Cheapie Digital Cameras (Again)

[l69norm]

Well, I've played around with various friends digital cameras:

4MP HP R507
5MP HP 945
5MP Canon A95
4MP Canon A85
6MP Canon SD630
4MP Kodak C330
6MP Kodak C643
3MP Canon S1IS

I could swear that my old Fujifilm Finepix 2600 2MP camera takes better pictures most of the time, about the same as the A85 and better than the A95. The S1 was in a class by itself.

When I say better, the color is more pleasing to the eye and comparble to what I remember of the scene. The sharpness also seems better although once blown up, the 2MP images pixelate very fast. The other cameras have pictures with washed out colors or what seems to be a softer image, although they are in focus.

Considering the 2600 was a near bottom of the line camera, I'm not really in a rush to upgrade anymore. Mind you that the newer cameras have nicer features and 2600 eats batteries, slow, terrible in the dark, etc. The S1 was very impressive considering it's only a 3MP camera.

I guess more MP isn't always better....

 

[MarkII]

Before you judge the camerass performance in terms of colour get a reference for what your monitor is actually showing. Print off a colour spectrum of some sort and then hold it up to the monitor to see how it compares. It may be your monitor that isn't close to being calibrated properly.

Also were the cameras in full auto? Was the white balance set on auto? And were they in shooting modes?

All of those can affect your picture.

 

[l69norm]

B..Also were the cameras in full auto? Was the white balance set on auto? ....

All cameras were in full auto, images printed as 4X6s. It more that the images seem to be "soft" from most of the other cameras compared to the Fuji. May be the Fuji does a lot of artificial edge sharpening?

I tend to look at the cheaper cameras so I can let the kids take it school and if they lose it or break it, it's not a big deal. I figure it's better to let the kids get a few 1/2 decent candid pictures rather than getting no pictures from a really decent camera that just ends up sitting in a drawer.

I'm almost tempted to try the F20 now that it's dropped in price (around $220). I toyed around with the idea of getting an E550 for $130 from TigerDirect. They also had a S9000 for $560 (that one wouldn't go to school).

 

[MarkII]

All cameras were in full auto, images printed as 4X6s. It more that the images seem to be "soft" from most of the other cameras compared to the Fuji. May be the Fuji does a lot of artificial edge sharpening?

I tend to look at the cheaper cameras so I can let the kids take it school and if they lose it or break it, it's not a big deal. I figure it's better to let the kids get a few 1/2 decent candid pictures rather than getting no pictures from a really decent camera that just ends up sitting in a drawer.

I'm almost tempted to try the F20 now that it's dropped in price (around $220). I toyed around with the idea of getting an E550 for $130 from TigerDirect. They also had a S9000 for $560 (that one wouldn't go to school).

All of the cameras have sharpening on jpeg images. The fuji you mentioned may indeed have more. But you do need to compare the printed images to your on screen image to get a sense of what the colour actually is. Are you printing them yourself or having them done at an outside lab?

Btw the sharpening and colour saturation is usuallly adjustable in most point and shoot cameras.

Since these cameras belonged to friends are you sure they have not adjusted these menu selections to their own preference? The camera needs to be reset to factory default to make a true comparison.

 

[l69norm]

..Are you printing them yourself or having them done at an outside lab?..The camera needs to be reset to factory default to make a true comparison.

Prints are from Costco.

I just realized that you are right.

The 2MP images are 700KB each while the 6MP images are 900KB-1MB. The other cameras are compressing the jpgs a lot more than the Fuji is and that's probably where the "sharpness" is being lost.

My math must be really out today. The Fuji puts 166 pictures of 2MP each on a 128MB SM card while a Kodak puts 460 images 6MP each on a 512MB SD card. The Kodak is compressing the image 3X more than the Fuji is

The much older Fuji probably has a very slow CPU so it probably can't handle much compression.

So there's more than meets the eye to MP count.

 

[MarkII]

Prints are from Costco.

I just realized that you are right.

The 2MP images are 700KB each while the 6MP images are 900KB-1MB. The other cameras are compressing the jpgs a lot more than the Fuji is and that's probably where the "sharpness" is being lost.

The older Fuji probably has a very slow CPU so it can't handle much compression?

No I don't think thats it.

Look at the MP size. At 2 it's 700, at 6 it's 900-1Mb. The ratio is off. The cameras were not set to the same file or image size.

All PS cameras will allow you to select the image quality. The cameras were not on the largest settings, hence your quality difference.

 

[l69norm]

..All PS cameras will allow you to select the image quality. The cameras were not on the largest settings, hence your quality difference...

I just checked all the Kodak images which range from 900KB to 1.4MB, they are all 2848 X 2134 pixels which is 6MP. Most files are under 1MB with the odd file over 1MB

All the Fuji images are 1600X1200 pixels which is 2MP with a file size about 700KB

 

[MarkII]

I just checked all the Kodak images which range from 900KB to 1.4MB, they are all 2848 X 2134 pixels which is 6MP. Most files are under 1MB with the odd file over 1MB

All the Fuji images are 1600X1200 pixels which is 2MP with a file size about 700KB

Al the cameras were not set to the highest image quality. Thats the reason for the sharpness discrepancy.

You also have to look at what colour space they were using. Were some on AdobeRGB1968 or were some on RGBS. There is a huge difference there as well. One is for printing the other is for web use and usees far less colours.

We'll continue this tomorrow and figure it out. Tired and off to bed!

 

[l69norm]

Al the cameras were not set to the highest image quality. Thats the reason for the sharpness discrepancy...We'll continue this tomorrow and figure it out. Tired and off to bed!

On the PC, the images are being viewed with MS Picture Manager.

Just for comparison with the photos I have handy,
Camera..................Size...........Avg.........Low.......High
4MP Kodak...........2304X1728...700 KB....550KB.....800KB
No-name 3MP.......2048X1536....600KB....500KB.....800KB
HP 4MP...............2304X1728....900KB.....800KB....1.2MB
Kodak 6MP...........2848X2134....1MB.......900KB.....1.4MB
Fuji 2MP..............1600X1200....700KB.....650KB.....800KB

 

[Robio]

I used shoppers before and the prints were really good I used an under water digital cam from pentax but you can get the non under water one for much less same optics and electronics. the only feature it doesn't have that I know youe film Camera doesn't is a time base corrector what that is is when your not steady taking the shot it corrects for that

http://www.factorydirect.ca/catalog/product_spec.php?pcode=PX6000

http://www.factorydirect.ca/catalog/product_spec.php?pcode=PX2020

the fist link is a really small one to

 

[tboy]

Just another point no one has addressed yet in regards to sharpness:

Lens quality. This is THE most important factor in sharpness and detail capture. Many cheapo (and not so cheap) cameras come with a plastic lens which makes for a crap image.

Just remember that there is more to a camera than MP......

To accurately compare cameras and their images you would have to set up a studio shot where the light conditions would never change. Then shoot the same subject with the camera in the same position and have all the settings in the camera set the same.

Then either print or have each print processed at the same place, directly behind each other. You could still end up with different image quality due to the chemicals being older with each successive print, but that would be negligible at best....

 

[Robio]

Optics /Lens was mentioned

I mentioned Optics which would be the lens and more you right the optics is inportant I have seen 3 mega pixes look better then 7 mega pixels

Just another point no one has addressed yet in regards to sharpness:

Lens quality. This is THE most important factor in sharpness and detail capture. Many cheapo (and not so cheap) cameras come with a plastic lens which makes for a crap image.

Just remember that there is more to a camera than MP......

To accurately compare cameras and their images you would have to set up a studio shot where the light conditions would never change. Then shoot the same subject with the camera in the same position and have all the settings in the camera set the same.

Then either print or have each print processed at the same place, directly behind each other. You could still end up with different image quality due to the chemicals being older with each successive print, but that would be negligible at best....

 

[Swerve69]

For my money, the Canon SD600 has to be the best camera in it's class right now. $299 most places and incredible image quality, great battery life and superb overall quality.

 

[Anynym]

If you're printing pictures at home, remember that you don't want your printer driver to have to resample the images to the output (printer) resolution. Most printer drivers use a simplistic interpolation algorithm which results in excessive pixellation.

Some software, such as Adobe's Photoshop or the GIMP, use a much more refined algorithm for adjusting the resolution as you resize the photo, but still leave the printer driver to deal with the printer's native resolution.

There is also software which does a great job at managing the printing of photos, such as QImage: http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

For a further description, see: http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/quality/

Most photolabs will use equipment which does a similar resampling, so they shouldn't be an issue.

 

[peteeey]

Great buy when you consider you'll most likely have to buy a charger, batteries, memory and a carrying case. This works out to around $246 with tax.

http://adencamera.com/prod-overview.asp?ProdID=1461&Category=1