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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 22, 2004, 1:55 PM   #21
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Kalypso wrote:
Quote:
Not too sure about the 128mb limit on that camera...I used 256mb cards in my Oly C2100 UZI all the time.
You're probably right. If your UZI can use 'em, then the C-3040z probably can, too.

I didn't even realize anyone was making 256mb Smartmedia (although I did find some proposed specs for it). You may want to let everyone know where you found 'em at.




JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2004, 2:44 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Mikefellh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 1,707
Default

Kalypso wrote:
Quote:
Not too sure about the 128mb limit on that camera...I used 256mb cards in my Oly C2100 UZI all the time.
What 256mb cards??? You'd be the first, considering there's no such thing as a 256mb smartmedia card. If there was, it would be news.

We had this debate last year, and no one came up with proof of existance of 256mb smartmedia cards...care to be the first?
Mikefellh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2004, 2:49 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

Back to the topic at hand, here is an analogy that I believe works:



Two "neighbour consumers" are in the market for an astronomy telescope;

The uninformed consumer (1)makes the erroneous conclusion that the most important aspect of a telescope is its magnifying power, after all it will make far away things look big. He buys a super high power scope with a ridiculously small objective lens and a flimsy tripod. He would be very disappointed in his purchase if it wasn't for the fact that he can now see details on the moon (when he can let the tripod settle long enough to see).



The informed consumer (2) researches his topic first and finds out that light gathering ability and a sturdy mount nad tripod are much more important. He purchases a less powerful scope with a very large objective lens and a proper astronomical mount. His views of the moon are not as detailed, but they stand still for you to see them, he also has had great views of the rings of Saturn and the moons of Jupiter.

Consumer 1 still brags about his more powerful telescope, consumer 2 happily agrees as he plans on getting a camera mount and get some great pictures (he knows ther is no point arguing with consumer 1).



I have a small sensor camera, but with its modest 3.2Mp it gives sharp low noise images (although ISO 400 is still grainy). I would rather have a large chip with lower resolution because, like Consumer 2's telescope it gets better results.

The general consumer who wants a digital camera to take snapshots is easily impressed with high pixel counts, other issues discussed here are more technical than he or she care to know.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2004, 3:00 PM   #24
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Mikefellh wrote:
Quote:
Kalypso wrote:
Quote:
Not too sure about the 128mb limit on that camera...I used 256mb cards in my Oly C2100 UZI all the time.
What 256mb cards??? You'd be the first, considering there's no such thing as a 256mb smartmedia card. If there was, it would be news.

We had this debate last year, and no one came up with proof of existance of 256mb smartmedia cards...care to be the first?
Well, he didn't actually say he was using 256mb Smartmedia cards -- only that he used 256mb cards. I did find specs for 256mb Smartmedia though (only I can't find anyone that makes it).

So, we are both assuming that they are Smartmedia. He could have found an Xd Picturecard to Smartmedia Adapter that fits in his UZI. After all, his reply was to a post discussing the availability of such an adapter.

So, I did a google search, and turned up one.The adapter on the first part of the page is aCF adapter*****oll down to the bottom of the page and you'll see the Smartmedia to XdPicturecard Adapter). Given the small size of Xd Picturecards, it looks like it may fit in a camera, too.

http://www.card-media.co.uk/xD+Pictu...d+Adapters.htm

If something like this does work, aLOT of Oly owners would want to know about it!


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2004, 3:30 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
shutterbuggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 188
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
http://www.card-media.co.uk/xD+Pictu...d+Adapters.htm
If something like this does work, a LOT of Oly owners would want to know about it!
Looks huge to me. The rear end must be protruding ...

If xD cards were not so expensive!
shutterbuggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2004, 3:47 PM   #26
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

shutterbuggy wrote:
Quote:
JimC wrote:
Quote:
http://www.card-media.co.uk/xD+Pictu...d+Adapters.htm
If something like this does work, a LOT of Oly owners would want to know about it!
Looks huge to me. The rear end must be protruding ...

If xD cards were not so expensive!
Make sure you are looking at the adapter on the BOTTOM of the page (not the CompactFlash adapter at the top of the page). Given the small size of Xd Picturecards, it looks like it might fit (but I don't know if the camera would even recognize sizes over 128mb, even it it does fit).

I'm trying to find out now (I'm asking in multiple forums).




JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2004, 4:43 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
TheGhost's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 103
Default

I'm not certain whether or not there exists a technological breakthrough in CCD design, but I wouldn't be quick to disbelieve it. Electronics in general has a trend for getting smaller and smaller while providing even more performance then its predecessors. I'm not sure if the digital camera industry is that corrupt, but only time will tell the validity of those statements. I can't possibly see their QA engineers certify a product that by no means is capable of providing a minimum acceptable quality. If they do, then only the camera's lucky sales and uneducated store staff members will decide the camera's fate. Personally I'm all for quality over quantity, but that's only going to happen when you jump into SLRs. Of course, the difference between the two is that ignorant consumers guide the future of compact cameras whereas professionals dictate the success of SLRs.
TheGhost is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2004, 5:50 PM   #28
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mikefellh wrote:
Quote:
Kalypso wrote:
Quote:
Not too sure about the 128mb limit on that camera...I used 256mb cards in my Oly C2100 UZI all the time.
What 256mb cards??? You'd be the first, considering there's no such thing as a 256mb smartmedia card. If there was, it would be a first.
That's probably right. It's been a few years since I had my C2100 & thinking back, I believe Olympus said you could only use up to a 64mb card. I know it would take the highest capacity SM card with no problem...my bad.
  Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2004, 5:56 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default


I'll take the other side. I chose the Olympus C60 for comparison to the 3040Z because it has the same sized 6Mp sensor and is regarded as having particularly bad noise for that particular sensor. These are unaltered blowups of the kids slide in Steve's sample pictures.





The C60 only performed "moderately well" in Dave's resolution tests with a resolution test chart, so we aren't using a German made Leica lens here. Some things are obvious:

-The 3Mp of the 3040Z doesn't come near exceeding the optics of the lens. There is a lot more detail available in the 6Mp image.

-6Mp gives detail for large prints you just can't duplicate with 3Mp. If you are going to the trouble and expense to print, mat and frame a 16 X 20 it isn't a lot of trouble to run Neat Image to deal with the noise. But there is simply nothing you can do if you don't have the pixels.

If you view an image at screen size or print snapshot size the difference isn't apparent. Neither the noise in the C60 nor the lack of detail in the 3040Z. The 3040Z takes a different approach to color and saturation, but you can probably come close with selections in the cameras and you can certainly duplicate one compared to the other with Photoshop. Since I always shoot with minimum sharpening and contrast to get the widest dynamic range and fewest artifacts the images always need to be run through an action in Photoshop anyway. I can set that action up to give me any look I want.

If you view them 100% the 3040Z image looks just as sharp and has less noise. But you are effectively blowing up the C60 image 2X for the comparison.

There isn't any law of physics comparable to the uncertainty principle that says it is physically impossible to lower noise with increased sensor densities. From what everyone was saying back when 2Mp was cutting edge the current 8Mp images should be completely unviewable due to incredible noise. The C60 has a particular problem with skies that Steve doesn't think is noise. Other than that I could live with the images. I could certainly live with the images from the flagship 8Mp cameras. Yes, there is more noise there if viewed at 100%. Yes, they look about as good as images from lower pixel cameras if you compare apples to apples and view them screen size. Yes, you have considerably more versatility in using an 8Mp image than you have using a 3Mp image.
slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 22, 2004, 6:29 PM   #30
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

slipe wrote:
Quote:
I'll take the other side. I chose the Olympus C60 for comparison to the 3040Z because it has the same sized 6Mp sensor and is regarded as having particularly bad noise for that particular sensor. These are unaltered blowups of the kids slide in Steve's sample pictures.
If you blow up a lower resolution image large enough, sure you are going to see a fuzzy image.

Most users don't need to print at larger sizes. In fact, new research shows that most users don't even print most of their images at all. They are using their multi-megaixel cameras to view images on screen. As you said: "If you view them 100% the 3040Z image looks just as sharp and has less noise."

If you look at my previous posts in this thread, I also said this:


Quote:
Take the new models using the Sony 2/3" 8 Megapixel CCD, with it's 2.7 ┬Ám Pixel Pitch. We're seeing a higher level of Purple Fringiing out of most cameras using these new sensors, compared to models using the previous generation of 5 Megapixel 2/3" CCD's.

Sure, if you need the higher resolution for larger prints, then the tradeoff can be worth it. You can also argue that the because of the increased resolution, noise and image problems will not be as noticeable at typical viewing/print sizes.
I went on to discuss the optics needed for these newer models. Even with the best optics their respective manufacturers could produce, we're seeing a higher level of Purple Fringing than the models they replaced. You see the same thing with some of the 5MP models, too (as compared to the 4MP models they replaced).

Now, manufacturers are introducing cameras with even smaller pixel pitches, compared to the 8MP 2/3" CCD in these"ProsumerModels", and they are going to be putting them in subcompact cameras. Now, do you really belive the image quality is going to get better from them?

You have to look at the Law of Diminishing returns. Sure, 8MP in a 2/3" CCD may be warranted for some users that need larger prints -- but now, we're going to try and market cameras with even higher pixel densities to consumers, with lenses that probably will not be up to the standards of the higher end "prosumer models".

IMO, it's simply marketing strategy.

Also,whereare you going to find a digital camera that's got decent low light capability now, without either higher noise, or going to a DSLR. You know what ISO 400 looks like from a 5 Megapixel 1/1.8" CCD equiped camera. It's pretty ugly. Think about a 7.2 Megapixel 1/1.8" CCD in these models. Also, look at the speed of the lens in the current crop of digicams. Without going to a larger model, you're limited to the Canon G5 or the Olympus C-5050z if you want something brighter than F/2.8. Neither is going to be pretty at ISO 400.

Yet, you can find numerous photos on Pbase.com taken with some of the older model compact cameras with brighter lenses at ISO 320 or ISO 400, that looknice and clean when viewing 'em at normal viewing sizes. Consumers won't have those choices with this newer generation of denser sensors, without going to a larger, more expensive camera.


JimC 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 4:27 AM.