Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 13, 2003, 9:14 AM   #1
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default Sony DSC-F828 is now Shipping

FYI:

I am seeing reports from U.S. customers that pre-ordered their Sony DSC-F828 from Sony Style, that received e-mails today, indicating that their camera has now shipped.

So, it looks like it is now shipping (at least, in limited quantities).

We'll have to wait on some "real world" photos, to see how well it performs.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Dec 13, 2003, 1:34 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
koruvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
Default

It will be interesting either way. To see an 8MP camera at $1500 Canadian is very competitive from a numbers point of view. Whether or not the 'improved' 2/3 sensor will be able to make quality photos from all those MPs is another story.

Personally I don't think MP need to be that high. From my own experience 4 to 5MP can make a 13x19 print just as well as a 35mm SLR and the amount of times someone needs a print that large is few and far between. I'd like to see more hardware improvements like;

- speed (focus, shutter and RAW write times)
- large aperture ranges equal to 1.8 to 22
- zero noise in low light situations
- 'nightshot' in full color not green cast

...and a few things I probably forgot to mention.

All the above in a 3 to 5MP camera and I'd be impressed.

-
koruvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2003, 5:16 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
UrbanPhotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 382
Default

I agree about the number of pixels. I wish camera makers would focus (no pun intended) on improving quality at a given resolution, instead of on just increasing the resolution. I'd rather have a noise-free lower-resolution camera.
UrbanPhotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2003, 11:15 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 22
Default

is sony f828 a lot better than canon digital rebel?

considering f828 weight is almost 950g vs below 600g for digi rebel.

although the compact flash feature on f828 is opened my eyes abit and considering it now...
XoMartel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2003, 11:37 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
sjms's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,735
Default

there is where i disagree. a 13*19 image off of a 5mp camera is pushing it a great bit w/o upsampling. at max i'll find an 11*14 good. as far as the advantage of the hi mp count is cropping of images. right now i reach out 280mm with my current lenses. the cropping and maintaining of the image viability to my standards can give me another 200mm without carrying it around on my back. and will still exceed that of a 5mp camera.
sjms is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2003, 6:22 PM   #6
hst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 182
Default 13x19 pushing it on 5MP???

I was getting ready to purchase a 13x19 to print images from my Dimage 7hi. I have a HP 6110 and so I tried to print poster size (4sheets hooked together about 16X20) and they looked great. I did run the image through neat image and it was shot at extrafine resolution. Should I expect to get poor quality prints from a 13x19 printer? This print looked like I could have went bigger.
hst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2003, 7:26 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

The resolution needed depends on how large of prints you want to make, and even 5MP is not enough for larger prints (although, most users believe that their 13x19" prints look fine).

However, it's about the amount of detail that can be captured.

Canon has been shipping the 1DS since this time last year - it's 11 Megapixels.

Kodak has the DSC-14N (14 Megapixels).

Kodak also has Digital Camera back out for medium format that's 16 Million.

For what it's worth, the pixel count champ seems to be a digital back from Digital One intended to be fit to a 4 x 5 camera. It's got a pixel count of 10,500 x 12,600 (132.3 Megapixels).

Sony has just released the DSC-F828 (Consumer Model) with a new 8 Megapixel Sensor (as in this post). However, it's small pixel pitch may prevent it from delivering the image quality we'd like to have. I'm reserving judgement until seeing some "real world" images.

Some people consider 300 pixels per inch to be needed for the best quality prints.

So, for an 8x10" print, this would need a 7.2 megapixel image (300 x 8 inches = 2400; 300 x 10 inches = 3000) 2400 x 3000 = 7,200,000 pixels).

So, to print a 20x30" print at 300 pixels per inch, you'd need a image with 54 Megapixels (6000x9000 pixels).

On the "other side of the coin", you're probably not going to be viewing larger prints at the same close distances either. So, the difference in resolution may not be noticeable from typical viewing distances.

Now, could you tell the difference between 200 and 300 pixels per inch at 20x30 inch print sizes? Maybe not.

Personally, I don't see much difference in detail in 8x10's after going to around 200 pixels per inch. But, it would still take 24 Megapixels for a 20x30" print at 200 pixels per inch (4000x6000 resolution would be needed).

Bear in mind, that you need 4 times the resolution, each time you double the print size, at the same number of pixels per inch detail.

Can you get larger prints from less? Sure. As a general rule, you can get away with as little as 150 pixels/inch on most printers - sometimes less. Also, you can interpolate the image to prevent pixelation at larger print sizes.

But, you won't have the same amount of detail, as in with a higher resolution camera at larger print sizes. That's one of the reasons that many pros still shoot with Medium or Large Format Film Cameras (although film use should continue to decline, as better digital cameras become available). Many have already switched to Digital SLR's.

Now, at some point, it should stabilize -- where most consumers won't care about more resolution -- just as 35mm film became a standard film size for most consumers.

Also, unless there is some kind of technology breakthrough, we're already seeing some problems with pixel pitch (size of the photodiodes) on the smaller sensors in consumer cameras causing some unwanted noise and other problems.

Digital Camera sensors (especially in the smaller sensors used in consumer model cameras, compared to the better Digital SLR's) are also somewhat limited in dynamic range compared to film.

Hopefully, we'll see some advancements improving the dynamic range of Digital Cameras, too. I'd personally rather have less noise, with higher dynamic range, compared to more pixels.

So, from a practical size standpoint, it may not make much sense to go to much higher resolution sensors in compact cameras (but 35mm SLR size cameras still have a ways to go yet, as do digital camera backs for medium format cameras).

Now, we're already seeing some comparisons with Film, where the newer Digital SLR's can sometimes look better (because grain becomes a limiting factor in film).

So, how much resolution is enough? The market will have to decide.

Here are a couple of charts that you may find handy. I've gotten good quality 8x10" prints from a 2 Megapixel Camera or 1600x1200 resolution (which works out to 150 pixels per inch). But, you can definitely see the difference when you go to 3 or 4 Megapixels:

http://home.earthlink.net/~terryleed...tables.htm#ppi

Here's another chart you may find handy:

http://www.cordcamera.com/products/d...ct_ratios.html

Now, you can interpolate an image to allow larger prints without pixelation (which adds pixels, not detail).

To give you a simple answer to your original question: to get more detail, at larger print sizes, you need more resolution than a 5MP camera can provide. This is because you need to have 4 times the resolution for the same amount of detail, each time you double the print size.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2003, 7:41 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
koruvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 439
Default

Quote:
The resolution needed depends on how large of prints you want to make, and even 5MP is not enough for larger prints (although, most users believe that their 13x19" prints look fine).
I know for a fact the 13x19s I made with my 5 and 4MP look better than fine. I'd love to send them to you to show the detail but, then there would be a plain boring wall to look at
koruvs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2003, 7:53 PM   #9
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Sure they do...

My point is about the detail captured. You need 4 times the resolution, each time you double the print sizes, to get the same amount of detail.

As a general rule, 150 pixels per inch looks good, and sometimes even less at larger sizes from further viewing distances. But, for more detail, a camera capable of 200 ppi is preferable (with some users advocating even more).

I can take a 2 Megapixel Image, interpolate it, and print very large prints that look fine. That doesn't mean I'm going to get the same amount of detail that I'd get with an 11 Megapixel Camera.

That's why users will continue to want more resolution (provided you can offset problems like noise) -- to get more real detail in their larger prints.
JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2003, 5:46 PM   #10
hst
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 182
Default Interesting Kodak 6490 claims the print good 20x30 with 4MP

Kodak advertises their 4MP will produce good 20x30 images. I wonder how that is possible? If I am pushing it will 5MP how is 4MP going to compair?
hst is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


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 Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:03 PM.