Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums >

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 16, 2005, 11:31 AM   #1
Junior Member
NBee's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 26

Hi all.

I'm looking at two Casio cams - EX-S100 and EX-S55. They seem to be pretty identical in all aspects except one is 3.2m and the other 5m pixels.

Seriously what is the difference in quality (and don't say 1.8m!!) - I'm just an average user, lots of online/web stuff but rarely print anything. Will I notice much difference of a 1600*1200 picture on my PC monitor between the two cams?

The price difference is about $60.

Appreciate any advice guys, cheers.
NBee is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 16, 2005, 12:38 PM   #2
Nagasaki's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 897

On your PC monitor you are probable looking at 1024x768 pixels which is about .75 Mp. So for PC display only a 1Mp camera is enough. At up to A4 print size 3Mp will be OK. The quality of the lens, the sensor and the firmware are more important than the megapixels. If you want to crop the pictures then 5Mp gives your more options without reducing final output quality.

That said if I could afford it I'd still pick the 5Mp camera.

Nagasaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2005, 1:00 AM   #3
ericsvendsen's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 52

More pixels means more choice. Most cameras out there will make a fine 4x6 and you would be hard pressed to distinguish one from another on resolution alone. If you never made a print bigger than that the lower resolution one would be fine. However, if you may make larger prints, or if you may crop certain shots considerably, more pixels means more freedom to do this.

In reality a 5 mp camera has only slightly more resolving power than a 3 mp camera (similar arguement with the difference between a 6 and a 8 mp slr camera), but it can make a difference in certain situations. Other questions to consider are what other features are there on the camera, such as raw, tiff, or jpeg options are there? A 3 mp tiff beats the pants off of a 5 mp jpeg shot as a basic jpeg (of course it takes up about 8 times more space on your disk!). Resolution is not the only consideration.

If all other things are the same, and you are't paying tons more money for the 5 mp, get the bigger resolution. You never know when the extra resolution will come in handy.

ericsvendsen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2005, 6:49 AM   #4
Pic-It's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 61

As a general rule a 5mp camera seems to take better pictures than a 3mp camera at 3mp. There has been a lot of discussion about this, but it boils down to a 5mp camera has more data from which to extrapolate a picture from. And there are a few pictures to prove this scattered around these forums. (And a 7mp will take better 5mp pictures than a 5mp camera...etc)

Based on this alone I would go with a 5mp camera, even if you take only 3mp pcitures.

Pic-It is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2005, 7:27 AM   #5
Senior Member
Nicolas's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 216

Judging by your needs, don't go with a 5mp camera, you don't need it... 3mp will print as beautiful prints as 5mp up to 5x7 prints... And if you choose to print 8x10, you will still get excellent results. It may be true that a 5mp camera takes better 3mp shots than a 3mp camera, but somehow I doubt it. Search for the right camera for you, whether it has 3, 4 or 5mp, its all good, don't go for more just for the sake of going for more.

With that being said, if your choice is between the S100 and the Z55, then I suggest you go for the Z55. The reason is quite simple, the S100 has a lens aperture that has a maximum of F4.0 at wide angle which is quite bad to be honnest. What that means is that you won't be able to use as fast shutter speeds as with the Z55 and that can really be annoying. Besdies that, the Z55 has a slightly better zoom range(very small difference).

But to be sure, check the reviews.
Nicolas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 18, 2005, 8:59 AM   #6
Junior Member
NBee's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 26

Thanks for all the advice guys.

I'm quite keen on this casio - and as suggested for me the overall features seem to be more important than the pixels. One thing I do like doing on my existing camera is taking the occasional movie. But the quality is awful.

I can currently take movie clips at 320x240 (15fps). Unfortunalely the casio doesn't better this - but there are some camera with a similar spec and price range that do.

The HP PhotoSmart R717 takes movies at 320x240 (30fps)

The Sony DSC-R1 does 640x480 (30fps)

What is the important factor for me to improve upon? I presume the 'fps' value, doubling to 30 will give much better results. I'm a little concerned that 640x480 will eat too much memory (1meg per second) - so if I was to stick with 320x240 (30fps) I could then use editing tools later to increase the size if required.

Any advice on this appreciated...
NBee is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:40 AM.