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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 21, 2003, 7:05 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_PEAT
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefank
I agree the 3X zooms on a lot of cams are a bit on the short side
Well, it means more on the wide angle side of 50mm...many people here are wishing for cameras with more wide angle.

You can't just look at the 'x' of the zoom...you got to look at the numbers.
Alfisti's chief complaint!! No wide angle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alfisti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 7:08 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 331
Default

I agree as well, when I recently bought a lense for my old oly om10 slr, i had the option of telephoto or wideangle. I eventually went with telephoto, but everytime i try to take pictures of subjects such as flowers, i wish i had that wide-angle lense. That is why i advocate cameras that can take add-on lenses, then you can get super wide angle and telephoto adapters for reasonable prices, thus eliminating my conundrum.
ardvark50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 7:14 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ardvark50
I agree as well, when I recently bought a lense for my old oly om10 slr, i had the option of telephoto or wideangle. I eventually went with telephoto, but everytime i try to take pictures of subjects such as flowers, i wish i had that wide-angle lense. That is why i advocate cameras that can take add-on lenses, then you can get super wide angle and telephoto adapters for reasonable prices, thus eliminating my conundrum.
Yeah but they are bulky ........ you need these things when you travel and it's a right dog to cart all this gear around. Why it is SO HARD to make a 28mm leans that reaches ou to say 170mm at telephoto in a reasonably compact form i will never know.

If someone come up with it they would sell a bucket of cameras.
Alfisti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 11:46 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

The problem is getting so much lens in one assembly, and making it take good pictures without too much distortion at either end of the zoom (one person here the other day complained about the barrel distortion in their Canon on the wide angle end of the camera's zoom).

Of course there's nothing stopping you from using a wide angle converter (or even a tele converter) at the end of your lens (unless your camera can't accept converters) to expand the capabilities of your lens.

As for putting such a lens in a compact unit, you have to remember that in order to operate at such a large range the optics inside the lens have to have a certain amount of travel. My own camera, an Olympus C-700 has a 38-380mm (5.9-59mm) lens, but many people complain about the large size of it, but you can't put so much lens in a pocket camera.

You have to make compromises...do you want a camera that can fit in your shirt pocket but limit yourself on the type of pictures you can take with it, or do you want a camera with a good lens with a long range of zoom. Personally, I have never considered the physical size of the body camera when buying it.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 11:51 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

IMHO it's just laziness ... if someone sat down and tried to do it they could pull it off.

I bought a fuji 3800 which is hardly the biggest camera in the world and still .. i miss shots because i can't be bothered carting it around everywhere ........ it's just too bulky.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_PEAT
The problem is getting so much lens in one assembly, and making it take good pictures without too much distortion at either end of the zoom (one person here the other day complained about the barrel distortion in their Canon on the wide angle end of the camera's zoom).

Of course there's nothing stopping you from using a wide angle converter (or even a tele converter) at the end of your lens (unless your camera can't accept converters) to expand the capabilities of your lens.

As for putting such a lens in a compact unit, you have to remember that in order to operate at such a large range the optics inside the lens have to have a certain amount of travel. My own camera, an Olympus C-700 has a 38-380mm (5.9-59mm) lens, but many people complain about the large size of it, but you can't put so much lens in a pocket camera.

You have to make compromises...do you want a camera that can fit in your shirt pocket but limit yourself on the type of pictures you can take with it, or do you want a camera with a good lens with a long range of zoom. Personally, I have never considered the physical size of the body camera when buying it.
Alfisti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2003, 12:46 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfisti
IMHO it's just laziness ... if someone sat down and tried to do it they could pull it off.
But it would be expensive, and consumers are too cheap (that's why they want a zoom lens in the first place, it's a compromise). Most people are buying the cheaper pocket digital cameras anyway.

A serious photographer would have different lenses of different fixed focal lengths depending on what they're going to shoot.

I was going to buy a longer telephoto for my SLR, but it would have costed as much as my digital camera. When I saw a digital with a 38-380mm lens, I decided to buy that instead even though it would suffer in quality...and there are a lot of faults with it like Chromatic aberration, barel distortion, softness, etc. that I wouldn't have had with the SLR lens, but I put up with it because it's a consumer product, and I have to put the time in after on the computer to fix the errors in the lens.

What you gain in functionality in the lens, you lose in quality, and it's got nothing to do with being lazy...it's the limits of optics. Just look at the human eye, stuck at ~50mm...if you want to zoom in to a subject, you either use binoculars/telescope, or move closer to the subject.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2003, 12:49 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

I see where you're coming from but I also think that's what manufactiurers are relying on ... us becoming accepting of such limitations. 29 yers ago air bags wer ebarely heard of and now they are standard equipment in every car ........... if we keep pushing we will get what we want

If you don't mind me asking .. whereabout in TO are you from .. i spent last year there.
Alfisti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2003, 1:19 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

But you're paying extra for air bags. Last car bought was $14,000 and it was very basic...everything manual, only feature was an AM-FM stereo (no cassette). New car is double the price and has every bell and whistle including anti-lock brakes and traction control. It's not only that people asked for those safety features, but they increased passenger safety (as long as you weren't a child or a smaller person, or the air bag doesn't go off for no reason)...I got to try out the traction control and anti-lock brakes for the first time this winter, and I'm not going back...I'm willing to pay the extra for them. I remember a time before they had shoulder straps in cars, sideview mirrors outside, or even backuplights...did people ask for those features before they knew about them? Most people don't think...but one person said, "if a car had white lights in the back, I can see better while backing up." That new car I mentioned above even has white lights on the sides so I can see better while turning at night and backing up.

Getting back on topic as for camera manufacturers listening to what consumers want, they don't care. Look at the focus assist beam feature to help the camera focus in low light...years ago more cameras had it. Manufacturers are removing that feature because it costs too much and it seems to them that consumers don't want it, but what good is a camera if it can't focus in low light (say at a kid's birthday party which I could have done easily with my film camera). For my own digital which costed $650, I can get a flash for it which does add that feature to the camera but the flash itself (plus the special bracket and cable I need) costs almost as much as the camera. People like Steve campaign on consumers' behalf to get features like that back into cameras...but if the manufacturers don't listen to a person like Steve with a lot of clout behind him, do you think they will listen to people like us?

Anyway I live in the centre of Toronto, near Yonge & Eglinton.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2003, 2:27 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 331
Default

Mike_Peat is right, as long as they can sell millions in goods, camera companies only care about one thing, profits. If you look through the digicam and other electronics companies in general, all the products are basically the same thing. Sure, one might have a slightly faster lense, or a brand new computer chip that makes the camera work faster, but if electronics companies ever tried to do that in say the computer industry, they'd be laughed out of the market. Once an industry hits totally mainstream and there are only 5 or 6 companies making the products, all they care about is the illusion that you are getting your money's worth. Rather than spending 5 million researching better technology, they spend 5 cents a camera to make it shiny so Joe Impulse Buyer says, "Oooh, me want shiny object!" Thus presenting a baffling conundrum. Do we wish that digicams stayed out of the mainstream market, which would ensure dedicated manufacturers fighting for a limited market (so they couldn't afford to have bad quality goods) but because these companies are so small, they can't afford to take risks such as fuji with its new ccds, there would be no across the board standard for image colors and compatability with different computers and such and also due to the lack of a large market in an economy of scale, higher prices all around for the consumer, or do we embrace the streamlining of the camera industry ensuring a decent product from companies that will be there if the camera breaks in a week, a basic standard for quality across manufacturers and lower prices, but cameras that are mediocre at the best.
ardvark50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2003, 8:29 AM   #20
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 47
Default

Like you, I'm only really interested in image quality.

I'm new to digital cameras myself, but I spent a lot of time comparing image quality before I bought my digital camera, and I'm certain that Canon cameras provide the best quality.

I bought the Canon Powershot S45 because I thought it gave the best results for a pocket camera. I needed a pocket camera because I want to take my camera EVERYWHERE all day every day, which isn't possible unless you have a pocket camera (or you don't mind having a great big thing round your neck all day!)

I'm delighted with it and I would highly recommend it.

The S45 has 4 megapixels, and the new S50 has 5megapixels. If image quality is important then I'd make sure you get a camera with a higher amount of megapixels, like 4 or more.
Grand Dizzy 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 1:24 AM.