Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Olympus

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 24, 2004, 12:45 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10
Default Olympus 8080 Vs... Nikon 8700, Canon Pro 1, Sony DSC-828

Is the Olympic 8080 lens sharper than the new Nikon 8700, what would be the better choice out of the four listed below: I don't like the long barrel on the Sony. I want the absolute sharpest lens and definition, and ease to set up and shoot.......Phil in Florida

Olympus 8080
Nikon 8700
Canon Pro 1
Sony DSC-828
gloyce1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 25, 2004, 6:13 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 162
Default

B/c they're so no I wouldn't hold your breath awaiting a response. Probably going to have to visit some local camera stores and see for yourself. I've read reports of increased noise w/ the 828, but I believe that is going to be common to all of the 2/3 type 8Mp sensors. I thought Oly would field an 8Mp version of the 4/3 sensor but apparently they too believe that the average consumer is dumb enough to simply equate more Mp with better image quality.
jkusmier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 1:07 AM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10
Default Thanks jkusmier

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkusmier
B/c they're so no I wouldn't hold your breath awaiting a response. Probably going to have to visit some local camera stores and see for yourself. I've read reports of increased noise w/ the 828, but I believe that is going to be common to all of the 2/3 type 8Mp sensors. I thought Oly would field an 8Mp version of the 4/3 sensor but apparently they too believe that the average consumer is dumb enough to simply equate more Mp with better image quality.
Thanks so much for your info, I don't know the difference of a 2/3 type 8mp sensors vs. a 4/3. Can you explain it to me. You are right about the increase noise, as it is reported on the Nikon, and Canon 8Mp. Steve's reports
Do you think the Olympus Lens can have an edge over the Nikon or Canon 8Mp at the present time. How could you get a 4/3 sensor in one of these Cameras. Does the sensor determine the sharpness in addition to the quality of lens?
gloyce1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 26, 2004, 12:45 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 162
Default

2/3 type and 4/3 type are references to sensor size. Common sensor sizes, from small to large:

1/2.7; 1/2.5; 1/1.8; 2/3; 4/3; APS (3/2); 32mmx32mm.

You must understand that a CCD has millions of tiny "wells," each covered with a microlens that directs incident photons down the well and to a photodiode where they are converted to an electronic signal for processing into the final image. The more sensors you pack in a given sized chip the smaller each individual pixel, which means a smaller target area to collect incident photons, hence lower signal strength in relation to the noise (which in inherent in the sensor). ALL CCD's produce noise - when someone speaks of high noise levels they mean that camera's sensor has a relatively low signal:noise ratio. Larger sensors = larger wells = higher signal:noise ratio, meaning the noise is less evident and has less of an impact on image quality. Critical and most notable in lowlight situations where there aren't a whole lot of photons to produce a strong signal. Also translates into better dynamic range and better autofocus performance in cameras which use contrast-detection autofocus.

The pixels in an 8Mp 4/3 type would be essentially twice as large as those in the 8MP 2/3 sensors in the new Oly, Canon, Nikon and Minolta. You would notice the difference! While manufacturers are touting improved noise reduction you must understand that NR does not actually reduce the noise inherent in the sensor; NR is simply an algorithm that, like an airbrush, tries to mask the noise. I'd rather pay a little more for a larger sensor, though that would mean a less compact camera since there's a relation between body depth, focal length and sensor size.

Note that a 4Mp sensor will allow you to print 8"x10"s at 300dpi. How many amateurs are going to be printing 11"x17" and larger? The answer - very, very few, if any. Give me lower noise, improved tone and better autofocus performance - I don't need to print posters!
jkusmier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2004, 5:01 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
John G.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 248
Default

So well stated on your explaination of Pixel to noise ratio !

The PROOF is in the quality of the picture. The lens is a big part of this ,in how the photons are layed out over the CCD.
You might not need to make a poster but when it comes time to do major cropping thats where problems will happen.

There is not enough wall space to make every picture a poster nor do I want to as an " average consumer ", but it's sure nice to know that I could if the occasion arised and with pixels to boot !
John G. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 29, 2004, 8:04 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10
Default Jkusmier, Which Camera?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkusmier
2/3 type and 4/3 type are references to sensor size. Common sensor sizes, from small to large:

1/2.7; 1/2.5; 1/1.8; 2/3; 4/3; APS (3/2); 32mmx32mm.

You must understand that a CCD has millions of tiny "wells," each covered with a microlens that directs incident photons down the well and to a photodiode where they are converted to an electronic signal for processing into the final image. The more sensors you pack in a given sized chip the smaller each individual pixel, which means a smaller target area to collect incident photons, hence lower signal strength in relation to the noise (which in inherent in the sensor). ALL CCD's produce noise - when someone speaks of high noise levels they mean that camera's sensor has a relatively low signal:noise ratio. Larger sensors = larger wells = higher signal:noise ratio, meaning the noise is less evident and has less of an impact on image quality. Critical and most notable in lowlight situations where there aren't a whole lot of photons to produce a strong signal. Also translates into better dynamic range and better autofocus performance in cameras which use contrast-detection autofocus.

The pixels in an 8Mp 4/3 type would be essentially twice as large as those in the 8MP 2/3 sensors in the new Oly, Canon, Nikon and Minolta. You would notice the difference! While manufacturers are touting improved noise reduction you must understand that NR does not actually reduce the noise inherent in the sensor; NR is simply an algorithm that, like an airbrush, tries to mask the noise. I'd rather pay a little more for a larger sensor, though that would mean a less compact camera since there's a relation between body depth, focal length and sensor size.

Note that a 4Mp sensor will allow you to print 8"x10"s at 300dpi. How many amateurs are going to be printing 11"x17" and larger? The answer - very, very few, if any. Give me lower noise, improved tone and better autofocus performance - I don't need to print posters!
gloyce1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2004, 11:49 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 162
Default

That's a tough question w/ all of the new dSLR's that have been introduced in the past few months. Note that I'm not being a snob - moeny IS a consideration for me and I would personally prefer a fixed-lens zoom EVF like the new 8Mp models - I'd just rather see a larger sensor than a 2/3 type.
jkusmier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2004, 12:23 PM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkusmier
That's a tough question w/ all of the new dSLR's that have been introduced in the past few months. Note that I'm not being a snob - moeny IS a consideration for me and I would personally prefer a fixed-lens zoom EVF like the new 8Mp models - I'd just rather see a larger sensor than a 2/3 type.
THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT, I LIKE THE OLYMPUS NEW 8MP 8080, BUT DOESN'T IT JUST HAVE 2/3 TYPE SENSOR? SO WHAT DSLR WOULD I HAVE TO GO TO TO GET WHAT I WANT.....PHIL IN FLORIDA
gloyce1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2004, 5:18 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 162
Default

I'm assuming you don't want to drop $5000 for the body only... the Canon Digital Rebel and Nikon D70 are the most affordable dSLR's, at approx. $1000/body. Expect to spend ~ $300 for a good 28-70mm wide zoom and $900 for a good 76-300mm tele. You'll have to do your research on lenses - Nikkor are always good but there's a ton of excellent, competitive lenses out there.

This time last year the Fuji S2Pro was considered by some to offer the best performance for the price, but the debut of the new Digital Rebel and D70 have really altered the landscape. S2 still an excellent camera, though I don't like the fact that it uses two separate types of batteries. S3 Pro is supposed to have improved dynamic range but will be more expensive than the S2. Finally, some new high-end, high-performance Canons and Nikons have been introduced in the past 6 months - but they cost $4000-$6000 (body only) and offer features that, sadly but truly would be wasted on me.
jkusmier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 30, 2004, 7:19 PM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10
Default Thanks jkusmier

Quote:
Originally Posted by jkusmier
I'm assuming you don't want to drop $5000 for the body only... the Canon Digital Rebel and Nikon D70 are the most affordable dSLR's, at approx. $1000/body. Expect to spend ~ $300 for a good 28-70mm wide zoom and $900 for a good 76-300mm tele. You'll have to do your research on lenses - Nikkor are always good but there's a ton of excellent, competitive lenses out there.

This time last year the Fuji S2Pro was considered by some to offer the best performance for the price, but the debut of the new Digital Rebel and D70 have really altered the landscape. S2 still an excellent camera, though I don't like the fact that it uses two separate types of batteries. S3 Pro is supposed to have improved dynamic range but will be more expensive than the S2. Finally, some new high-end, high-performance Canons and Nikons have been introduced in the past 6 months - but they cost $4000-$6000 (body only) and offer features that, sadly but truly would be wasted on me.
gloyce1 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 6:44 PM.