pixesl vs zoom

[Ken Morris83006]

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget. ($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens. I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks in advance for opions.

 

[Melanie Kipp]

Ken ,

my site is 98% c-2100 images...which print beautifully... you and I shoot similar subjects....

You'll love it if you get an Oly C-2100 UZ....--Please visit me at: http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[bob d]

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the
c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it
is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget.
($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens.
I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks
in advance for opions.

You definitely want to go with more pixels and not more zoom. The standard 3X zoom on 3.3MP cameras is enough for most purposes. More zoom generall means an inferior lens unless it's a really expensive lense. (The Sony F707 has a great lens that is 5X zoom).

You definitely should look into the 3.3MP cameras that are rated highly on this site. You may find bargains. Lots of new models coming out, maybe prices are lower on the older ones now.

 

[Rodger Carter]

To compare the capability of digicams with various lens maximum focal lengths and CCD pixels to determine which will do the best job for distant subjects such as wildlife is relatively easy. To do so, use a simple formula such as the Figure of Merit (FM). You merely square the maximum focal length of the cameras in mm and multiply by the number of pixels in the CCDs. The resulting FM number (in billions) will give an exact relationship between the capabilities of the two cameras. For example:

Olympus 2100: 380mm x 380mm x 1,920,000 pixels = FM of 277,248,000,000
Nikon CP995: 152mm x 152mm x 3,145,728 pixels = FM of 72,678,899,712.

This means that if you take a photo with both cameras at max zoom and then enlarge and crop the Nikon image so that it is the same as the Olympus image, the Olympus image will contain about 3.8 times as many pixels as the Nikon image (277B/72B). The difference in quality will be quite obvious. The Olympus image will contain its normal 1.9MP, but the cropped and enlarged Nikon image will only contain about 825K pixels.

As to lens quality, digicams such as the Olympus 2100, Sony CD1000, etc. have excellent lenses and no tests on this site or any have shown degradation in sharpness as a result of using a 10X zoom as compared to a 3X zoom. For wildlife photos, a long focal length lens is an absolute must. Whether you purchase a camera with a long zoom or buy add-on zooms is up to you. For everyday photography, it is unlikely that you will be able to tell the difference between a 2MP and a 3MP camera unless you go to prints larger than 8 x 10.

I should also add that the Olympus 2100 and Sony CD1000 have stabilized lenses which means that you can use the full 10X without resorting to a tripod. Adding telephoto lenses to the Nikon will increase its effective focal length, but a tripod will be mandatory.

Rodger

 

[bob d]

For everyday
photography, it is unlikely that you will be able to tell the
difference between a 2MP and a 3MP camera unless you go to prints
larger than 8 x 10.

I disagree. At 8 x 10, one can easily see the flaws in the camera, and more pixels will make the 8 x 10 image better.

Furthemore, sometimes it's necessary to crop a photo, so it's always better to have more pixels.

And noise is a problem with digital, but the more pixels you have, the less noticeable the noise is because each speckle of noise is smaller.

 

[Aaron Chazan]

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the
c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it
is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget.
($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens.
I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks
in advance for opions.

You definitely want to go with more pixels and not more zoom. The
standard 3X zoom on 3.3MP cameras is enough for most purposes.
More zoom generall means an inferior lens unless it's a really
expensive lense. (The Sony F707 has a great lens that is 5X zoom).

Aaron wrote:
Ken you are wrong the 10x zoom will give better quality than cropping.

even at 2 mpixels

Aaron

You definitely should look into the 3.3MP cameras that are rated
highly on this site. You may find bargains. Lots of new models
coming out, maybe prices are lower on the older ones now.

 

[Matt Gannon]

Ken,

Why compromise at all. The best prosumer digicam - The Canon G2, can be had for $549 by using AMEX's Price Matching Service. Just do a search in the Canon Forum under AMEX Price Match.

Good Luck...
Matt.

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the
c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it
is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget.
($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens.
I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks
in advance for opions.

 

[Jochen]

For everyday
photography, it is unlikely that you will be able to tell the
difference between a 2MP and a 3MP camera unless you go to prints
larger than 8 x 10.

I disagree. At 8 x 10, one can easily see the flaws in the camera,
and more pixels will make the 8 x 10 image better.

Furthemore, sometimes it's necessary to crop a photo, so it's
always better to have more pixels.

And noise is a problem with digital, but the more pixels you have,
the less noticeable the noise is because each speckle of noise is
smaller.

And I disagree with you. I also disagree with what you wrote in an earlier post: "go for more MP, and less zoom".

1) About number of pixels:

Just do the math! Let us take the UZi (2MP, 10X) and a "12 in a dozen" camera (of 3MP, 3X) as examples...
-At 4X zoom, the Uzi still has 2MP, the other cam needs 1.333X digital
zoom to get to 4X. By doing so, it retains 3.000.000/(1.333x1.333) =
1.764.700 pixels
-At 6x zoom, the UZi still has 2MP, the other camera needs 2X dgital
zoom to get to 6X. By doing so, it only retains 3.000.000/(2x2) =
750.000 (!) pixels.
-At 8x zoom, the UZi still has 2MP, the other cam needs 2.666X digital
zoom to get to 8X. By doing so, it retains 3.000.000/(2.666x2.666) =
421.800 (!) pixels.
-At 10X zoom, the Uzi stll has 2MP, the other cam needs 3.333X digital
zoom to get to 10X. By doing so, it retains 3.000.000/(3.333x3.333) =
270.000 (!) pixels.

In the above example, you see that the 1.000.000 extra pixels on the 2nd camera aren't even sufficient to get from 3X to 4X. A lot of people underestimate the pixel loss of digital zoom.

Only with pictures less than 3X zoom, the 2nd camera will have more pixels in the final image than the UZi. And yes, an 8x10 enlargement will show more detail with 3MP. However, it is also true that you need to get close to the picture to see the difference. A lot of people have done these tests. See this link for example:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=2193392

Also, UZi owners use an easy workaround to get more MP: if you think "this shot would make a great 8x10 enlargement" (how many shots will you have like that anyway?), then just use the panorama function. Stitching 2 photos together will already result in a picture that has more MP than the 3MP camera.

If you want more, you could even take 4 pics "top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right" and stitch them together. First 2 by 2, the rotate, then stitch these 2 again. I've not done this myself but have seen seen people do it and the result was 100% OK.

2) About cropping:

I hardly ever do it. And if I need it, I hardly need to cut away 2% of an image. One thing IS true; the less MP you have, the more carefull you are when framing a shot. But that actually improves your technique.

3) You also said in a previous post: "more zoom = inferior lens":

??? That is about the biggest BS I've come across on this site since I discovered it! Lenses like the one on the UZi are far more superior than any small 3MP consumer camera out there. And here's why:

• It's bigger, and bigger lenses capture more light.
• It costs more. In this case, it's a Canon lens developped for a prosumer

camera. The same lens is also used by their canon Pro90 IS.

• Smaller optics = more chance of getting "lens flaws" like CA, barrel-

and picushion distortion. Even prosumers with small lenses have these
problems (see Phil's conclusion on the small lens of the Nikon Coolpix
995 for example).

• It is stabilized. Try looking for a stabilized 380mm-reach lens for an SLR

camera. Now try again looking for one that costs less than the UZi.
These types of lenses are normally for professional use, and cost loads of
money!

Conclusion for Ken: The UZi didn't sell because salesman pushed consumers to higher MP's. Now, Oly has stopped producing them, and the last ones are in the stores at a much reduced price. A quality lens that produces 2MP pics which can hardly be told apart from normal 3MP pics, a remote control, 10X STABILIZED zoom, AF light, tons of features, excellent macro capabilities, etc... All that at 500$. It's a steal. Go for it. You won't be sorry.

Ciao,

J.

 

[Rodger Carter]

In my view the value of extra pixels is often greatly exaggerated, not because more pixels are not better, but because the effect is generally significantly overestimated. For example, doubling the number of pixels horizontally and vertically will provide an increase in sharpness visible to most persons upon close examination, but that means quadrupling the total number of pixels in the CCD such as going from a 2MP camera to an eight MP CCD. How much difference is there between a 2MP camera and a three MP camera? Exactly 28 percent improvement in resolution for the 3MP camera. It would take a sharp pair of eyes indeed to detect such a small difference, certainly mine cannot. Even jumping from a 2MP to a 5MP camera such as the 707 only represents a 60 percent improvement in resolution.

Rodger

 

[BillDrew]

Even though I don't own an Uzi, I agree with much of what Jochen says. One exception:

....
Also, UZi owners use an easy workaround to get more MP: if you
think "this shot would make a great 8x10 enlargement" (how many
shots will you have like that anyway?), then just use the panorama
function. Stitching 2 photos together will already result in a
picture that has more MP than the 3MP camera.

If you want more, you could even take 4 pics "top-left, top-right,
bottom-left, bottom-right" and stitch them together. First 2 by 2,
the rotate, then stitch these 2 again. I've not done this myself
but have seen seen people do it and the result was 100% OK.

Stitching is a usefull technique and can be used in some situations to increase resolution and/or mimic a wide angle lense, but it is no substitute for either one. Think about trying your stitching plan with shots of a basketball game, a landscape in high wind, or anything else with lots of motion. And you don't want to think of the alignment problems for high resolution macro shots.

It can be done: to say it can be done easily and in all cases is nonsense.

 

[johnd1]

Why?

Cause the G2 still don't have a 10X zoom with IS. And not everyone shares your opinion that it is the best. Thats why!
JD

Why compromise at all. The best prosumer digicam - The Canon G2,
can be had for $549 by using AMEX's Price Matching Service. Just
do a search in the Canon Forum under AMEX Price Match.

Good Luck...
Matt.

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the
c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it
is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget.
($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens.
I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks
in advance for opions.

 

[johnd1]

You would be wise to disregard this reply below as the poster obviously has no clue as to what he is talking about. He is quite misinformed!
His first 3 statements are totally misleading.

Read the rest of the informative replies to the thread in order to gain more factual and helpful information. Especially the replies from Rodger Carter and Jochen.

You definitely want to go with more pixels and not more zoom. The
standard 3X zoom on 3.3MP cameras is enough for most purposes.
More zoom generall means an inferior lens unless it's a really
expensive lense. (The Sony F707 has a great lens that is 5X zoom).

You definitely should look into the 3.3MP cameras that are rated
highly on this site. You may find bargains. Lots of new models
coming out, maybe prices are lower on the older ones now.

 

[Matt Gannon]

Fair enough...it does not have a 10x Zoom, but it can have a 6x Zoom by adding a $80 accessory lens. Most people do not really need a 10x Zoom. For everyday use, 3x is more than practical for most people.

Matt.

Why compromise at all. The best prosumer digicam - The Canon G2,
can be had for $549 by using AMEX's Price Matching Service. Just
do a search in the Canon Forum under AMEX Price Match.

Good Luck...
Matt.

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the
c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it
is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget.
($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens.
I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks
in advance for opions.

 

[Jon Ragnarsson]

Don't be tempted to go into p*ssing contest over pixels. Unless you plan to print out most of your photos on A3 or A2 size paper, 2.1MP is enough. And having 10x zoom lens with you all the time, it's just amazing.
Is there a thing called pixel-envy?

J.

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the
c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it
is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget.
($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens.
I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks
in advance for opions.

-- http://www.vortex.is/~jonr/

 

[Melanie Kipp]

Is there a thing called pixel-envy?

YES! LOL


BTW... my Minolta D7 has plenty of MP... but I didn't sell my Oly ( 2.1 MP)--Please visit me at: http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Jochen]

....
Also, UZi owners use an easy workaround to get more MP: if you
think "this shot would make a great 8x10 enlargement" (how many
shots will you have like that anyway?), then just use the panorama
function. Stitching 2 photos together will already result in a
picture that has more MP than the 3MP camera.

If you want more, you could even take 4 pics "top-left, top-right,
bottom-left, bottom-right" and stitch them together. First 2 by 2,
the rotate, then stitch these 2 again. I've not done this myself
but have seen seen people do it and the result was 100% OK.

Stitching is a usefull technique and can be used in some situations
to increase resolution and/or mimic a wide angle lense, but it is
no substitute for either one. Think about trying your stitching
plan with shots of a basketball game, a landscape in high wind, or
anything else with lots of motion. And you don't want to think of
the alignment problems for high resolution macro shots.

It can be done: to say it can be done easily and in all cases is
nonsense.

Hey Bill,

Never said it can be done in ALL cases. Maybe I was unclear at this point. Let me rephrase. When I say "How many shots do you have like this anyway?" then I'm actually trying to say...

-What is the percentage of pictures that you want to have enlarged?

-Out of those what is the percentage of pictures with moving objects (which cannot be snapped in panorama mode)?

-And out of these, are there any that you can enlarge on PC with special enlargement functions (interpolating or what's it called)?

-Now what is the final count of pictures with moving objects that you'd like to enlarge?

My guess is: very few. Is is worth buying a 3MP camera just for these? I'm guessing the number of pictures where you'd like to have more than 3X zoom is much higher.

Conclusion; go for the zoom, not the MP.

A good example is your basketball game: I'm guessing that you already had to zoom beyond 3X for most pics anyway. So the 3X camera is already out...

Think about it.

Ciao,

J.

 

[Jochen]

Hi Matt,

IMHO, 630$ for a G2 + tele convertor is still no match for the 500$ UZi with it's 10X stabilized lens. To me, the UZi is the best buy at this point in time.

Ciao,

J.

Matt.

Why compromise at all. The best prosumer digicam - The Canon G2,
can be had for $549 by using AMEX's Price Matching Service. Just
do a search in the Canon Forum under AMEX Price Match.

Good Luck...
Matt.

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the
c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it
is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget.
($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens.
I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks
in advance for opions.

 

[Ken Morris83006]

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the
c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it
is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget.
($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens.
I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks
in advance for opions.

Thanks to all for responses. I am now the proud owner on 2100UZ. For any that are interested Walmart still has a few (499.). Is anyone aware of current rebates from Olympus? Thanks Ken

 

[Melanie Kipp]

Thanks to all for responses. I am now the proud owner on 2100UZ.
For any that are interested Walmart still has a few (499.). Is
anyone aware of current rebates from Olympus? Thanks Ken

Congratulations!!!!
))
--Please visit me at: http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[Matt Gannon]

I think that if you want zoom power you should also look at the Canon Pro90. It is more expensive, but you can still get a good deal using AMEX Pricematch.

It's all down to preference at the end of the day. If having a big zoom is a key, then clearly the UZi is a better fit for the job than the G2, especially at only $500. On the other hand, if zoom is not a factor I believe that the G2 is a better all round camera. That's understandable, because it retails at over $300 more than the UZi.

Bottom line, only the end user knows which is a better camera for them when all is said and done. There is no perfect digicam - it's all down to taste.

Matt.

IMHO, 630$ for a G2 + tele convertor is still no match for the 500$
UZi with it's 10X stabilized lens. To me, the UZi is the best buy
at this point in time.

Ciao,

J.

Matt.

Why compromise at all. The best prosumer digicam - The Canon G2,
can be had for $549 by using AMEX's Price Matching Service. Just
do a search in the Canon Forum under AMEX Price Match.

Good Luck...
Matt.

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I have researched the
c-2100 it looks great to me. I am concerned about the fact that it
is only 2 megs. Given the fact that I am on a limitied budget.
($500.00) I need advise. Should I go with more megs and less lens.
I shoot alot of nature shots and the typical family photos. Thanks
in advance for opions.