Professional Web Applications Themes

new digital cameras - Photography

I've got a Olympus 2020Z and haven't looked at cameras lately. Very happy with what I've got. But I'm wondering if the 3/4/5 megapixel models are that much better. What does 'effective' pixel mean? How can they be so cheap compared to what they used to cost? Are SLR digitals better? Thanks, if you can help with any of this : -)...

  1. #1

    Default new digital cameras

    I've got a Olympus 2020Z and haven't looked
    at cameras lately. Very happy with what I've
    got. But I'm wondering if the 3/4/5 megapixel
    models are that much better. What does
    'effective' pixel mean? How can they be so cheap
    compared to what they used to cost? Are
    SLR digitals better?
    Thanks, if you can help with any of this
    : -)


    Not Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: new digital cameras

    Not so quick wrote: 

    Easy to answer:
    They are, only if you feel like printing the photos
    (or getting them printed) though. More Pixels
    per picture = more dots per inch possible when
    printing = higher "print resolution" = smoother
    picture.
    You can get the same picture printed on a larger
    sheet at the same quality than before.
     

    Easy as well: A drastic increase in sales lead to
    a larger production rate. -> They can cover their
    research and other costs more easily and therfore
    can afford to drop the prices.
     

    Depending on what you want to do: Yes. It's about
    the same as the comparison as compact camera to
    SLR in the og camera sector, I'd say.

    Hope that helped you. Mathias.






    Mathias Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: new digital cameras

    The voices in the head of Not so quick uttered these words to the
    inhabitants of alt.photography.
     

    Just remember that the higher the pixel count, the finer the resolution
    (more detail can be captured). As for DSLRs, The idea is exactly the same
    as a film SLR. You view, focus, meter and shoot through the same lens. The
    down side is that they become more complex and heavier than renge finder
    types. Range finder types don't take worse pictures and DSLR's don't take
    better pictures just because they are what they are. The SLR format makes
    it easier to compose your image, especially in extreme focus ranges (macro
    and long telephoto. They also provide more options of exposure control over
    more simple cameras. It all depends on what tool do you need to accomplish
    the task and how much you are willing to spend to accomplish the task and
    quality of the finished product.

    --

    Robert S. Ely (Bob)
    net state.nj.us
    New Lisbon Developmental Center Communications Systems Technician-3
    Work Phone: 1-609-894-4057 Work FAX: 1-609-726-0357
    ICQ: 33390750 Yahoo Messenger: rsely74
    MSN Messenger: com

    Check out my photos:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?AcctID=4359
    (Bob) Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: new digital cameras

    Not so quick wrote:
     

    I totally understand where you're coming from. I have an Olympus 2040Z.
    They are great cameras with very good optics, compared to the cheap
    2.1 mega pixel cameras you can pick up for $100 now days.

    One thing you have probably noticed, as I have, is that under certain
    conditions the photos are a bit grainy. Pixel grainy. A little
    Photoshop tweaking can help, but you run the risk of loosing details. I
    especially notice the graininess in sky shots.

    The more megapixels the less this graininess should exist. There are
    more pixels to display the same amount of color information, thus, in
    theory, the image should be sharper.

    The CCDs on the newer cameras are very likely to be new generation
    technology as well, thus it's very possible they will be able to capture
    the light more effectively and efficiently than our older camera CCDs.

    I won't comment much on the SLRs because I know very little about them,
    but the fact you can use traditional lenses goes a long way in my book.
    I believe your 2020 is like my 2040 in that it has threads for
    additional lenses, but they are specialized lenses that cost nearly as
    much as traditional SLR lenses. As they are worthless on the newer
    Olympus cameras I wouldn't think they'd be worth the money. They
    haven't been for me.

    My understanding is that even the newer C series Olympus cameras are
    like this. So there, I suspect is going to be your biggest trade-off,
    at least from the start, lenses. The new C-5060 has a 4X optical zoom,
    but thats only 1X more than my 2040. I rarely use the digital zoom as
    the pictures suffer dramatically in quality.

    As for "effective" megapixels; I had to do some research on this one,
    and what I've determined is that the effective megapixels is what you
    would get from the camera if you downloaded the images off it the
    'normal' way. The camera is effectively cropping the image for you.
    The outlying pixels may not be as 'clean' as the 'effective' ones. You
    may have noticed a lot of talk about RAW exports into Photoshop. The
    raw format is just that, raw pixels from the camera, no pre-cropping.
    You're effectively taking advantage of all the megapixels the CCD is
    capable of capturing. You'll likely still have to do some manual
    cropping, but you'll get a few more pixels out of the deal most likely.

    Ok I've babbled long enough. I hope what I said was at least a little
    useful. LOL

    Marc

    SkinAy Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: new digital cameras


    "Not so quick" <com> wrote in message
    news:HQQfb.14276$.. 
    Ratehr obvious as to how they can be so cheap. Isn't that the way things in both
    computers and digital cameras as well as PDA's, VCR's,DVD players as well as
    many other electronic devices go with a short half life.
    Depending on what you are doing with your camera the need for more mega pixels
    may or may not be necessary.
    I for one produce slide shows for use with a DVD player. Sort of got rid of the
    many albums and hot and noisy projector to view slides with.
    When I want a hard copy I write the file to a CF card and have one made via a
    Fuji Frontier machine for .29 cents.
    However this is not to say that I also do not make large prints to hang on the
    wall, which is why I like my Olympus C5050Z.
    As to digital SLR's, IMHO at this point in time I would wait to see if a full
    size CMOS or CCD is produced so as not to wipe out the wider end of the focal
    length range.
    Just my thoughts on the question.

    Ed


    EktarEd Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: new digital cameras


    Thanks for you replies. They all helped. I appreciate it.
    I won't be hesitant to buy an newer model thinking that
    Olympus was putting out a new, somehow inferior product.
    : -)


    "Not so quick" <com> wrote in message
    news:HQQfb.14276$.. 


    Not Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: new digital cameras

    Not so quick ... :-)
    Pixels are not everything !!!

    The Nikon D1H has 2.7 Megapixels and can hold it's own against most
    cameras.

    Here is a cut and paste from another poster !!!

    ______________________________

    There are plenty of people out there with 1D and D1h cameras getting
    professional results. Megapixels ain't everything, the sensor quality is a
    big one. The size of the photosites on the sensor are a big part of how well
    the image will upscale. My D1h has fairly large ones due to being only 2.7mp
    on the 1.5x sized CCD, and believe it or not, the prints I've printed are
    better from it than my 6mpixel D100 (I haven't gone further than 8x12"
    though - never had a need to). I'd expect the Canon 1D to be about the same
    or even better with the 1.3x sized sensor with 4mp.

    Of course more resolution won't hurt, but the current tools are still very
    good.
    __________________________________


    So lets not fall for the trap. Look at actual prints, and visit
    http://www.dpreview.com

    Giorgis









    "Not so quick" <com> wrote in message
    news:CO1gb.14794$.. 
    >
    >[/ref]


    Giorgis Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: new digital cameras

    Not so quick wrote:
     

    If you only show your pictures on a tv or computer
    screen, 4+ megapixel images might actually be too
    large and you would have to resize them. Although
    resizing a 4+ mp shot into a 2 mp one with a fine
    piece of software like Adobe Photoshop produces
    slightly better results than directly from a 2mp camera,
    I don't think investing in new digital equipment would
    make much economic sense.

    If, on the other hand, you print your photos, then
    the advantage of newer, higher resolution digicameras
    becomes obvious, especially with prints larger than
    6x4.
     

    The ones that are actually used.
     

    Because they make a lot more digital cameras
    today than they used to.
     

    Way better. The sensors are much larger and most
    models feature a "noise reduction" system which, at
    least by my experience with the Nikon D100, is
    TREMENDOUSLY effective. Also, a DSLR gives
    you access to REAL lenses, and not only whatever
    the manufacturer chose to fit its digicamera with. I have
    compared my D100 to a friend's Canon EOS 10D and
    I can tell you that the performance is quite similar. I
    bought the D100 because I've always used Nikon SLR's
    and I own quite a collection of lenses. Due to the large
    choice/availability of lenses, I would limit my range of
    DSLR candidates to these two manufacturers (and
    models, unless you are a pro who needs an extremely
    rugged camera.)

    Previously, I used an Olympus E10, which was an
    excellent digicamera, but the built-in lens was no match
    even for a third-party SLR zoom (Sigma, Tamron etc.),
    let alone for my Nikkor primes.

    My $.02, of course. :-)


    Paolo Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: new digital cameras


    "Paolo Pizzi" <net> wrote in message
    news:Hhmgb.8032$news.prodigy.com... 
    >
    > If you only show your pictures on a tv or computer
    > screen, 4+ megapixel images might actually be too
    > large and you would have to resize them. Although
    > resizing a 4+ mp shot into a 2 mp one with a fine
    > piece of software like Adobe Photoshop produces
    > slightly better results than directly from a 2mp camera,
    > I don't think investing in new digital equipment would
    > make much economic sense.
    >
    > If, on the other hand, you print your photos, then
    > the advantage of newer, higher resolution digicameras
    > becomes obvious, especially with prints larger than
    > 6x4.

    >
    > The ones that are actually used.

    >
    > Because they make a lot more digital cameras
    > today than they used to.

    >
    > Way better. The sensors are much larger and most
    > models feature a "noise reduction" system which, at
    > least by my experience with the Nikon D100, is
    > TREMENDOUSLY effective. Also, a DSLR gives
    > you access to REAL lenses, and not only whatever
    > the manufacturer chose to fit its digicamera with. I have
    > compared my D100 to a friend's Canon EOS 10D and
    > I can tell you that the performance is quite similar. I
    > bought the D100 because I've always used Nikon SLR's
    > and I own quite a collection of lenses. Due to the large
    > choice/availability of lenses, I would limit my range of
    > DSLR candidates to these two manufacturers (and
    > models, unless you are a pro who needs an extremely
    > rugged camera.)
    >
    > Previously, I used an Olympus E10, which was an
    > excellent digicamera, but the built-in lens was no match
    > even for a third-party SLR zoom (Sigma, Tamron etc.),
    > let alone for my Nikkor primes.
    >
    > My $.02, of course. :-)
    >
    >[/ref]

    Thanks to everyone who responded. You kept me
    from buying an Olympus for now but I do think that
    it would have been a good choice but maybe not
    as good as a model that would allow for 3rd party
    lenses...

    How does the noise reduction work?
    : -)



    Not Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: new digital cameras

    Not so quick wrote:
     

    I don't know the technical details (I believe they are
    still a trade secret), but I can tell you that it really does
    work. You can crank up the ISO to 800, shoot in low
    light and get little or no noise at all. That of course means
    you can use a relatively slow (i.e. affordable) telephoto
    zoom and get almost the same results as if you were using
    an $8,000 lens. With minimal Photoshop work, you could
    even use the 1600 ISO setting and still get more than
    acceptable results.

    Think of the possibilities...


    Paolo Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: new digital cameras


    "Paolo Pizzi" <net> wrote in message
    news:rSngb.10054$2%news.prodigy.com... 
    >
    > I don't know the technical details (I believe they are
    > still a trade secret), but I can tell you that it really does
    > work. You can crank up the ISO to 800, shoot in low
    > light and get little or no noise at all. That of course means
    > you can use a relatively slow (i.e. affordable) telephoto
    > zoom and get almost the same results as if you were using
    > an $8,000 lens. With minimal Photoshop work, you could
    > even use the 1600 ISO setting and still get more than
    > acceptable results.
    >
    > Think of the possibilities...
    >
    >[/ref]

    I've been taking digital pics of regular
    photos. The blue channel has a lot of
    garbage in it. Do you think that is
    because of not enough light?


    Not Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: new digital cameras

    Not so quick wrote:
     

    Actually, it might be the opposite.
    It sounds like you have something that
    reflects much of the blue spectrum into
    the sensor. Do you shoot under the sun?
    In that case, the culprit might be the sky...
    If you want to duplicate photos with a
    digicamera, never shoot under direct
    sunlight. A cloudy sky would be much
    better, or you might consider shooting
    in the shade (in either case, don't forget
    to recalibrate the white balance.) You'd
    get the best results, however, using a copy
    stand with a couple of decent lights. Don't
    forget to change the settings (white balance
    etc.) on the digicamera or you will get a
    funny color tint.

    Hope it helps.


    Paolo Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: new digital cameras

    "Paolo Pizzi" <net> wrote in
    news:rSngb.10054$2%news.prodigy.com:
     
    >
    > I don't know the technical details (I believe they are
    > still a trade secret)[/ref]

    According to dprewiew.com:
    "This has been implemented with the dark frame subtraction method, the
    camera takes a second dark frame exposure after the main shot which it uses
    to detect and subtract noise from the main shot."

    --
    Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm>

    Matti Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: new digital cameras


    "Paolo Pizzi" <net> wrote in message
    news:uqZjb.523$news.prodigy.com... 
    >
    > Actually, it might be the opposite.
    > It sounds like you have something that
    > reflects much of the blue spectrum into
    > the sensor. Do you shoot under the sun?
    > In that case, the culprit might be the sky...
    > If you want to duplicate photos with a
    > digicamera, never shoot under direct
    > sunlight. A cloudy sky would be much
    > better, or you might consider shooting
    > in the shade (in either case, don't forget
    > to recalibrate the white balance.) You'd
    > get the best results, however, using a copy
    > stand with a couple of decent lights. Don't
    > forget to change the settings (white balance
    > etc.) on the digicamera or you will get a
    > funny color tint.
    >
    > Hope it helps.
    >
    >[/ref]

    I'm using a copy stand with an incandescent
    light and I've tried fluorescent but I have
    no idea about the "color" of the light sources
    although I'm vaguely aware that such a thing
    exists. The pictures don't have any weird
    tints, at least after I adjust them. But even
    after adjustment the blue channel is very
    murky.

    Thanks for trying to help me. : -)


    Not Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: new digital cameras

    Not so quick wrote:
     

    Then it might be a problem with your camera.
     

    That's what we're here for... ;-)


    Paolo Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Contrast with digital cameras
    By Scottie_G.@adobeforums.com in forum Adobe Photoshop Mac CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 98
    Last Post: May 10th, 11:59 PM
  2. Importing Images From Digital Cameras
    By Mike Cachia in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: October 20th, 12:39 PM
  3. Digital Cameras and Accessories
    By Sam in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 24th, 09:15 AM
  4. New digital cameras?
    By Kyle Peterson in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 12th, 06:13 PM
  5. digital cameras/airport x-ray
    By Terry K. in forum Photography
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 13th, 09:02 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139