Community Newsletter: Q&A: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom?
- 3/24/05 2:45 PM
Environmental Factors
by youngsterix - 3/25/05 7:33 AM In reply to: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Really good advise, Steve E.
I have an Olympus C770, a 4 MP camera with a 10x optical zoom that I bought in April last year. Steve is absolutely right about the low light conditions producing blurred photos. I still have a hard time figuring out the best way to take low light pics, ie, with and without a tripod, in auto or manual, with or without flash, etc.
One other thing to consider is the environmental conditions in which you'll be snapping pics. My Olympus works well in temperatures above 35 degrees F. However, the camera will not work at temps below 32. Is that a concern? Most definitely, if you're going to photograph folks skiing or snow boarding, or spend any time outdoors in the winter and expect to take pictures.
I've learned to keep the camera warm by keeping it close to my body, then take it out to catch one of my kid's doing a 360 tail grab. It works, but I can't keep the camera in a back pack, because it won't work when cold, and it's rather bulky to keep in the breast pocket of my jacket.
Just another consideration/specification to think about.
Steve's discussion was the greatest. Only missed one thing>
by wjgold - 3/25/05 8:13 AM In reply to: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
One important note about digital zoom and cropping: One advantage of higher megapixel cameras is that you CAN zoom with digital and still achieve a good picture. For example, if you use the higher setting such as 7 megapixel (or 6 or 5 if that's all you have), then you can zoom digitally and still get a picture that is maybe 3 megapixel quality. To me that's the most important advantage of having a high megapixel camera. Otherwise, somewhere above a 3 or 4 megapixel capability is useless (for those of us who never will print out 11x17 or higher, or even 8x10 for many of us). I personally am happy with a 3.2 megapixel Canon I1IS since it has 10X optical and image stabilization for an unusually low price.
So that's it: High megapixels make it possible to use digital zoom and still come out with good results for small prints and screen shots.
Jay
How to Choose and Use
by David1059563 - 3/25/05 8:14 AM In reply to: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi Steve and Clay,
I am not a camera expert by far. IM a neophyte with them, so in no way am I trying to dispute any answers given. Seems like Steve has it covered and in good form. I only want to help with a little input that I think will be of value to you. I was looking to do the same thing myself. Trade up to digital that is.
In my Quest for answers I found a great article in PC Photo Magazine March/April 2005 issue. On the cover was the subject line. How to Choose and Use.You will find this one of the most informative articles on the subject at hand. You shouldn't have any trouble finding this Magazine. Just look on most any magazine stand in book stores or your local news stand. You will be glad you did. OK Guys that's all from me. Hope I have been of some help.
Sincerely,
David G. Williams
Great Answer!
by phlipper - 3/25/05 8:39 AM In reply to: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Thank You Clay for your answer to megapixle versus zoom question. I not only agree with your conclusion but I believe your explaination is as good or better than any I have seen on any subject in these postings. Thanks to CNET for bringing the expertise of those like you to us readers!
Best choice available today
by franknemec - 3/25/05 8:54 AM In reply to: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
After much research and 35 years experience with Nikon film cameras, I bought a Nikon Coolpix 8800. I am convinced it offers the best balance of capabilities and features available today in a digital camera. I chose it above any digital SLR even though it cost less. If for some reason the 10x optical zoom isn't enough, I can still add an optical extender lens. No more carrying extra lenses, collecting dust while changing them, and wearing out the mounts for changed and erratic focus.
As you would expect from Nikon, the lens is of superb optical quality. Optical image stabilization really does let you shoot about 3 stops slower handheld than you can without it. My experience matches the reviews. You see movement blur from the speaker/performer, but the background is perfectly crisp and clear. Though its highest sensitivity is ISO equivalent 400, the image stabilization makes a bigger difference than the extra sensitivity would. My last indoor series was shot at the 400 setting, saved RAW, then batched through PhotoShop to remove noise. There was no hint of noise or grain, much better than I've seen with ISO 400 B+W film. The 'preset' color balance (where you calibrate the camera on a gray card in the actual lighting) made the color amazingly accurate. To me, the fact that it's 8 megapixel is a bonus. I would have taken the same camera at 5 or 6.
Be sure to check CNET for prices. With it, I got a very good price from a vendor with a very good reputation (including good user reports on CNET). That price was key to getting the OK from my wife to buy the best instead of something I'd soon be dissatisfied with.
I like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20
by aviram - 3/25/05 11:23 AM In reply to: Best choice available today by franknemecThere are only three things to consider when purchasing any camera, lens, lens, lens and lens...
The Panasonic DMC-FZ-20 has a superb quality, extremely sharp, very high resolution Leica 12x zoom lens with F2.8 throughout the entire 36 - 432mm zoom range.
The optical image stabilization system allows you to hand-hold at the 432mm end of the zoom range at speeds as low as 1/30th second (though you still need a steady hand) which makes the zoom actually useful
Good, natural color, ultra fast startup, focus, shutter lag and shot-to-shot time, very good battery life, easy to use, good powerful flash, auto focus illuminator.
Only minor complaint I have is that the images are a tad too grainy for my taste at low light and high ISO sensitivity...
video is at very low resolution (but this is a still camera, not a video camera, so I do not care)
It is only 5 Mega pixels, but also only $500... (vs $800 for the Nikon, or similar 8MP cameras such as the Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom)
Do some research and see for yourself:
http://tinyurl.com/49ozg (froogle)
http://www.dpreview.com/
http://www.become.com/
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ family
by amigadude - 3/27/05 10:36 AM In reply to: I like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 by aviramYou can actually hand-hold the camera at shutter speeds slower than 1/30. The image stablization accounts for camera shake, including the shake caused when depressing the shutter.
Personally biased opinion here: When the FZ cameras are outfitted with better low light (available darkness) capability the camera would leave all non-dSLR cameras in the dust. If Olympus would resurrect and upgrade their outstanding C2100UZ I'd forget about the Panasonic.
[joe]
4 megapixel, 10x zoom options
by pgfree - 3/25/05 8:54 AM In reply to: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
What specific brands/cameras would you recommend in the 4 megapixel, 10x zoom, with the best ability to handle low light situations??
My first digital camera
by zzmel - 3/25/05 9:26 AM In reply to: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I used to be really into cameras and photography itself. I just purchased a very good digital camera at a great price. It is 3.2 mpix with a 10x zoom lens which is fully adjustable. I wanted to find a low cost camera so I could upload pictures on ebay. I can honestly say that this camera is more than ample for fine photography and takes great pictures. I personally think that zoom is a very important factor for close work. Certainly I had to make a decision whether to sacrifice zoom for more pixels. You do nothave to pay a lot of money for more bells and whistles than you actually need.
Right On The Money
by Milo98 - 3/25/05 9:28 AM In reply to: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
While I have not been into photography in a big way, my father was all his life, and I picked up a lot from him. I can tell you Steve is right on the money, right down the line. Everything he says, you can take to the bank!
Milo
battery
by Leonard Greiner - 3/25/05 9:45 AM In reply to: 3/25/05 More megapixels or a lens with greater zoom? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
All this talk about pixals and storage numbers, etc, tends to pale if account is not taken of battery life, which can die during and between pics. Are there super batteries to assure that the camera will be alive when needed?
RE: battery
by smearly - 3/25/05 10:22 AM In reply to: battery by Leonard GreinerSome manufacturers of regular batteries have versions that are supposed to last a lot longer when used in digital cameras and other electronic equipment. They probably do last a little longer, and they are also more expensive.
The fault, in my opinion, doesn't lie as much with the battery as it does with the camera itself. There are some cameras that just eat juice and lots of it. Others don't.
Some digital cameras won't accept off-the-shelf AA batteries, and force you to use specific rechargable Lithium Ion batteries. I find these work quite well, but again the question is, "How hungry is this camera?" more so than "How good is this battery?"
Battery life
by amigadude - 3/27/05 10:50 AM In reply to: battery by Leonard GreinerGood point. Who has the information on battery life? I purchased 8 Energizer 2300mAh AA rechargeable batteries. I charged them in their supper slow charger for 15 hours per set of four. I put two batteries in my Minolta X20 2 megapixel camera. I got four shots before the batteries died. I put another set of two in and I got the same amount of shots. With the Energizer 1700mAh AA batteries I get over 200 shots in the same camera. I returned the 2300mAh batteries to Energizer as being defective.
Another battery consideration is the proprietary batteries that come with some cameras. You're stuck. There is no popping into a store to buy AA alkalines when you run short of juice. Purchasing a spare proprietary battery is expensive.
[joe]
Battery
by glenn.ledrew - 3/27/05 3:43 PM In reply to: battery by Leonard GreinerCheck out www.batterybarn.com.
I ordered a second battery for my Panasonic FZ20. Much cheaper and better.
Glenn L.
battery choices
by franknemec - 3/28/05 4:18 PM In reply to: battery by Leonard GreinerThe manufacturer of a high-end camera wants the best battery he can make within reasonable constraints of weight and volume. That's a custom lithium ion pack, not standard nickel cadmium AA cells. I suspect Nikon will keep using the battery pack from the 8800 in its future cameras until such time as they can make another which is significantly better.
An after-market pack has a fair to good chance of doing the job well. You weigh the risk against the lower price.
Don't buy a second pack until you know you need it or the original starts losing capacity (wearing out). They don't last forever, so you want your spare new enough to become the replacement.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
