Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 18, 2005, 6:03 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 21
Default

silvagod wrote:
Quote:
I may be waaaay off the mark here, but.....

IF you want to crop a pic but have the details still clear, then there is no substitute for megapixels. IMHO it's not a gimmick to move prices up but for higher image detials when 'enlarged' (to use an old film term).......
Yes you are wrong because there is a physical limit to what the glass in a lens can project, just like there is a limit to how much electricity can go through a wire. There is a physical point where you have to make the lense bigger to let in more light. There are people who have studied this stuff and it probably isn´t impossible to find their experiments using google. That gigapixel project, if it WAS done on a single lense and not a composite, was DEFINITELY NOT done on a camera phone´s tiny lens.
gmosc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 18, 2005, 7:54 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
HarjTT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,535
Default

bmccoy wrote:
Quote:
squirl033 wrote:
Quote:
frankly, if i could choose between an 8 MP DSLR and an improved FZ that was essentially noise free up to ISO800, i'd pick the FZ hands down. i'd rather carry one camera, one lens, and have it able to do everything, than lug all the 'stuff' that goes with SLR's. been there, done that, and it's just not that much fun.
Personally I would be happy if it was low noise just up to 400. After that I expect some level of noise in the picture. After all look at the consumer level film that is out there. The Kodak 400 and 800 ISO films have a very heavy grain to them in my opinion. That is one of the reasons that I switched over to Fuji films many years ago. I prefer the saturation and subdued grain of their 200 and 400 films.

If the FZ series kept the noise just a little more subdued at 400 I would be even happier then I am with my FZ3. That is one of the reason I was so interested in the f 2.8 across the entire zoom, helps with shooting at lower ISO settings even if the light is marginal.

I agree 100% with the resolution comments from Nick, the 3 mp that I get from the FZ3 is enough for my needs for many years to come.

-Brett
Nick completely agree with you on this .. more megapixels.. sorry not for me either. I'm with Brett on this one, to me the FZ is nearly right - all they need to do to get me to buy another FLuzi is:

1) larger CCD (2/3 min.), may be make it a 6MP.
2) Higher ISO50-800 & ISO 400 noise free.
3) A hi-res LCD/EVF at 250k pixels with low light gain up
4) Bulb mode
5) Faster and longer shutter speeds - 16secs to 1/4000
6) Optical Viewfinder
7) Zoom ring on the barrel
8) A bigger grip with the shutter button repositioned like an SLR.
9) TTL flash.

hey thats a long list .. I hadn't realised that.

Harj

:?
HarjTT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 8:57 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

gmosc wrote:
Quote:
silvagod wrote:
Quote:
I may be waaaay off the mark here, but.....

IF you want to crop a pic but have the details still clear, then there is no substitute for megapixels. IMHO it's not a gimmick to move prices up but for higher image detials when 'enlarged' (to use an old film term).......
Yes you are wrong because there is a physical limit to what the glass in a lens can project, just like there is a limit to how much electricity can go through a wire. There is a physical point where you have to make the lense bigger to let in more light. There are people who have studied this stuff and it probably isn´t impossible to find their experiments using google. That gigapixel project, if it WAS done on a single lense and not a composite, was DEFINITELY NOT done on a camera phone´s tiny lens.
actually, he's right. to crop an image and still have enough resolution for a sharp print, esepecially 8x10 or larger, there IS no substitute for pixels. the amount of light coming through the lens has nothing to do with how many megapixels you can have, not does it in any way affect how much or how little you can crop an image. MP count is determined by the number of photocells they can fit on a sensor, not by the size of the lens.you could conceivably put a tinylens on a 16MP camera, andit'll still take 16MPimages... justwith very long exposure times. conversely, a large lens in front of a low-MP sensorwill provide very "fast" imaging, but still only 2 or 3MP.

ifind 5 MP to be about the optimum. anything more isunnecessary, unless you're shooting for National Geographic; anything lessis not, IMHO, enough formaking largerprints, or for cropping and still permitting sharp 8x10's. i try to maintain a minimum of about 200PPI for large prints, to produce nice, sharp images. that requires at least 1600x2000 for an 8x10. even at 5MP, i'll have to compromise that rule just a bit for 11x14's, but the FZ20's resolution of 2560x1920 should still get me 175-180PPIn each axis,which should still yield acceptable image quality.

obviously, if you never print larger than 5x7, all that is moot, and 2MP is probably fine. frankly, it's all a matter of personal preference and how your prints look to you. after all, you take pictures for your own enjoyment, and that of your family and friends. you don't have to satisfy any other critics, so pick the resolution that meets your needs, and to heck with what the salesman tells you!


squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 9:05 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,249
Default

You're right... but the issue isn't about cropping. If you crop, you need the pixels. For larger prints, PPI matters less because they are viewed at a greater distance. Plus, you can use interpolation tools to keep the pixel density up. You won't "gain" detail, but you will preserve what you have.

You would be amazed at the 8X10's that come out of FZ-1v2. From their intended viewing distance, I would put them up to any camera. Viewed at the eye's optimal - book distance, about 18 inches from the eye, you might notice some minor imperfections which will disappear as the photo recedes into the distance.

Again, the post was to point out that a -> $10,000 <- camera that came out a few years ago boasted 35 mm quality, and there were raves about its resolution equaling 35mm cameras. The lates pro-level Nikon only has 4 megapixels.
NickTrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 19, 2005, 10:07 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

I have a wide format printer and really like large prints on the wall. 8 X 10s get lost, but a 13 X 19 looks great and draws attention. I'm hoping someday they will make printers that take 16 inch stock or greater without paying really big bucks for commercial equipment. There is always the option of having a really good shot printed at 16 X 20 though.

The very best 13 X 19 crop I can get from a 5Mp image is a tad under 135 PPI. That makes a decent print, but it could be better. An 8Mp image will yield slightly under 172 PPI. Still not quite what the best printers will do, but not as far off as some people think. The best 16 X 20 you can get from an 8Mp image is a bit over 150 PPI. I seldom frame perfectly, so my numbers are often a little lower than that. I would quite frankly like to have more pixels than are currently available at a price I can afford.

Doing an upsample doesn't do much BTW. I've tried all the methods and it doesn't really improve the quality. If you are at a very low PPI it can smooth out the image a little, but at a distance it really looks the same. And up close it isn't sharp regardless of upsample method. People (including me) do tend to look at the larger prints up close unless you put something between them and the print like a desk. That is especially true with something like a group shot.

I have to respect some of you people's self-knowledge that your photographic interests will never take you beyond snapshot sized prints and screen images. And that the images will either never be handed down or to people who will have the same limited output goals. But I want my photographic memories at the best quality and resolution practical with the current technology, and plan to advance with it.

HarjTT I think you are safe for a while from having to buy another Fluzi.
1) Unless they come up with a completely new technology, I think that is limited by simple optics. To use a 2/3 sensor and still get f2.8 at 12X you will need a humongous piece of glass up front. The Nikon 8800 uses a 2/3 sensor, but goes to f5.2 at 10X. I think that means you would need a lens about 4 times the size in area of the 8800 to get to f2.8 at 12X with a 2/3 sensor. And probably a bank loan.
2) Maybe they will have noise free ISO 400 in a few years with your 2/3 sensor.
3) Hear Hear! They are on the bottom edge of EVF quality and not gaining up with only electronic viewers is stupid. They don't need new technology to make that happen – just some common sense.
4) Doable.
5) I haven't needed to exceed my current speed capability, but 1/4000 might be useful with your noise free ISO 400 and good ISO 800. No reason to not have 16 seconds on that level of camera. They have pocket cameras that will do 16 seconds.
6) The only way you will have an optical viewfinder in a prosumer 12X zoom camera is if they integrate a mirror and SLR type viewfinder. There is a reason everything over about 6X has an EVF. To get the required brightness and quality would take a pretty sophisticated lens system just for the viewfinder. And the longer the focal length the less of the image they seem to be able to get in an optical viewfinder. There are advantages to a good EVF – Panasonic just doesn't make one.
7) Hear Hear! That dinky electric zoom drives me nuts on a 12X camera.
8) The camera could use a better grip. You can't stick them in your pocket anyway, so why not have something to hold on to?

My additional list:
-More and better physical controls. There are pocket point and shoot cameras with which you don't have to go to the menu for simple adjustments like spot metering, macro, flash modes, EV adjustments etc. The manual focus switch is nice but I suspect Leica put that on. Other than the focus switch and ring, Panasonic has the worse control setup I've seen on a large prosumer digital camera.
-A digital readout of the manual focus distance. That is important with their poor EVF. Might not be so critical in good light if they got a better EVF.
-A flip up Speed Graphex type open viewfinder. Concentric boxes for 1X, 6X and 12X would be enough. Even just a little 12X box would do for me. It is hard to follow action at high zoom in the EVF. And especially in a burst. There is EVF delay in addition to having a hard time quickly finding and following a moving target. I've been planning to design one but just been too lazy so far. If they could design a bright 12X optical finder (and I could afford it) it would eliminate the EVF lag, but it would still be hard to acquire and follow a fast moving target – especially if you consider there would almost certainly be less of the image in the viewfinder.
A better eyepiece, preferably with a cup. And a diopter adjustment that isn't so easy to move by accident. I got tired of finding mine misadjusted and put a dot of rubber glue on it.
-An articulated LCD.
-Decent movie mode. I know it isn't a camcorder, butoften it is all you have with you. How many of you regularly carryboth?



slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 20, 2005, 1:29 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
You're right... but the issue isn't about cropping. If you crop, you need the pixels. For larger prints, PPI matters less because they are viewed at a greater distance. Plus, you can use interpolation tools to keep the pixel density up. You won't "gain" detail, but you will preserve what you have.

You would be amazed at the 8X10's that come out of FZ-1v2. From their intended viewing distance, I would put them up to any camera. Viewed at the eye's optimal - book distance, about 18 inches from the eye, you might notice some minor imperfections which will disappear as the photo recedes into the distance.

Again, the post was to point out that a -> $10,000 <- camera that came out a few years ago boasted 35 mm quality, and there were raves about its resolution equaling 35mm cameras. The lates pro-level Nikon only has 4 megapixels.
no disagreement from me, Nick... i'm sure the FZ1v2 can produce some very nice 8x10's. but i have some shots i want to print at 11x14 or more, and for that, i need pixels. i've also taken shots that even with max optical zoom don't quite get the framing i'd like, but when cropped, they look as i want them to. but without the pixels to spare, i couldn't crop that image and still get a decent large print. i understand viewing distances... but i also like my prints to be sharp at 18", because some people view them at that distance. i'd rather have the pixels and not need them, than the other way 'round, and since i have them, i might as well use them.

your point was well taken about the new $10k Nikoncamera with only 4MP... and the realization that at least Nikon has learned that more than 4 or 5 MP are simply not needed except for certain situations that many photographers will never encounter. as i mentioned, i think 4-5MP is optimal for most serious hobby photographers. pros may need more, and some hobbyists may not feel the need even for 4 or 5, but for me, it's just about right.
squirl033 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2005, 8:56 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 477
Default

Cropping is not a good way to get the shot you want.

If you have a 4Mpixel camera, if you crop just 25% off each side, you end up with a 1Mpixel shot..... hardly worth considering if you want to print it to any reasonable size.
dnas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 21, 2005, 9:57 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
squirl033's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,720
Default

yeah, i know cropping isn't the best way to get the shot you want. unfortunately, sometimes it's the only way. even with a 12x zoom, you can't always get the framing you want on distant objects. careful cropping can help. since i have 5MP, i see no reason not to use it. it lets me do things i couldn't do with a 2MP camera, that's one reason i bought it.
squirl033 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 7:10 PM.