2 or 3 Megapixel camera?

[eden]

Eden, in all honesty, you probably shouldn’t make crummy nighttime concert-lighting situations one of the major criteria in the purchase of a fairly inexpensive consumer-level digital camera

You've certainly got a point!
Albeit I admit having put this reason on the foreground, I really just wanted to generalize by saying I want better night exposure or dark-lighted exposure.

For low-light situations, the factor that may be different on your choices and that will give you more help is a lower minimum f-stop number, which will allow for faster shutter speeds, to help reduce/eliminate blur in those situations.

Is aperture size also a helper here? I've read on professional Digicam sites that the smaller the F factor, the bigger the aperture can be, letting more light in. I am still new to this lingo though I am reading often lately to learn more about how it works.
Of course if you want, I could link you to one sample scanned pic of my Avril concert, so you can see just how bad it was. The problem, and I have to say I dare give you a 100% guarantee on this, is definitely camera. It's about 10 years old, the front of the flash looks burned (the plastic or cover in front of the lights), and recently taken pics of my graduation party, revealed some areas even with good light turned dim and worse than when there was less light. Simply put, the camera has to go. It has no features really, just shoot and you're done. I doubt it has any focus or macro.

Plus, you gotta consider that many concerts have rules about flash, and you’d probably have to be the band’s photographer to do much about using a setup like this there

Although I may not go to more concerts in my life than 2-3 really, and I've already said I shouldn't really take THIS criteria in digicam purchasing, I just wanted to add that flash was indeed allowed at the concert. As I may have outlined before, I was in the center floor crowd, standing, about 6 meters away from the stage. Even pics where she was close turned out horrible. Of course I didn't have zooming in that camera as well, and I think it may have done a great deal of help if I could've had some closer shot of her. Indeed shutter speed is a must as well in such situations, as I can't really take a pic of a singer standing for long unless he's sitting.

Try to get more than a 64-MB card.

Although I appreciate the suggestion, really, more than 50 pics on 3MP resolution best quality (about 1.2MB each), is more than enough. We rarely take more than 36 pics per film for any occasion. We develop photos about each 2 months. Plus considering I will quickly transfer my photos into the PC, I really do have a lot of choice in making sure those I want developped. So really, 64MB SHOULD be plentiful. I'm already on a budget and any more spending would become a lot. All I need is a cheap Canadian priced battery charger and rechargeables.
One question though, can I copy back some photos on the comp, to the memory cell, in case I chose x pic to be developped but had already transfered it onto the comp and deleted it off the card? And can they still be viewed in the LCD?

Extra battery/batteries really are a consideration for any photographer, though. I keep 2 extra sets in my camera bag at all times.

Snot a problem man, I will make sure we have backup. I am though, by no means a hardcore photographer, I just open a cam, take pics, turn it off and move on really. I do imagine though that using a digicam is different as your way of using a camera changes when you feel you got so much features and options to playback, on a digicam.

Thanks for the help Auburn!
If I am not mistaken you are a photgrapher or something along the lines, right?

--
I am my own competition. -VJK

 

[Auburn9698]

A small aperture (which lets in less light and results in longer exposure times, but more depth of field) is associated with a higher f-stop number, like 22 or 32. A wide aperture (more light, faster shutter, and less depth of field) is associated with a lower f-stop number, like 2.8.

The lower this minimum number for your setup, the quicker a shutterspeed possible for the same situation. In other words, a point n' shoot digital with that goes down to f8 will allow for faster possible shutter speeds than one that only goes down to f11, given the same shooting situation.

You ever seen a science fiction movie where a spaceship has one of those round doors, that closes kind of like some spiral-looking thing? Think of a wide aperture (small fstop #) being where that door is mostly open. A pretty small aperture (higher fstop #)is where that door is mostly closed, with just a small round hole open in the middle.

Yeah, you can swap em back n forth. I have.

Sure, throw me a link to the pics.

The fill flash on any point n' shoot, digital or film, has a maximum range of about 6, maybe 10 feet (~2 to 3 meters).

Yeah, I've been known to tinker with a camera from time to time.

<A HREF="http/www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Auburn9698 on 07/01/03 03:42 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[eden]

I previously used Steves Digicams and DCRessource for reviews. Google just wouldn't yeild any other actual professional review site!
Thanks for the site man!

--
I am my own competition. -VJK

 

[eden]

LOL, I just forgot that your bio mentioned that, ehehe.

--
I am my own competition. -VJK

 

[Auburn9698]

Yeah, I was wondering about that. Thought maybe you'd temporarily gone blind to the color blue.

<A HREF="http/www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>

 

[eden]

Well, for the moment, the D 560 Zoom from Olympus seems damn attractive according to Imaging Resource's review. They seem to praise its detail and accuracy, while it lacking the optical viewfinder frame accuracy. It seems to do fairly well in dim-lighted moments.
Now, if noise worsens usually an image's detail, then why is a high ISO helping in night scenes if it only noises images?


--
I am my own competition. -VJK

 

[Auburn9698]

Not sure how much noise you'll get with that certain model, but shooting at a setting on a digital comparable to a higher ISO film speed helps in dim light situations where you need speed.

Just like 400-speed film will show higher grain, but better performance in low-light conditions, than 100-speed or lower film.

Olympus is making good digitals right now.

<A HREF="http/www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Auburn9698 on 07/01/03 10:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[CompSci]

Some friends have the Olympus D460Zoom, only a 1.3, but Good cam! Sharp Pics!
And i neededa replacement stock for an old Ithaca shotgun, and the gunsmith/stockfitter sent me pics from his Oly D460Zoom showing the available blanks and detailed inletting fittings. Killer pics with Excelent detail! Olympus makes a good DigiCam. They definitey get the picture across...
If Oly D560Z is anything like D460Z, it's gonna take excelent pics.

But i noticed the D570Zoom and the A303 are both xD picture card memory!
If your gonna consider xD memory - ya gotta consider tha Fuji 2650Zoom also...
Its onhellofa digicam, i have the 2600, same cam just smartcard, and Love It!
Plus, Fuji 2650Zoom is in your budget <$200 bucks! And comes with Good fast charger and 1 set of Good recharable batteries(1800's)!
Order from <A HREF="http/www.buydig.com/shop.php?prod_id=FJFINEPIX2650&adv=bizrate" target="_new">BuyDig.com</A> at $171 To Your Door!

(or reference current image-resourges. I bought/ordered mine thru BuyDigi.com last year too. No problems, shipped well padded with original unopened factory packed inside that! I think BuyDig is in NJersey, probably ships to Canada no extra)
At ~$171, that Fiji 2650Zoom is real Nice Cam, Package and Price...
Read the <A HREF="http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F2650/F265A.HTM" target="_new">Review</A> on the 2650 on image-resource - Conclusion - "Clearly one of the better bargains on the market."

If anything happened to my 2600Zoom, I'd replace it with a 2650 in a heart beat and never even consider more MPix...

You'll see, Everybody i know sets their digicams back to 1.3 and 1290*980
anyway! 1290*980 is the best working resolution for practical use! Even at that your gonna be screen capturing your pics to even smaller clips and images for including in Docs, Webpages and Email...
Believe me! Your gonna be usin "Clip'nSav" or some other screen capture program to capture, Drag, Drop and Size the image/pics anyway! A 2.1MPix/1600*1200 is a phonominal image and 1.3/1290*980 is more than enough! If Digicam makers would enable 1024*768, I and most would be usin that! Besides, anythin more than your current screen resolution is shrunk by the software - think about it! Is your current or planned purchase for screen resoultion over 1600*1200? Or even capable of 1600*1200?

Stay in Budget,
Just buy that 2650zoom, has everything ya need to get a good start!
I did and would do it again!

2.1 MPix - More than Enough!

 

[eden]

Hehe, my resolution is 1024*768 and I wouldn't move any higher without a bigger monitor than 17".

The thing is, when checking how resizing from 2.1MP pics to 1024*768 and from 3.3MP to 1024*768, there is a noticeable difference, which is why I moved up the scale range to higher megapixels so that resizing is better (sharper). If ya can convince me with some sample pics that 1024*768 will still be as exact, then I might reconsider. I just need excellent photo-quality 4*6 as my current film camera can do (albeit it isn't any good anymore). I doubt I'll ever even touch 8*10.
Problem is I notice good 2.1MP cams seem to love gracing the range of pricing of entry-level 3.3 ones like the Olympus one.

I will check and read on the review of the Fuji now.

--
I am my own competition. -VJK

 

[CompSci]

OK, Ill illustrate - MPix really has very little to do with good sharp pic...

Put these two images up in two different browser instances, so ya can scroll en both around to the same part of the pic and compare protions of each side by side...

This is the Oly D560Zoom, 3.3m Pix, really showing glass and focusing ability
<A HREF="http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D560/FULLRES/D56MAC.HTM" target="_new">http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D560/FULLRES/D56MAC.HTM</A>

This is the Fiji 2650 Zoom, a lessor 2.1 MPix, yet a clearer, sharper pic!
<A HREF="http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F2650/FULLRES/F265MAC.HTM" target="_new">http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F2650/FULLRES/F265MAC.HTM</A>

Now you Tell me! Which is the sharper pic! The Fuji 2650, By Far!
The Fiji blows the Oly away! - with better Glass quality, Focus, Sensitivity and its entire capture ability! The sharper image even though lessor MPix, will shrink to a better smaller image simply because it has better detail to start with...
Ain't no way ya can get good detail if it wasn't there to start with!!!
A bigger MPix image is just a big sloppy picture if it's not combined with the glass, focus and ability to capture! Just look at the detail and clairaty of the engravings on the bill in comparison!

I don't really want to convince ya into any particular digicam, but i will share what i've learned... That little Fuji will embarrass a whole lot of 3, 4 and 5 MPix cams...

Check this out - Even a an old <A HREF="http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC240/FULLRES/D24MALF.HTM" target="_new">1.3 Kodak DC240 Zoom</A>, which was a suprizingly good cam, has better glass, focus and makes better pics than most! That's 1.3 - and ya just don't really need a better picture and detail than that!

Whatdoya think about that?

 

[CompSci]

As another Quick example... use
(this is to show the same works for non-macro shots also...)

Nikon, 3.3 Mp Coolpix 3100 - a Good 3Mp cam...
<A HREF="http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31HMWB.HTM" target="_new">http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CP3100/FULLRES/CP31HMWB.HTM</A>

and a good ole
Kodak 1.3MP DC240Zoom
<A HREF="http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC240/FULLRES/D24HALF.HTM" target="_new">http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/DC240/FULLRES/D24HALF.HTM</A>

Notice the top roofline across the span of the house. The old Kodak, while smaller just has better focus and less blurred detail image. The same is noticeabe in the arched window on the left sife of the house and the arched laid bricks above the window - better, sharper focus with the much lessor MPix digicam! When sized down to a reasonable presentation size the 1.3 image will size down better than the 3.3! Actually, the bricks right above the arched window really show the better focus from the Kodak 1.3 compared to the blur of the Nikon 3.3!

Now capture (with like ClipnSav) and drop the same clip from both in a doc and size em the same, one above the other at aprox 5*7 size - and compare yourself!

Just MPix can't compare to Good Glass!, Focus! and Capture ability.
A good 1.3, at 1290*980 is all ya Need!
With any good cam ya pick you'll be settin it back to 1.3 for simple comvienience with no image loss... Perhaps even better than a biger Mp image cause it needs less size modification and any immage modification does cause some immage imprefections!

1.3 is all ya need with any good digcam!
Whatdoya think?

 

[eden]

This is the Oly D560Zoom, 3.3m Pix, really showing glass and focusing ability
http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D560/FULLRES/D56MAC.HTM

This is the Fiji 2650 Zoom, a lessor 2.1 MPix, yet a clearer, sharper pic!
http/www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/F2650/FULLRES/F265MAC.HTM

I've read both reviews, and the reason for the second one being better is simply because the 560 just isn't equipped with a good macro focusing! It has a maximum of 20cm, while the Fuji is around 10cm IIRC. Both pics show that one is closer than the other.
I couldn't help but notice a lot of barrel distortion as well on it. I usually set as background each pic I am looking at, as most 2.1 or 3.3MP pics are more than 2 times bigger than my IE screen and of course at 1024*768, these huge pics look blurry, until I set it as background, it resizes to 1024*768 and I can clearly see which is better. I've been so far very satisfied with the 560's sharpness, but mostly the night shots. The Fuji, according to test results and the very last picture, is very weak at it. I really am shooting for something that will give me significantly better image clarity as well as brightness at night than my old cam did.


To your second post:
Upon inspection, I still felt the Nikon being much better in color and detail. I want vibrance and most of the 3MP cameras I've so far seen, in sample pictures have excellent detail.
And like I said, it's resizing from a resolution more than twice the size of the desktop one that makes the pixel-per-inch detail much better.
The thing is, image quality in the end, is relative. I do feel like those I've seen are accurate and good for me, and resizing from a 3.3MP picture yeilded the best 1024*768 image for me. I'll have to continue looking around though, nonetheless. I'm far from even decided.
--
I am my own competition. -VJK<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 07/02/03 08:13 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[CompSci]

If you see the difference, and stuff ya like in those sample pics then youve done your homework. Now all we need is budjet! There's really good stuff out there and a digicam is really a tool. Theyre great for webwork, docs, presentation, records and cuttin and pastin in htmlformat/richtext email. Get a cam and your pushin pics everywhere... and a lota fun.

If ya think ya like em now, wait till ya pulg one in.
Go get one, plug in and post us a Pic!

 

[bw37]

Eden,

Fun watching this old thread spring back to life!

To restate a point I made in my earlier post (long ago now!) in this thread: another advantage of higher MP is that the digital zoom actually is of some use. This assumes you will be shooting in less than full res mode. I still mostly shoot my 3.2 MP Canon S30 at 1024 x 768 which supports CompSci's contention that you don't really need high MP to get good pics for computer and e-mail use. However, the 3 MP of my camera gives me a "no loss" 6X zoom at this resolution though my optical zoom is only 3X.

You're coming up to speed nicely, and will find something you like in the end.

BW

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bw37 on 07/02/03 10:01 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[aashtonkrock]

The Cannon s230 is a nice 3.2 Megapixel camera. You should be able to print up 8x10 without much trouble. I just got on on e-bay for $320 and I've been impressed with the quality. Also picted up a few extra batteries for $5 a piece.

Read the review at http/www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s230-review/index.html

It also has some reviews on other small camera with good quality, I found the review for this camera to be the most favorable.

 

[Auburn9698]

<A HREF="http/www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_s230-review/index.html" target="_new">Clickable version</A>


<A HREF="http/www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>

 

[sirak]

I think people overlook Sony digital cameras. I've used several and own one, which has worked really well for me. It is a 3.2 mp Sony Cybershot P-52. I bought it for ~$275. Apart from decent pictures it can take mpegs which surprised me in terms of quality (considering it is a bonus feature). It all boils down to which one you like the look of, but don't overlook Sony.

 

[purplexed]

I just read the reviews on the digital cams on tomshardware, and I really like the Canon Powershot A70 wich got the editors choice. anyway the only thing that bothers me is the ISO, it's from 50 to 400. not I always use 400 for my manual 35mm old reflex cam,and I was actually wanting to try even higher ISO,like a 800.

what I would like to do is take some of those pics you see in fancy travel magazines, of city lights at nighttime, for example the lamps on a Paris bridge, or the colored lights of a bistrot tables. I've been told I'd need a high ISO and a tripod to let the camera get some light.Is it actually possible with a 3Mp cam like the Canon , wich has the higher ISO as 400, take a pic like that? Or to use digital at night ,you need a professional camera with a higher ISO?

actually I still haven't tried with my analog one, so maybe it's not even possible with mine either.

 

[Auburn9698]

I've gotten fine results with those situations using 400-speed film. If your subject is stationary, what's more important than the ISO rating is keeping the camera stable on a tripod. Your shutter will just be open longer. It's more when you get into action shots that the ISO speed will become a factor.

<A HREF="http/www.phototalk.net/photos/showgallery.php?cat=3394&ppuser=663" target="_new">My phototalk gallery</A>
<font color=blue>War</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Eagle</font color=orange>

 

[eden]

Speaking of the article, did anybody notice how unprofessional THG's review of the digicams (first time it grabbed my attention to read such) was?
I mean, no image quality shot comparisons, no pics of close-ups of each camera, no nitpicking, barely anything to show their test results. While their ranking was agreeable, knowing that the A70 is definitely one of the most praised 3MP cameras out there, I could only feel -after having read so many professional reviews from you guys- that this is trash at best, relatively.
I just felt it was empty and it simply is not in any way an article to rely on to help in a purchase.
What did you all think of it?

--
<A HREF="http/www.lochel.com/THGC/html/news.html" target="_new"><font color=red><b>Join the Tom's Hardware Guide Community Photo album, send us your pics!</font color=red></b></A>