Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   What Camera Should I Buy? (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/)
-   -   Help!, about to quit the search for a compact digi cam!! (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/what-camera-should-i-buy-80/help-about-quit-search-compact-digi-cam-31035/)

KOT Aug 5, 2004 9:49 PM

I am down to by default a few choices for a digital camera. Want an all-around camera to take outside, inside, and some low light pictures. Also take outside backpacking vacations and need a small camera that is realtively tough. Should I get the Canon S410, Nikon coolpix 5200, Olympus 410, or some other frigging camera that is the same type as these but better??? I am sick and tired of trying to decide and am unable to find a place nearby that will let me try them out. Please respond those of you with any opinion. I hate this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:evil:l

TTT103 Aug 6, 2004 3:34 PM

I too am in the same situation that you are in, but am unable to make a decision based on conflicting reports. I have narrowed my search down to the Nikon 5300, Casio Z40, and Casio P600. I am so enthralled with the small size of the 5300 and Z40, but most of the reviews that I read indicate quite a bit of noise with these cameras. It almost seems as if lower pixels may generate better quality pictures. I also played with the Z40 a little bit and found it a little awkward to handle. Maybe too small is not so good.???

billy Aug 6, 2004 3:58 PM

KOT wrote:
Quote:

I am down to by default a few choices for a digital camera. Want an all-around camera to take outside, inside, and some low light pictures. Also take outside backpacking vacations and need a small camera that is realtively tough. Should I get the Canon S410, Nikon coolpix 5200, Olympus 410, or some other frigging camera that is the same type as these but better??? I am sick and tired of trying to decide and am unable to find a place nearby that will let me try them out. Please respond those of you with any opinion. I hate this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:evil:l

First I want to let you know that no one can make the decision for you. In the end you'll be the one forking over the money to get it. As for the three cameras you listed. All three are great little cameras. I myself would get the Canon S410 (my opinion.) It takes wonderful outdoor and indoor pics, and it does very well in low light (thanks to its focus-assist lamp.) Now if you are out backpacking and run into rain, I would make sure you have either the S410 or 5200 tucked away in a sealed bag or something. However, the Stylus 410 is water-resistant. You can't submerge it but as you can see from Steve's review www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/stylus410.html, it can be used in the rain without being damaged. But again the decision is in your hands! Hope this helps

:|

DrDictionary1 Aug 6, 2004 5:02 PM

"...most of the reviews that I read indicate quite a bit of noise with these cameras. It almost seems as if lower pixels may generate better quality pictures."

The reason for this is that many of the cameras have the same sized CCD imager. When you go from 4 to 5 MP on the same size CCD, the pixels are more crammed into the space, which produces more noise. Some cameras have bigger CCDs for higher megapixel ratings, however, such as the Canon A75 has a 1/2.7" CCD for 3.2 MP but the A80 has a 1/1.8" CCD for 4.0 MP. That is very important for quality, noise-free pictures.

I agree with Billy. The Canon will take better night pictures, but the Olympus is water resistant. In Japan, there was a study conducted on the durability of the Stylus 410 and 500 in wet conditions and out of 5, they got a 4. Olympus says that they can both withstand one liter of water over a 5 minute period, so a steady rain. Plus, Olympus has been making lenses for medical purposes for almost 100 years, and are still among the top medical lens manufacturers in the world, so you know that you get a great lens on it.

TTT103 Aug 7, 2004 8:41 PM

DrDictionary1 wrote:
Quote:

The reason for this is that many of the cameras have the same sized CCD imager. When you go from 4 to 5 MP on the same size CCD, the pixels are more crammed into the space, which produces more noise. Some cameras have bigger CCDs for higher megapixel ratings, however, such as the Canon A75 has a 1/2.7" CCD for 3.2 MP but the A80 has a 1/1.8" CCD for 4.0 MP. That is very important for quality, noise-free pictures.


Given the small CCD sizes and the fact that image quality seems to be suffering when pushing greater MP's onto the same size CCD, why aren't manufacturers using larger CCD's? It seems that noise seems to be a complaint among all of the pocket sized cameras. I've read that people are actually suggesting that lower MP camera's within a brand are producing higher quality pictures. I always thought that that 6 MP was better than 5, which was better than 4. However, this does not seem to be the case given that manufactures are using the same size CCD's with their 4 MP and 6 MP camera's. Am I correct, or am I missing something?



hedwards Aug 7, 2004 9:48 PM

The only advantage for keeping the smaller sized ccd is less cost of production of sensor, lens, and a smaller camera body. People seem to mostly be concerned with MPs these days.

More MP will result in a larger picture, but without enough spacing the pictures just look noisy. Less noisy pictures can look better especially if one is not using the full size of the image.

neilslade Aug 8, 2004 4:04 PM

We've had this same discussion on another thread--

And I've gone into this same question about "which compact camera" so thoroughly I built a web page about it-

http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/brainphotofun.html

and the final two "contestants"-- at
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/details.html

For me, image quality has always been the most important thing. After looking at all the compacts and sub-compacts, the two cameras that stand heads above the rest- okay-- have you put all prejudice and advertising brain washing aside?

The Minolta G400 and G600.

Its really obvious if image quality and camera flexibility is the most important thing. These two cameras are ASTONISHING, at both their price and size.

If you really need 6 megapixels- nothing touches the G600 under $600. And the G600 is $399 RETAIL.

If 4 MP is all you need, no Sony, no Canon, No Pentax, No Nikon, No Olympus--- can I stop there?--- performs as well. And the G400 is $299 RETAIL-- $234 online.
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/r...topic_id=32095

I'm not the only one to figure this out.
I am a pro-- and this is not just a bunch of hot air.

Have Fun
Neil
www.NeilSlade.com

KOT Aug 8, 2004 8:10 PM

Thanks Neil. This is the kind of help I need. I have not looked at the G400 but will seriously consider it. Why is it better than the Canon s410? I have just read on other sites that skin tone etc.. is not that good in low light with the G400. What has been yourexperience?

hoobygroovy Aug 9, 2004 10:24 AM

To what extent does more pixels lower the image quality? For example, would the Canon S410 produce better pictures than the S500, or the Casio EX-Z30 produce better pictures than the EX-Z40?

Are there any guidelines for megapixel to CCD size ratio?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:06 PM.