Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > Newbie Help

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 2, 2004, 4:18 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 19
Default

Hi,
I have an 3 year old Casio 1.3mp camera with 8X optical zoom:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/qv8000.html

It is rather big so I bought a new smaller camera Sony DSC-T1:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/t1.html

The sony is nice as it fits the pocket but I must say that after being used to 8x optical zoom, Sonys 3x optical zoom seems almost useles.

I have not seen any quality problems with the 1.3mp pictures I have been takeing, not on screen or printed as big as A4.

Question 1 "When to use 1mp when to use 5mp?"
I wonder, when is it a good idea to use 3.3mp or 5mp? I cant see any difference when printing a 1mp or a 5mp photo :?

Question 2 "Does mp help with digital zoom?"
On the casio I never used the digitall zoom because of the quality, but will 5mp camera digizoom 1mp pictures better?

I have been takeing 1mp pictures with the new camera, but now when I received my 256mb memory, I could start takeing with full resolution.

Now I think 1mp is good enough, but maybe I bee sorry later, if I am overlooking something important....

Thank You


Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 2, 2004, 7:47 AM   #2
AMG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 144
Default

I find that very surprising that you don't see a difference in print quality between a 1 mp and 5 mp. My first thought is that if you are using an old printer that is not really up to today's standards, then both prints could come out ok at best and therefore you don't get the added benefit of the 5 megapixel photo. If I am not correct in this assumption, then please tell us what or who printed the photos. Send them to a lab, a local loblaws, walmart, whataver retailer prints digital pics and check again. Now if you print 5x7 or 8x10, then you should see an even bigger difference in quality between the 2. But if you will never print bigger than 5x7 for example then you fon't really need to shoot at 5 megapixels, it would just be wasted data. But I will say this, if you can afford the large file sizes, then shoot at full always becasue who knows if one day you want to print a bigger size, and more importantly, when you have a bigh file, you can print a specific area and have full quality, meaning, you can crop out the top bottom, both sides, because the resolution is so high. If you shoot at a low resolution, you would have to print the whole frame to maintain quality.
AMG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2004, 10:15 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 19
Default

You might be right, the print test I made was with my old HP 960C printer.

I have printed great 1mp pictures with a color laser and now with my new Epson R200.

The 1mp (10x15cm)pictures are great, but I have not really printed any 5mp pictures with the new printer. I have to re-test 1mp vs 5mp with the beter printer.


Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2004, 12:02 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
pianoplayer88key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 405
Default

another reason I'd want 1.3 mp vs, say, 6mp, is so I could crank up the ISO higher (for example up to 1600 or 3200 or even 6400 and still be somewhat noise free) with a compact camera to get a good low-light no-flash fast-shutter shot. (as in the pixel density would be less cause you're not trying to cram so many photodetectors on the sensor). I'd want a sensor size of at LEAST 1/1.8", preferably 2/3". Since I could be ok with a fixed focal length of somewhere between 38mm and 50mm, and an aperture of F/1.0, F/1.4, or maybe as small as F/2.0 or even F/2.8, could the sensor size be increased (and still have a pocketable camera comparable in size to the Canon A80) to, say, 1", 4/3", or even APS-C or full-frame?
pianoplayer88key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2004, 2:16 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 19
Default

Oh, did not know that different megapixel setting can have efect on ISO also?

I have to try it indors without flash. I tend to get all my indors pictures spoiled by red eyes, so any tricks to get beter pictures without the flash, is welcome. :idea:

Thank You.
Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2004, 8:26 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
CastleDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 321
Default

Stone wrote:
Quote:
Oh, did not know that different megapixel setting can have efect on ISO also?

I have to try it indors without flash. I tend to get all my indors pictures spoiled by red eyes, so any tricks to get beter pictures without the flash, is welcome. :idea:

Thank You.
It's not so much it effects the ISOit but that the makers tend to give you more features with the higher end cameras and right now the higher end cameras have more megapixels. In it's day the QV8000 was a high end camera and gave us (yes I own one also) a great feature set. I wish Casio would have continued in the prosumer line.

As for picture quality the biggest factor there is how big the pictures are you are printing. 1.3 MP does not hack 8x10 printing but it will do 4x6 without problem (it's about 240 ppi)

Don't use the digital zoom. All it does iscrop the picture in the sony. You are much better off shooting at full resolution and then cropping/resizing in an editingprogram. It will allow you a lot more freedom later on.

Learn to use an editing program and you will be able to salvage all those red eye pictures (it really is easy to fix).


pianoplayer88key wrote:
Quote:
[snip] (for example up to 1600 or 3200 or even 6400 and still be somewhat noise free) with a compact camera to get a good low-light no-flash fast-shutter shot [snip]
ISO 6400 on a compact camera and having it somewhat noise free??? Even the DSLRs when post processed (neat image, etc) and scaled down to web size will have a problem with that one. ISO 400 is pretty much it for most of the compact cameras (and it's pretty noisy) with ISO800 on a few of them.








CastleDude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 3, 2004, 7:44 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
pianoplayer88key's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 405
Default

CastleDude wrote:
pianoplayer88key wrote:
Quote:
[snip] (for example up to 1600 or 3200 or even 6400 and still be somewhat noise free) with a compact camera to get a good low-light no-flash fast-shutter shot [snip]
ISO 6400 on a compact camera and having it somewhat noise free??? Even the DSLRs when post processed (neat image, etc) and scaled down to web size will have a problem with that one. ISO 400 is pretty much it for most of the compact cameras (and it's pretty noisy) with ISO800 on a few of them.

What about a camera with a 40mm fixed focal length, a 2" sensor, and 1280x960 pixel resolution? By my calculations, the actual focal length (assuming 8/3" is full frame) would be 30mm, or approx 1.1811".

How does the measurement on aperture work, btw? I know about F/# (for example my Canon S1 at full wide-angle will go as bright as F/2.8). F is focal length, and you divide the focal length by the aperture number to get what? the diameter of the lens opening?

Ok.... so let's say we build an F/1.0 lens into that camera. The lens opening would be about 30mm or 1.1811" across, right? (and with an F/0.7 it'd be approx 42.857mm or 1.687" across, right? (btw I don't think if that camera had an F/0.5 lens it'd fit in my pocket, and with F/0.7 it'd be tight, but F/1.0 might be doable based on these measurements)

Also, I would prefer to have enough depth of field so that the entire subject (usually a person) is in focus. I don't want to have the tip of their nose in focus and have their ears out of focus, for example. Should I go with a smaller sensor and a wider aperture, or a larger sensor and a smaller aperture?
btw.. I'm not aware of any cameras that have these specs that exist.





[/quote]
pianoplayer88key is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 4, 2004, 12:32 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
CastleDude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 321
Default

This page has a good explination of f Stop ...

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/20030202.html

It's based on the amount of light that reaches the sensor (or film). F1.0 would be a perfect lens and f0.7 would be a lens that magnifys the light (photomultiplier). The problem is until we get glass that doesn't have any loss all lenses will be greater than f1.0.

This has a good talk on how DOF works http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...ic.php?id=1122

CastleDude 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 8:22 PM.