Canon G3 vs Olympus camedia 5050 Vs Fuji Fuji FinePix Digital Camera, S602

[Chris Gunn]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:37:17 +0100, David Oddie

>>When will people learn?

>
>I might ask you the same question.

>>
>>Canon Iso's are bullshit! (skewed anyway)
>>
>>Canon 50 is more like... 80?

>
>And the Fuji is lowest is ISO 160 - which is a STOP faster than ISO
>80.
>
>Which negates the one stop advantage of the Canon's F2 lens over the
>F2.8 Fuji. Which is what I said originally.
>
>Like you said, when will people learn.
>
>I await your reply with interest.

What on earth is your point?

You realise the canon has higher Iso levels available?

You talk is if there were some advantage to raising the minimum
available ISO. (BTW, it isn't) People would complain were it not for
the fact that the 602z gives a relatively clean image at 160.

Your argument could make more sense if you were talking about the
other end of the ISO spectrum.

Gunn

s602z

[The Ruzicka Family]

"Chris Gunn" <gunncb@idontspamme.inet.net.nz> wrote in message
news:0gmqgvsh23a2nanve76cf9aje08d6c8ddn@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 20:28:43 -0600, "The Ruzicka Family"
>

> >> >> Hope this helps. BUT--the c5050 IS a 5 megapixel camera, whereas the

G3

> >is

> >> >> only a 4MP. Of course, you could pay more for a G5. I've compared

pics

> >>
> >> And yet the g3 takes better pics than the g5.

> >
> >Might that not depend on exactly what kind of pictures you want? If I
> >wanted to be able to have a very large picture (size-wise), maybe

suitable

> >for hanging on a wall, I'd probably want to go with a 5MP over a 4MP. If
> >all I ever wanted was small pictures, then I'd have to agree it would

make

> >more sense to go with the G3.

>
> Really. And just how many more inches are we taking about?
> By pixels alone it would give you 11.8% more on a side.
> EG: 8.94x11.18 vs 8.00x10.00 for same res.
>
> What is the difference in measuable resolution between the two?
>
> It is possible to have a camera with more pixels but less resolution
> you know.
>
> Do you really want to blow up the extra chromatic abberation, noise?
>
> How large, viewed from how far away?
>
> Incidentally, there are proffesionals who chose the s602z 3.1mp cam
> for making 6mx4m posters, tossing out it's 5mp competitors in horror.
>
> Well let's see. Well, actually to my surprise, the G5 has 30% more
> measurable res than the G3! Compared to the 25% inc in pixels.
> I am surprised.
> => 14% more on a side.
>
> Still, not small vs very large.

Excuse me then. Rather than say "small" picture, I should have said
"smaller." That then would have made it more valid.

And by the way, the "extra chromatic abberation" you speak of is blown WAY
out of proportion. Can there be CA? Sure. Does the C-5050 suffer from it
more than the G3? Maybe. But it really does depend on how well you know
the camera and are able to use it to its fullest advantage. Same goes for
the noise issue. For normal, regular size pics, taken properly, you're not
going to "see" any extra noise from the C-5050 (unless you really blow it
up). Is the noise really down deep in there? Probably so. But that seems
to be a bigger issue with 5MP than 4MP anyway. Just look at the G5! It's
supposed to be better than the G3, but it's got more "noise" than the
C-5050! And when you add in the better color of the C-5050, I'll still say
it easily holds its own to the G3, if not more so. That's why, after a LOT
of research on whether I should get the G3 or C-5050, I opted for the
C-5050. I added up all the pluses and minuses of both cameras and the
C-5050 won.

>
> Gunn
>
> s602z

[The Ruzicka Family]

"Alfred Molon" <alfred_molonDELETE@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:39d374e52756392181105abe06619d9c@news.meganet news.com...

> In article <0gmqgvsh23a2nanve76cf9aje08d6c8ddn@4ax.com>,
> [email]gunncb@idontspamme.inet.net.nz[/email] says...
>

> > Really. And just how many more inches are we taking about?
> > By pixels alone it would give you 11.8% more on a side.
> > EG: 8.94x11.18 vs 8.00x10.00 for same res.

>
> A bit more than that actually. You are comparing 2560x1920 with 2272x1704
> - that's 12,6% more on each side. Also the aspect ratio is 4:3 not 5:4
>

> > What is the difference in measuable resolution between the two?

>
> 27% more pixels.
>

> > It is possible to have a camera with more pixels but less resolution
> > you know.

>
> The term resolution is relative. A 5MP camera with a bad lens will have
> the higher spatial frequencies attenuated, while a 4MP camera with a
> better lens simply won't have the highest spatial freqencies of the 5MP
> camera.
>

And the C-5050 has both 5MP and a better lens.

> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> [url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus4040_5050/[/url]
> Olympus 4040 resource - [url]http://www.molon.de/4040.htm[/url]
> Olympus 5050 resource - [url]http://www.molon.de/5050.htm[/url]

[Jack Mac]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 10:45:13 +0100, David Oddie <DaveOddie@yNaOhSoOoAM.co.uk>
wrote:

>On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 11:44:04 +1200, Chris Gunn
><gunncb@idontspamme.inet.net.nz> wrote:
>

>>What on earth is your point?

>
>I thought it was obvious.
>
>It has been quoted as an advantage of the G3/5 and 5050 that they have
>a lens that is at least a stop faster then the 602.
>
>Given that to get best quality from any of these cameras you have to
>use them on the lowest ISO setting it is important to consider what
>that setting is and how it affects their use.
>
>On the Canon it is quoted at 50 but is in fact reported as being more
>like 80.
>
>On the Oly it is 64 and is reported as being about right in that.
>
>On the 602 the lowest ISO is 160.
>
>Taking the Canon as an example, if you aim for best quality and set
>ISO "50" you will have a combination of F2 and ISO 80 at a certain
>light level - right?
>
>Lets say at F2 and ISO 80 that gives a shutter speed of 1/60 sec for
>that given light level.
>
>With the 602 you will have a combination of F2.8 and ISO 160.
>
>For the same given light level that will ALSO give you a shutter speed
>of 1/60 sec (with the lens at F2.8).
>
>Therefore the point is that the faster lens on the Canon (and Oly)
>does not offer any advantage over the 602 in this situation due to the
>602's more sensitive sensor.
>

>>
>>You realise the canon has higher Iso levels available?

>
>Yes and I also know that for both the G3 and G5 noise goes up a lot
>once you move off ISO "50".
>

>>You talk is if there were some advantage to raising the minimum
>>available ISO. (BTW, it isn't) People would complain were it not for
>>the fact that the 602z gives a relatively clean image at 160.

>
>Not at all. You have missed the point by a mile.
>
>The Fuji has an inherently more sensitive sensor than the other
>cameras due to its design. I am saying a sensor that is inherently
>more sensitive that still delivers clean results is better than a less
>sensitive one that delivers similar results.
>
>In this case the more sensitive Fuji sensor negates the advantage of a
>faster lens. So when people say the G3/5 is better because of the
>faster lens I say that is not true because to if you want to shoot at
>the best quality lowest ISO setting, the shutter speed set by both
>cameras will be the same.
>
>Move any digi-cam off lowest ISO and watch the noise rise.
>
>If the Fuji was more noticeably more noisy at ISO 160 than the Canon
>and Oly at ISO "50" and 64 respectively you may have a point but it
>isn't.
>
>So since they will all, when the light level dictates you must use the
>maximum aperture, end up setting the SAME shutter speed if they are
>set to their best (lowest) ISO rating.
>
>So the faster lenses on the Oly and Canon don't gain you anything.
>
>Is it clear now?
>

>>Your argument could make more sense if you were talking about the
>>other end of the ISO spectrum.

>
>I am talking about obtaining best quality by setting the lowest ISO
>and what that means as regards the capabilities of these cameras -
>which come out equal despite their different lenses due to the
>different sensitivities of their sensors.
>
>Dave

Reminds me of the old, old Ford vs Chevrolet vs Plymouth
arguments...... there's "experts" that can give good arguments
for any of those too.
Some things prospective owners have to make their own
decision!

Jack Mac

[max]

> > And by the way, the "extra chromatic abberation" you speak of is blown WAY

> > out of proportion. Can there be CA? Sure. Does the C-5050 suffer from it
> > more than the G3? Maybe. But it really does depend on how well you know
> > the camera and are able to use it to its fullest advantage. Same goes for
> > the noise issue. For normal, regular size pics, taken properly, you're not
> > going to "see" any extra noise from the C-5050 (unless you really blow it
> > up). Is the noise really down deep in there? Probably so. But that seems
> > to be a bigger issue with 5MP than 4MP anyway. Just look at the G5! It's
> > supposed to be better than the G3, but it's got more "noise" than the
> > C-5050! And when you add in the better color of the C-5050, I'll still say
> > it easily holds its own to the G3, if not more so. That's why, after a LOT
> > of research on whether I should get the G3 or C-5050, I opted for the
> > C-5050. I added up all the pluses and minuses of both cameras and the
> > C-5050 won.

>
> All three of these cameras are good and they each have their strengths
> and weaknesses in image quality, and also differences in less
> quantifiable aspects like ergonomics.
>
> The best way to evaluate "real world" chromatic abberation and noise if
> you don't have the camera to test is to look at photos posted on sites
> like dpreview.com. Can you see chromatic abberation in any real world
> shots and if so is it frequent or rare? Look at the full size file on
> screen. The amount of noise can be judged pretty easily by looking for
> a grainy appearence in blue skies.
> --
> To email me use: sjusenet AT comcast DOT net

I have taken a number of shots with the G5 here:
[url]http://home19.inet.tele.dk/maxarte/g5paabali/index.htm?1[/url]

The pictures have been maipulated quite a bit, so you won't
see the CA, but all the pictures where people are wearing
white, t-shirts or hats, the prints show a lot of CA and softnes,
it bothers me, I had expected much better..

From now on I will use my S2, when it is not in the repairshop.
My daughter loves the G5, so the story has a happy end after all..
-max-

[Steve James]

max <ma22x@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have taken a number of shots with the G5 here:
> [url]http://home19.inet.tele.dk/maxarte/g5paabali/index.htm?1[/url]
>
> The pictures have been maipulated quite a bit, so you won't
> see the CA, but all the pictures where people are wearing
> white, t-shirts or hats, the prints show a lot of CA and softnes,
> it bothers me, I had expected much better..

Nice pictures! I can see some CA when I blow up the pictures, but they
have been downsized enough ( and maybe processed in other ways) that a
lot of is not visible or at least no more bothersome than the other
artifacts introduced by the downsizing and manipulation. If you can see
it in prints made from the full resolution file, that is definitely a
problem and quite disappointing I'm sure since this camera is great in
many other respects. I wonder if anyone has successfully returned this
camera because of this property.

--
To email me use: sjusenet AT comcast DOT net

[Chris Gunn]

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:07:41 -0600, "The Ruzicka Family"

>And by the way, the "extra chromatic abberation" you speak of is blown WAY
>out of proportion. Can there be CA? Sure. Does the C-5050 suffer from it
>more than the G3? Maybe. But it really does depend on how well you know

I haven't checked. I was talking about the G5. Haven't even looked at
the G5. I was mainly whining about the way people assume that more mp
means a cam must be better, when the lens may not be up to it, they
will be getting more noise, less dynamic range etc, and the difference
in res they will never notice even if it actually has any.

>the camera and are able to use it to its fullest advantage. Same goes for
>the noise issue. For normal, regular size pics, taken properly, you're not
>going to "see" any extra noise from the C-5050 (unless you really blow it
>up). Is the noise really down deep in there? Probably so. But that seems
>to be a bigger issue with 5MP than 4MP anyway. Just look at the G5! It's
>supposed to be better than the G3, but it's got more "noise" than the
>C-5050! And when you add in the better color of the C-5050, I'll still say
>it easily holds its own to the G3, if not more so. That's why, after a LOT
>of research on whether I should get the G3 or C-5050, I opted for the
>C-5050. I added up all the pluses and minuses of both cameras and the
>C-5050 won.

I would have gone that way myself in a flash. Probably. The G series
ND filter thing wierds me out.

Gunn

[Chris Gunn]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 06:53:52 +0200, "max" <ma22x@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>I have taken a number of shots with the G5 here:
>[url]http://home19.inet.tele.dk/maxarte/g5paabali/index.htm?1[/url]
>
>The pictures have been maipulated quite a bit, so you won't
>see the CA, but all the pictures where people are wearing
>white, t-shirts or hats, the prints show a lot of CA and softnes,
>it bothers me, I had expected much better..

Do you have an opinion on how it compase to the G3 or 5050?

>From now on I will use my S2, when it is not in the repairshop.
>My daughter loves the G5, so the story has a happy end after all..

What's wrong with the S2? Camera damage is a bugger.

GUnn

[David Oddie]

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 03:16:35 +1200, Chris Gunn
<gunncb@idontspamme.inet.net.nz> wrote:

>This would be an argument if the 602 160 iso were equal to the G3 80
>iso in terms of... I suppose noise?

That is where I am coming from. There seem few pro-sumer digicams
that do well when moved of the slowest ISO setting as regards noise.

So assuming you want to stick with the lowest ISO setting these two
cameras will offer you the same shutter speed when set to their
respective maximum apatures.

Dave

--
It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a
warning to others.

Remove the uppercase N O S P A M to reply via email.