still not happy with S602..

[K Mcgregor]

A while back I posted a message about being unhappy with the quality of the pictures from my new S602. The images taken outside from it often seemed soft, out of focus, or just badly exposed.

I took into account the points made about image size, shutter speed and aperture but I still find myself unsatisfied with the photos it takes. They just seem totally devoid of the sharpness I've been used to for my much less grand fully automatic Olympus C-960. I find myself getting bad shots much more often than I should even when I use a shutter speed of over 1/100. Few shots with any distance in them are sharp or properly in focus and landscapes are utterly hopeless. But I don't really see what I could be doing wrong. I take a picture of something quite far away on a light enough day at a high shutter speed with a small aperture to try and get more in the depth of field. It comes out really really soft. Why is this? And why when I take pictures of buildings from the outside do they tend to lose so much detail and sharpness? I've set the sharpness to hard but it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference. My friend suggests it could be to do with the jpg sharpness but I took a few at fine quality and they seemed just as bad. Shooting down towards a load of trees I get an abysmal photograph really, over-exposed, soft and just nasty. The building photos can look ok viewed at 800 x 600 but looked at any closer and you can see the indistinct-ness.

When the light gets dim the pictures get even worse. Seems totally unusably soft at anything less than 1/80 or something and its not camera shake. Smaller apertures - do these cause bad softness as well? It seems whenever I take a high aperture picture it wrecks it. I tend to use aperture priority mode when taking a picture, and inside manual or shutter priority. It also cannot seem to take fast enough shutter speeds under normal light conditions. A dull day, a normal day inside the house, artificial lighting.. etc.. impossible without a tripod. Doesn't seem quite right but then this is maybe common to all higher spec cameras.

On the other hand this camera has taken some well exposed (with some fiddling) tripod shots in the dark, inside ruined buildings etc, which are sharp and very well executed - so long as there is no distance involved. Shooting from one end of the room to another with a tripod seems to cause softness inevitably, most of my good and sharp photos are focussing on subjects at a shorter distance. It's very good with light flare though generally compared to my old camera.

What can I do ? I try and stay above 1/50 for normal conditions handheld sometimes 1/30 if I'm desperate for the photo, and I've tried to stick to mid-range apertures when not taking landscapes but it does not seem to help. I judge the quality of a photo firstly on the sharpness, secondly on the exposure. A picture should instantly strike you as being sharp, not muddy and indistinct, and if the exposure isn't great that makes it worse. I would sooner have more noise and grain in a picture and have it sharp than have it smooth and indistinct and soft. I value detailled sharp shots and I'm just not getting it. It seems even to destroy easy, easy shots in a way my much inferior older camera never did.. Easy shots wrecked seems to me an indicator of something being wrong. Am I doing something wrong? Considering what it does when left on auto.. I don't see how I can be..

It really is a lot better when given little light at all, a tripod, and a 3 second exposure than it is outside in normal light handheld. How can it screw up photos that any mid range automatic digital can manage?

Please, any help or suggestions as to how to improve my pictures or what could be wrong with how I'm taking them now would be much appreciated. I have taken some decent shots with it but it just does not seem to be reliable for general usage.. I do tend to use variable apertures but I have not noticed a trend that would at all help me decide what I should be choosing. Since last post I have tried to stay with f4-6 sometimes using higher for long distance and lower for close ups.

one or two examples, some of which may not be too helpful can be found here

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples_2/

and the original subjects of my last post are

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples/

 

[EJN]

...er .. can somebody tell me ... is this where we all laugh ?

A while back I posted a message about being unhappy with the
quality of the pictures from my new S602. The images taken outside
from it often seemed soft, out of focus, or just badly exposed.

I took into account the points made about image size, shutter speed
and aperture but I still find myself unsatisfied with the photos it
takes. They just seem totally devoid of the sharpness I've been
used to for my much less grand fully automatic Olympus C-960. I
find myself getting bad shots much more often than I should even
when I use a shutter speed of over 1/100. Few shots with any
distance in them are sharp or properly in focus and landscapes are
utterly hopeless. But I don't really see what I could be doing
wrong. I take a picture of something quite far away on a light
enough day at a high shutter speed with a small aperture to try and
get more in the depth of field. It comes out really really soft.
Why is this? And why when I take pictures of buildings from the
outside do they tend to lose so much detail and sharpness? I've set
the sharpness to hard but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
difference. My friend suggests it could be to do with the jpg
sharpness but I took a few at fine quality and they seemed just as
bad. Shooting down towards a load of trees I get an abysmal
photograph really, over-exposed, soft and just nasty. The building
photos can look ok viewed at 800 x 600 but looked at any closer and
you can see the indistinct-ness.

When the light gets dim the pictures get even worse. Seems totally
unusably soft at anything less than 1/80 or something and its not
camera shake. Smaller apertures - do these cause bad softness as
well? It seems whenever I take a high aperture picture it wrecks
it. I tend to use aperture priority mode when taking a picture, and
inside manual or shutter priority. It also cannot seem to take fast
enough shutter speeds under normal light conditions. A dull day, a
normal day inside the house, artificial lighting.. etc.. impossible
without a tripod. Doesn't seem quite right but then this is maybe
common to all higher spec cameras.

On the other hand this camera has taken some well exposed (with
some fiddling) tripod shots in the dark, inside ruined buildings
etc, which are sharp and very well executed - so long as there is
no distance involved. Shooting from one end of the room to another
with a tripod seems to cause softness inevitably, most of my good
and sharp photos are focussing on subjects at a shorter distance.
It's very good with light flare though generally compared to my old
camera.

What can I do ? I try and stay above 1/50 for normal conditions
handheld sometimes 1/30 if I'm desperate for the photo, and I've
tried to stick to mid-range apertures when not taking landscapes
but it does not seem to help. I judge the quality of a photo
firstly on the sharpness, secondly on the exposure. A picture
should instantly strike you as being sharp, not muddy and
indistinct, and if the exposure isn't great that makes it worse. I
would sooner have more noise and grain in a picture and have it
sharp than have it smooth and indistinct and soft. I value
detailled sharp shots and I'm just not getting it. It seems even to
destroy easy, easy shots in a way my much inferior older camera
never did.. Easy shots wrecked seems to me an indicator of
something being wrong. Am I doing something wrong? Considering what
it does when left on auto.. I don't see how I can be..

It really is a lot better when given little light at all, a tripod,
and a 3 second exposure than it is outside in normal light
handheld. How can it screw up photos that any mid range automatic
digital can manage?

Please, any help or suggestions as to how to improve my pictures or
what could be wrong with how I'm taking them now would be much
appreciated. I have taken some decent shots with it but it just
does not seem to be reliable for general usage.. I do tend to use
variable apertures but I have not noticed a trend that would at all
help me decide what I should be choosing. Since last post I have
tried to stay with f4-6 sometimes using higher for long distance
and lower for close ups.

one or two examples, some of which may not be too helpful can be
found here

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples_2/

and the original subjects of my last post are

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples/

--
EJN

 

[K Mcgregor]

Thank you for your intelligent comment.

...er .. can somebody tell me ... is this where we all laugh ?

 

[Pieter Gordebeke]

Not so fast, EJN.

Our friend here may have a point. Although the 602 is a pretty awesome camera, there is a learning curve involved. However, K's explanations and camera settings used indicate, to me at least, that this isn't just about getting to know the ins and outs of this camera.

Check out this image: http://www.pbase.com/image/5546710/original

If my pictures came out mostly like this one, I wouldn't be happy either. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I only see this lack of detail in some of my landscapes in difficult light (i.e. low light or awkward angle).

Maybe K's not quite there yet as far as technique is concerned, but perhaps there is a technical problem with the camera (autufocus?). Our more technically advanced and experienced forum members here might have the answer.

...er .. can somebody tell me ... is this where we all laugh ?

 

[mike533]

A while back I posted a message about being unhappy with the
quality of the pictures from my new S602. The images taken outside
from it often seemed soft, out of focus, or just badly exposed.

I took into account the points made about image size, shutter speed
and aperture but I still find myself unsatisfied with the photos it
takes. They just seem totally devoid of the sharpness I've been
used to for my much less grand fully automatic Olympus C-960. I
find myself getting bad shots much more often than I should even
when I use a shutter speed of over 1/100. Few shots with any
distance in them are sharp or properly in focus and landscapes are
utterly hopeless. But I don't really see what I could be doing
wrong. I take a picture of something quite far away on a light
enough day at a high shutter speed with a small aperture to try and
get more in the depth of field. It comes out really really soft.
Why is this? And why when I take pictures of buildings from the
outside do they tend to lose so much detail and sharpness? I've set
the sharpness to hard but it doesn't seem to make a lot of
difference. My friend suggests it could be to do with the jpg
sharpness but I took a few at fine quality and they seemed just as
bad. Shooting down towards a load of trees I get an abysmal
photograph really, over-exposed, soft and just nasty. The building
photos can look ok viewed at 800 x 600 but looked at any closer and
you can see the indistinct-ness.

When the light gets dim the pictures get even worse. Seems totally
unusably soft at anything less than 1/80 or something and its not
camera shake. Smaller apertures - do these cause bad softness as
well? It seems whenever I take a high aperture picture it wrecks
it. I tend to use aperture priority mode when taking a picture, and
inside manual or shutter priority. It also cannot seem to take fast
enough shutter speeds under normal light conditions. A dull day, a
normal day inside the house, artificial lighting.. etc.. impossible
without a tripod. Doesn't seem quite right but then this is maybe
common to all higher spec cameras.

On the other hand this camera has taken some well exposed (with
some fiddling) tripod shots in the dark, inside ruined buildings
etc, which are sharp and very well executed - so long as there is
no distance involved. Shooting from one end of the room to another
with a tripod seems to cause softness inevitably, most of my good
and sharp photos are focussing on subjects at a shorter distance.
It's very good with light flare though generally compared to my old
camera.

What can I do ? I try and stay above 1/50 for normal conditions
handheld sometimes 1/30 if I'm desperate for the photo, and I've
tried to stick to mid-range apertures when not taking landscapes
but it does not seem to help. I judge the quality of a photo
firstly on the sharpness, secondly on the exposure. A picture
should instantly strike you as being sharp, not muddy and
indistinct, and if the exposure isn't great that makes it worse. I
would sooner have more noise and grain in a picture and have it
sharp than have it smooth and indistinct and soft. I value
detailled sharp shots and I'm just not getting it. It seems even to
destroy easy, easy shots in a way my much inferior older camera
never did.. Easy shots wrecked seems to me an indicator of
something being wrong. Am I doing something wrong? Considering what
it does when left on auto.. I don't see how I can be..

It really is a lot better when given little light at all, a tripod,
and a 3 second exposure than it is outside in normal light
handheld. How can it screw up photos that any mid range automatic
digital can manage?

Please, any help or suggestions as to how to improve my pictures or
what could be wrong with how I'm taking them now would be much
appreciated. I have taken some decent shots with it but it just
does not seem to be reliable for general usage.. I do tend to use
variable apertures but I have not noticed a trend that would at all
help me decide what I should be choosing. Since last post I have
tried to stay with f4-6 sometimes using higher for long distance
and lower for close ups.

one or two examples, some of which may not be too helpful can be
found here

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples_2/

and the original subjects of my last post are

http://www.pbase.com/graid/bad_examples/

--
Mike533

Hi,

I hqave just been having a look at your latest shots and I must be honest, the one of the outside building in particular looks like a good sharp shot,in fact I couldnt see much to complain about with th other two either. !!
Have you printed them out yet and if so are they sharp on the prints?

Are you using PhotoShop or any other programme,and if so have you added "sharpen" to them. Keep on trying...I don't thiink there is a lot wrong with them.

Regards
Mike533

 

[TomCee]

Hi,

I noticed the 3 pic's where taken at 'basic'. I strongly recommend you to do the following: put the camera in the 3 megapixel, fine mode. Choose the 'normal'sharpening and make a few new pic's under the worst circumstances. Use auto-mode. The 'normal'sharpening isn't the best, but for your eye you should get sharp pictures on the screen. If they also are terrible (and your examples were unacceptable for me too!) post them back on PBase and let us know.
I hope this will help you.
--
Regards,
Tom
(FinePix S602z)
http://www.pbase.com/tomcee

 

[Jay S.]

Hello,

Aside from EJN's remark which seemed totally out of place. I think Tom has a point here, try shooting in fine mode and post some results. I can understand your frustration as I wouldn't be happy with those images either. You are shooting some tough conditions. Try to post some as well in conditions all camers like, lots of sun, etc. so we can compare to those as well. Not sure where or when you purchased the camera, but you may have gotten one that is the best of the bunch. Take some more, so we can try and help. You may also want to try the same shot in the different modes; Basic, Normal, Fine, and compare them side by side. Those kind of side by side shots can help us.

Jay S.

Hi,

I noticed the 3 pic's where taken at 'basic'. I strongly recommend
you to do the following: put the camera in the 3 megapixel, fine
mode. Choose the 'normal'sharpening and make a few new pic's under
the worst circumstances. Use auto-mode. The 'normal'sharpening
isn't the best, but for your eye you should get sharp pictures on
the screen. If they also are terrible (and your examples were
unacceptable for me too!) post them back on PBase and let us know.
I hope this will help you.
--
Regards,
Tom
(FinePix S602z)
http://www.pbase.com/tomcee

 

[Madness]

I agree that the pics I've seen (not all) are cr@p. I had some terrible results (but could be saved in pshop) with UV and polarizer stacked so that may be one reason.

Other than that I see you used hard sharpening and that produced really horrible artefacts. The fact that you use basic quality didn't help either. Switch to fine or tiff and see what happens. Try normal and soft sharpening and use USM at about 100, 1, 0 for a 800x600 photo (more for bigger)

Is your lens clean, are your filters clean? Try f5.6 and around there somewhere. If this doesn't give you some answers return it or whatever you want to do with it. Freefall from the 100th floor might be nice to see, especially with the timer set to 10s and burst mode

Hopefully the CF would survive (although SM probably has better chances since it has no internal controller)

--
Excreta Tauri Astutos Frustrantur
------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.lycos.co.uk/insanityphotos/

 

[Mark_McIntyre]

I completely agree with you. I have seen many s602 images in galleries, and they all (except for close ups or short distance shots) lack that crispness you are talking about. Strangely, I do get that crispness wth my Fuji 2400 and will soon post examples for comparison. I'm also going to borrow a friend's Nikon 5700 because her landscape/distant shots do have that crispness. My 602 is soon headed for EBay.
--
http://www.macofallarts.com

 

[JAJ]

I have to agree with Madness. Hard sharpening has given me some terrible results. the same type of unnatural looking images like some of yours. Try fine/soft in either 3M or 6M. The lighting in most of your photos is tricky as well, almost overcast with alot of UV. The 602 has some trouble in this lighting. Show us something in bright sunlight and no backlight.

JAJ

I agree that the pics I've seen (not all) are cr@p. I had some
terrible results (but could be saved in pshop) with UV and
polarizer stacked so that may be one reason.

Other than that I see you used hard sharpening and that produced
really horrible artefacts. The fact that you use basic quality
didn't help either. Switch to fine or tiff and see what happens.
Try normal and soft sharpening and use USM at about 100, 1, 0 for a
800x600 photo (more for bigger)

Is your lens clean, are your filters clean? Try f5.6 and around
there somewhere. If this doesn't give you some answers return it or
whatever you want to do with it. Freefall from the 100th floor
might be nice to see, especially with the timer set to 10s and
burst mode
Hopefully the CF would survive (although SM probably has better
chances since it has no internal controller)

--
Excreta Tauri Astutos Frustrantur
------------------------------------------------------------
http://members.lycos.co.uk/insanityphotos/

 

[ga-ga]

A while back I posted a message about being unhappy with the
quality of the pictures from my new S602. The images taken outside
from it often seemed soft, out of focus, or just badly exposed.

.............

I've taken the time to download your pics and check the exif data

I don't think there is a fault on the camera but there are a few things to think about.

horrible -

taken in evening against bright sky with +.33EV exposure compensation - over exposed sky
extream contrast with dark buildings
quality - 3mp basic .......!!!
exifer reports firmware Olympus Camedia - presumeable downloaded with camedia?.
not a good tactics.
lost some exif date due to Camedia

garage inside
-1.33EV exposure compensation (-0.6 flash correction?)
1/2 sec blur warning
quality 3mp normal .......
despite all that - good result for long exposure, hand-held inside

despite some blur still good for a record picture - but no way to go for exhibition prints......

outside building
quality 3mp normal .......
blur warning
not much wrong but needs more light....

all your shots seem to be taken after 4:00pm -
the more light the better - try to get out earlier.......

even then, you're not going to make Scotland in the rain look like Florida in the sun!

I don't understand why you complain about the camera giving poor exposure when you have been adding compensation.

I suggest you use 6mp fine and don't play with the exposure compensation, save that till after you've got some stable results.

Maybe try landscape program - but this camera is not best suited for minute detail - as found in far landscapes.
Use a fast shutter speed or a tripod if you want to get sharp results.

ga-ga

 

[Jared Hunter]

The optimal settings for 602 are:

• ISO160 (never use ISO400 if quality is important, ISO200 is not bad)
• 6Mp
• Fine (anything less has unacceptable jpeg artifacts)
• Aperture 5.6 or so (there is less sharpness at full wide and full narrow)
• sometimes try -0.3EV if shooting in P mode, but keep in mind that

underexposure tends to accentuate SuperCCD artifacts.

With 6Mp images, it is mandatory to downsample before judging image quality. Use bilinear interpolation to downsample to 3Mp (2048 across) or 4Mp (2272 across). Then apply unsharp mask (Radius = 0.3, Amount = 100, Threshold = 0).

I don't understand why you complain about the camera giving poor
exposure when you have been adding compensation.
I suggest you use 6mp fine and don't play with the exposure
compensation, save that till after you've got some stable results.
Maybe try landscape program - but this camera is not best suited
for minute detail - as found in far landscapes.
Use a fast shutter speed or a tripod if you want to get sharp results.

ga-ga

 

[NYcarolyn]

• ISO160 (never use ISO400 if quality is important, ISO200 is not bad)
• 6Mp
• Fine (anything less has unacceptable jpeg artifacts)
• Aperture 5.6 or so (there is less sharpness at full wide and full

narrow)

• sometimes try -0.3EV if shooting in P mode, but keep in mind that

underexposure tends to accentuate SuperCCD artifacts.

With 6Mp images, it is mandatory to downsample before judging image
quality. Use bilinear interpolation to downsample to 3Mp (2048
across) or 4Mp (2272 across). Then apply unsharp mask (Radius =
0.3, Amount = 100, Threshold = 0).

I don't understand why you complain about the camera giving poor
exposure when you have been adding compensation.
I suggest you use 6mp fine and don't play with the exposure
compensation, save that till after you've got some stable results.
Maybe try landscape program - but this camera is not best suited
for minute detail - as found in far landscapes.
Use a fast shutter speed or a tripod if you want to get sharp results.

ga-ga

--

Okay, you lost me on downsample! Are you talking about photoshop now (or in my case paint shop pro)?

Carolyn

 

[Zerstorer]

Avoid shooting in basic. I see no reason using basic compression on a 3++ MP camera.

Apart from the possibility of faulty AF or something, could you be using some cheap freebie filter that is softening the image and wrecking havoc with the AF? Happened to my friend once with his G2 and a cheap polarizor. The shots turned out washed out and out of focus no matter what we did. Only removing the filter solved the problems.....

 

[Jay S.]

Jared,

I was agreeing with all the way until the Downsampling the 6MP. I don't downsample 6MP with the 6900. Curious that you would do that with the 602. I also tend to keep USM to about 50-60 Amount, but I also add 1 - 2 threshold. The USM is obviously personal preference. All in all good advice though...

Jay S.

• ISO160 (never use ISO400 if quality is important, ISO200 is not bad)
• 6Mp
• Fine (anything less has unacceptable jpeg artifacts)
• Aperture 5.6 or so (there is less sharpness at full wide and full

narrow)

• sometimes try -0.3EV if shooting in P mode, but keep in mind that

underexposure tends to accentuate SuperCCD artifacts.

With 6Mp images, it is mandatory to downsample before judging image
quality. Use bilinear interpolation to downsample to 3Mp (2048
across) or 4Mp (2272 across). Then apply unsharp mask (Radius =
0.3, Amount = 100, Threshold = 0).

I don't understand why you complain about the camera giving poor
exposure when you have been adding compensation.
I suggest you use 6mp fine and don't play with the exposure
compensation, save that till after you've got some stable results.
Maybe try landscape program - but this camera is not best suited
for minute detail - as found in far landscapes.
Use a fast shutter speed or a tripod if you want to get sharp results.

ga-ga

 

[sg10]

Not so fast, EJN.
Our friend here may have a point. Although the 602 is a pretty
awesome camera, there is a learning curve involved. However, K's
explanations and camera settings used indicate, to me at least,
that this isn't just about getting to know the ins and outs of this
camera.

I agree that the S602 doesn't measure up well in its price range in terms of still image quality. I've had the much the same frustrating experience adjusting to the S602's still images, because I too was used to a much more impressive still image camera.

That doesn't mean the S602 is poor overall, its the best camera available overall in my view. Its terific speed, features flexibility, burst modes, and movies make up for its all too predictably low endish still output, in my opinion. Fact is, using other cameras one would be very hard pressed to catch the moments the S602 catches, so what can you say when the alternative is nothing?

To KM, I'd say that I have been able to improve my S602's shots though a myriad of should-be-unecessary gimmicks. One thing I find very helpful is a 1B Skylight filter. By enhancing the contrast (I think this is why) it helps the 602's passive contrast based AF system. Though its still not a 100% solution, its about a 60% fix, which is very, very welcome in my book. It also seems to shift the over-orange low contrast standard S602 photo to a much more natural looking image for my taste. The downside is the added bulkiness, but its livable.

I've also found that shooting in "SP" sports mode, instead of "Auto" or "P"rogram gives a better auto white balance and the higher speed shutter bias is generally welcome to minimize blur. "S"hutter priority is also an good option with a fast shutter setting.

Also realize that much of the "problem" here isn't a problem at all, its simple physics/optics. The S602's great 35-220mm (6x) zoom range means the lens won't be as bright as the same quality 35-105 (3x) zoom lens (all else being equal). If you want the optical zoom, you get the consequences too. Since when is such a flexible tool, at any price, a good indoor choice for lens brightness? The S602's lens is quite miraculous for its size and yes, even brightness, given its zoom/wideangle ability, especially considering how wonderfully compact it is.

 

[Jared Hunter]

It all depends on the intended purpose of the image. If I'm going to print, I leave it at 6Mp. If I'm going to post on the web, I'll downsample to approx. 1024 across or so. I can't understand people posting full size images on the web unless they are trying to prove a technical point.

In terms of actual image information, we know that 3Mp SuperCCDs resolve approx. 4Mp's of information. That's why it makes sense to resample down to 3Mp or 4Mp knowing that you aren't "losing" real information. The process of downsampling also helps to eliminate SuperCCD and jpg artifacts as well as in-camera sharpening halos.

Jared,
I was agreeing with all the way until the Downsampling the 6MP. I
don't downsample 6MP with the 6900. Curious that you would do that
with the 602

 

[Jared Hunter]

Okay, you lost me on downsample! Are you talking about photoshop
now (or in my case paint shop pro)?

Carolyn,
In Paint Shop Pro, it's Image, Resize, Bilinear Resample.

 

[sg10]

It all depends on the intended purpose of the image. If I'm going
to print, I leave it at 6Mp. If I'm going to post on the web, I'll
downsample to approx. 1024 across or so. I can't understand people
posting full size images on the web unless they are trying to prove
a technical point.

In terms of actual image information, we know that 3Mp SuperCCDs
resolve approx. 4Mp's of information. That's why it makes sense to
resample down to 3Mp or 4Mp knowing that you aren't "losing" real
information. The process of downsampling also helps to eliminate
SuperCCD and jpg artifacts as well as in-camera sharpening halos.

I agree that 4MP down-sampling probably doesn't hurt, and might help a tad, though your eyeball probably does much the same given the same physical image size.

I love my S602, but I think the SuperCCD is a small liabilty in general. I think you get less detail out of it than a quality 3MP CCD in 3MP mode, and possibly slightly more than 3MP-worth in 6MP mode depending on the image itself.

My take on it is that if your subject's lines are largely continuous (like the resolution test screens are commonly used for testing), then software interpolation can make the image look like a 4MP result--whether that is real data or not is another issue. If the subject is rich in relief and organic detail, the 6MP mode won't be in the same leage as a good 4MP camera, it'll look every bit the 3MP CCD it really is. But who can fault it for that?

Have a look at my 100% unscientific test results...

http://www.pbase.com/sg10/compare

...even given the anecdotal nature of that gallery, I think the some of the quality differences shown exceed my capability to screw up the tests.

 

[Jay S.]

Jared,

It all depends on the intended purpose of the image. If I'm going
to print, I leave it at 6Mp. If I'm going to post on the web, I'll
downsample to approx. 1024 across or so. I can't understand people
posting full size images on the web unless they are trying to prove
a technical point.

Understand. I can see doing that as you really can't telll that much on the monitor anyway.

In terms of actual image information, we know that 3Mp SuperCCDs
resolve approx. 4Mp's of information. That's why it makes sense to
resample down to 3Mp or 4Mp knowing that you aren't "losing" real
information. The process of downsampling also helps to eliminate
SuperCCD and jpg artifacts as well as in-camera sharpening halos.

There may be some difference here with the 6900 and the 602 given the new sharpening algorithms, etc. I'll have to try some shots on my own to see the effect. Thanks!.

Jay S.

Jared,
I was agreeing with all the way until the Downsampling the 6MP. I
don't downsample 6MP with the 6900. Curious that you would do that
with the 602