolution vs noise with the 2 sensors

My concern is that I have images from my old S-5000 which do not show noise but as the camera has died, I cannot duplicate any side-by-side shots with current hardware

Does this type of thing/experiment grab you??
Regards, Phil

[SIMON40]

Hi Phil.
I presume you're referring to the hotly debated "noise v's resolution" issue that continues to rage on....
I guess the only way you could do a fair comparison would be to have two cameras with an identical sized sensor but with two different mp counts(say 6mp and 12mp),an identical shot taken at an identical zoom setting with identical lighting conditions... could be tricky..lol
Certainly with regards to smaller sensors in compacts and bridge cameras,I have always found the less crowded sensors offer cleaner images- not just in terms of image noise- but more in terms of harsh artefacts and a general grainy,edgy look- which tend to be the preserve of higher mp ccd's. Of course,Panasonic even managed to make lower mp ccd's look awful..lol..
Indirectly,of course,you could point the finger at the processing- which is the cause of all noise/artefacts- as opposed to the sensor itself.!!
One of the inevitable downsides of larger image sizes(high mp count)is that people "pixel-peep" probably more than ever- and are scrutinising images at frankly a ludicrous level(and I myself have been guilty of this..!)- to the point where they're viewing images at the equivalent size of a billboard... at which point,nothing looks good..!!
One thing's for sure though,anyone with a compact camera or a bridge camera(and by definition NOT a professional) does not need more than 10mp and probably even 6mp.
With the ever improving processor technology,could you imaging how fast a 6-8mp bridge camera would be today- as opposed to the 14-16mp counts now regularly seen- though it hasn't escaped my attention than Canon and Panasonic have made the brave move to drop the resolution in their top of the range bridge cameras- the SX40is and the FZ-150.
Have they finally seen sense? Are they suggesting that higher mp counts are indeed degrading image quality? Would they ever admit that.. I doubt it.. lol

This image quality/noise/resolution/artefacts...etc debate will no doubt rage on,but what I will say is that if we're going to have to put up with high megapixel counts- just try to avoid the temptation to pixel peep beyond say,twice the size of your monitor....!!

P.S- the monstrous zoom ranges now on offer,I suspect,has something to do with pixel peeping too- placing us in the "zoom more" mindset....!!

[Ozzie_Traveller]

G'day Simon

You mention-

Originally Posted by SIMON40

... Certainly with regards to smaller sensors in compacts and bridge cameras,I have always found the less crowded sensors offer cleaner images- not just in terms of image noise- but more in terms of harsh artefacts and a general grainy,edgy look- which tend to be the preserve of higher mp ccd's....

I guess that this is what I am getting at

With my old Fuji with no "I.S." features, I would zoom to 200% to determine sharpness/lack of for images of suspected camera shake - and delete those displaying movement. All okay there

But images that I shot around the town after dark &/or in low lighting regions did not display humungous amounts of 'grainy-noise' or vivid out-of-colour regions that the FZ35 displays

While I have done side-by-side comparisons of the FZ35 & the G2 & the Kx [as you describe above] and edited them into a single comparitive image for sharpness & colour, I never managed to do this with the Fuji & the FZ35 as the Fuji died ... thus I wondered whether you had something that could be compared with the 6500

Whichever way it goes, it's "just a matter of interest" as things have moved on ...
Regards, Phil

[SIMON40]

I hear what you're saying,with regards to the FZ image quality- it's certainly no low light performer..! Again though- the FZ35,the G2 and the Kx all have different sensor sizes- and as such,are not an ideal comparison in the IQ/noise v Megapixel debate.
To be honest though,the s6500 wasn't the cleanest of images in standard mode- and I set the sharpness to soft and sharpen up(if necessary) via photoshop- which helps greatly! Interestingly the later s5800 was far cleaner...!!
But yes,most of my older(lower mp)cameras seemed to deliver cleaner,more pleasant looking images- almost film like in appearance/texture.
It's not all doom and gloom though,as I've seen some images from the latest FZ150 and it looks pretty impressive.... and I'm no Panasonic fan...!

Take a peek at my Flickr page- pics taken with all sorts of cameras...!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/

[SIMON40]

If you go to the Panasonic "point and shoot" forum and check out LTZ470's Quackers post on the first page,check out the impressive resolution. You can also follow the link under his last pic and rummage around his Flickr pages for some more from the FZ-150.
Check out his moon pics too... frankly the best I've seen..!

[Lifeforms]

I wish id never sold my fully functioning s6500fd. have you guys seen the X-10 samples on the forum (at the top?) I know its a different kind of camera altogether but the results have the 'old' Fuji feel to them if you know what I mean.

[SIMON40]

Yes- I know what you mean... the X-10 images look nice...

[SIMON40]

Just for an experiment,I'm gonna see if I can manage without image stabilisation for a month- just to keep me honest...!!