CP5000 Pause for thought.

keithMacNeill said:

I don't claim to be a great photographer, so if my comments seem
uninformed then they most probably are!..but here's my pennies
worth regarding the CP5000.

I started out with a Leica 4.8 Digilux (rebadged FP4800) and I now
currently own a Fujifilm 6800z and have really started to get into
general photography mainly thanks to the benefits of digital
photography and the ease of use and practicality of this medium.

Now once again, I'm thinking of moving up the digital ladder to a
CP5000 so I've been doing my homework and reading every review and
article I can find on this camera and it's closest competitors.

To me this camera seems a vast leap forward over the FP6800, which
now feels like a true point and shoot device in every sense,
although I still think it produces some excellent images.

These reviews, especially Phil's reviews are very comprehensive,
and in many areas above my photographic knowledge, but all the same
they provide me with very valuable viewpoints.

What I have noticed throughout most reviews and postings in forums
is an extreme attention to detail, maybe too extreme. What I ask
you is, "Do we really need to go down to these levels of detail in
analysing the output of these cameras?"...."could we see these
imperfections with the naked eye if we weren't to use Photoshop or
another similar package?"

Don't get me wrong I think these cameras are getting so good now
that we have to use advanced analysis to discover their strengths
and weaknesses in order to compare them. But what I do question is
whether you can see the difference in an actual photo with the
naked eye; after all that's what most of us will be doing, not
looking at it a 500% magnification in some little window. In
essence what I am trying to say is that, "yes" there more than
likely will be a difference in quality between a low end digicamera
and a high end one, but when you get near to the top end (without
going pro) as the CP5000 there is not much to gripe about, if
people are going to be that particular about digital cameras
outputs then I would have thought that the logical choice would be
to opt for a 35mm SLR as even though CCDs are improving they are
still around 10-15 million pixels away from good quality film. Once
again though can the naked eye pick out these imperfections or
level of detail unless you magnify the image until it's a
meaningless bunch of pixels.

My view is enjoy the picture, after all that's why you took it, as
long as there aren't any glaring imperfections in the image which
can be identified with the naked eye, then I'm pretty happy. I just
think we can get too bogged down in the minutia of the image
quality (especially when it’s so good nowadays) and forget
why we have a camera, and that's to take pictures so we can enjoy
them, not so that we can use finite element analysis on them! At
the end of the day the top end cameras are all within spitting
distance of one another, some are better at certain functions while
not so good at others, eventually it all comes down to what you
want out of your camera, and what you deem as important and
unimportant.

I’m not asking everyone to stop being critical, as this is
the way to advance the technology, but sometimes you need to step
back and think more about the “art” of photography and
less of the “science”.

Anyway that’s my pennies worth, it’s not meant to be a
lecture, but just a viewpoint.

I still think I’m getting a CP5000 though )

Happy shooting…

Click to expand...

keithMacNeill said:

I don't claim to be a great photographer, so if my comments seem
uninformed then they most probably are!..but here's my pennies
worth regarding the CP5000.

I started out with a Leica 4.8 Digilux (rebadged FP4800) and I now
currently own a Fujifilm 6800z and have really started to get into
general photography mainly thanks to the benefits of digital
photography and the ease of use and practicality of this medium.

Now once again, I'm thinking of moving up the digital ladder to a
CP5000 so I've been doing my homework and reading every review and
article I can find on this camera and it's closest competitors.

To me this camera seems a vast leap forward over the FP6800, which
now feels like a true point and shoot device in every sense,
although I still think it produces some excellent images.

These reviews, especially Phil's reviews are very comprehensive,
and in many areas above my photographic knowledge, but all the same
they provide me with very valuable viewpoints.

What I have noticed throughout most reviews and postings in forums
is an extreme attention to detail, maybe too extreme. What I ask
you is, "Do we really need to go down to these levels of detail in
analysing the output of these cameras?"...."could we see these
imperfections with the naked eye if we weren't to use Photoshop or
another similar package?"

Don't get me wrong I think these cameras are getting so good now
that we have to use advanced analysis to discover their strengths
and weaknesses in order to compare them. But what I do question is
whether you can see the difference in an actual photo with the
naked eye; after all that's what most of us will be doing, not
looking at it a 500% magnification in some little window. In
essence what I am trying to say is that, "yes" there more than
likely will be a difference in quality between a low end digicamera
and a high end one, but when you get near to the top end (without
going pro) as the CP5000 there is not much to gripe about, if
people are going to be that particular about digital cameras
outputs then I would have thought that the logical choice would be
to opt for a 35mm SLR as even though CCDs are improving they are
still around 10-15 million pixels away from good quality film. Once
again though can the naked eye pick out these imperfections or
level of detail unless you magnify the image until it's a
meaningless bunch of pixels.

My view is enjoy the picture, after all that's why you took it, as
long as there aren't any glaring imperfections in the image which
can be identified with the naked eye, then I'm pretty happy. I just
think we can get too bogged down in the minutia of the image
quality (especially when it’s so good nowadays) and forget
why we have a camera, and that's to take pictures so we can enjoy
them, not so that we can use finite element analysis on them! At
the end of the day the top end cameras are all within spitting
distance of one another, some are better at certain functions while
not so good at others, eventually it all comes down to what you
want out of your camera, and what you deem as important and
unimportant.

I’m not asking everyone to stop being critical, as this is
the way to advance the technology, but sometimes you need to step
back and think more about the “art” of photography and
less of the “science”.

Anyway that’s my pennies worth, it’s not meant to be a
lecture, but just a viewpoint.

I still think I’m getting a CP5000 though )

Happy shooting…

Click to expand...

keithMacNeill said:

I don't claim to be a great photographer, so if my comments seem
uninformed then they most probably are!..but here's my pennies
worth regarding the CP5000.

I started out with a Leica 4.8 Digilux (rebadged FP4800) and I now
currently own a Fujifilm 6800z and have really started to get into
general photography mainly thanks to the benefits of digital
photography and the ease of use and practicality of this medium.

Now once again, I'm thinking of moving up the digital ladder to a
CP5000 so I've been doing my homework and reading every review and
article I can find on this camera and it's closest competitors.

To me this camera seems a vast leap forward over the FP6800, which
now feels like a true point and shoot device in every sense,
although I still think it produces some excellent images.

These reviews, especially Phil's reviews are very comprehensive,
and in many areas above my photographic knowledge, but all the same
they provide me with very valuable viewpoints.

What I have noticed throughout most reviews and postings in forums
is an extreme attention to detail, maybe too extreme. What I ask
you is, "Do we really need to go down to these levels of detail in
analysing the output of these cameras?"...."could we see these
imperfections with the naked eye if we weren't to use Photoshop or
another similar package?"

Don't get me wrong I think these cameras are getting so good now
that we have to use advanced analysis to discover their strengths
and weaknesses in order to compare them. But what I do question is
whether you can see the difference in an actual photo with the
naked eye; after all that's what most of us will be doing, not
looking at it a 500% magnification in some little window. In
essence what I am trying to say is that, "yes" there more than
likely will be a difference in quality between a low end digicamera
and a high end one, but when you get near to the top end (without
going pro) as the CP5000 there is not much to gripe about, if
people are going to be that particular about digital cameras
outputs then I would have thought that the logical choice would be
to opt for a 35mm SLR as even though CCDs are improving they are
still around 10-15 million pixels away from good quality film. Once
again though can the naked eye pick out these imperfections or
level of detail unless you magnify the image until it's a
meaningless bunch of pixels.

My view is enjoy the picture, after all that's why you took it, as
long as there aren't any glaring imperfections in the image which
can be identified with the naked eye, then I'm pretty happy. I just
think we can get too bogged down in the minutia of the image
quality (especially when it’s so good nowadays) and forget
why we have a camera, and that's to take pictures so we can enjoy
them, not so that we can use finite element analysis on them! At
the end of the day the top end cameras are all within spitting
distance of one another, some are better at certain functions while
not so good at others, eventually it all comes down to what you
want out of your camera, and what you deem as important and
unimportant.

I’m not asking everyone to stop being critical, as this is
the way to advance the technology, but sometimes you need to step
back and think more about the “art” of photography and
less of the “science”.

Anyway that’s my pennies worth, it’s not meant to be a
lecture, but just a viewpoint.

I still think I’m getting a CP5000 though )

Happy shooting…

Click to expand...

teski said:

I completely agree with you Keith....That's why I've pointed out so
many times that when I print out my CP5000 pics in 8x10 format,
they look absolutely stunning and that's why I love my camera. I'm
sure if I blew the same pics to 200% or 400%, that I'd find some
issues, but I don't care...Not going to do that with my
pics....Great Post!!!

Teski

Click to expand...

Ken. said:

Nicely written Keith!

Funny....

When I bought my first computer I got the fastest computer there
was by reading all the benchmark scores that I could find. It "was"
fast, but only for a short time if you know what I mean. As soon as
I opened the box MMX was annouced and was out within a month. Now
it is even more of a mute point.

"IF" the 707 is the best camera out there at the moment it will
only be so for a little while. So in a few months the "current"
1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners will mean absolutey nothing.

I don't have a digital camera yet. This will be my first one and I
probably will have it as long as I have had my dad's old 35mm, if
it will last that long that is. :c)

All these 5mp cameras take outstanding shots. They all have their
strong and weak points both mechanically and visually. It is nice
to know that there are choices out there. I do like the resolution
of the sony's very much and appreciate the low light focus. It is
not enough for me to buy one though. The colors, while very
vibrant, are just too much for me to enjoy. That is pure personal
taste though, and I am not knocking anyone that loves them. There
are things to love about those colors too.

I have been coming to this forum much more than I should and if I
ever make a purchase I will surely laugh at myself when I look back
at it. The reviews and forums are a hugh help in the decision
making process! :c) Once I get the camera I plan on taking pictures
with it. I plan on enjoying dpreview by coming back to the forum
to ask and answer questions. The people that come here to say "mine
is better than yours" I feel are losing the point of what
photograpy is all about.

I love the shots that I see coming from the nikon. It still got a
recommended rating and that is a good thing. One has to find the
strong and weak points that a camera has to offer and base the
decision on that. I am finding that you can't have everything when
it comes to a digital camera. It would be nice to own a few for
sure!!!!

We all make buying decisions and hopefully enjoy our choices.

I thank Phil for his reviews and for this site that helps us gather
and share knowledge.

Ken.

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

John

Ken. said:

Nicely written Keith!

Funny....

When I bought my first computer I got the fastest computer there
was by reading all the benchmark scores that I could find. It "was"
fast, but only for a short time if you know what I mean. As soon as
I opened the box MMX was annouced and was out within a month. Now
it is even more of a mute point.

"IF" the 707 is the best camera out there at the moment it will
only be so for a little while. So in a few months the "current"
1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners will mean absolutey nothing.

I don't have a digital camera yet. This will be my first one and I
probably will have it as long as I have had my dad's old 35mm, if
it will last that long that is. :c)

All these 5mp cameras take outstanding shots. They all have their
strong and weak points both mechanically and visually. It is nice
to know that there are choices out there. I do like the resolution
of the sony's very much and appreciate the low light focus. It is
not enough for me to buy one though. The colors, while very
vibrant, are just too much for me to enjoy. That is pure personal
taste though, and I am not knocking anyone that loves them. There
are things to love about those colors too.

I have been coming to this forum much more than I should and if I
ever make a purchase I will surely laugh at myself when I look back
at it. The reviews and forums are a hugh help in the decision
making process! :c) Once I get the camera I plan on taking pictures
with it. I plan on enjoying dpreview by coming back to the forum
to ask and answer questions. The people that come here to say "mine
is better than yours" I feel are losing the point of what
photograpy is all about.

I love the shots that I see coming from the nikon. It still got a
recommended rating and that is a good thing. One has to find the
strong and weak points that a camera has to offer and base the
decision on that. I am finding that you can't have everything when
it comes to a digital camera. It would be nice to own a few for
sure!!!!

We all make buying decisions and hopefully enjoy our choices.

I thank Phil for his reviews and for this site that helps us gather
and share knowledge.

Ken.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

keithMacNeill said:

What I have noticed throughout most reviews and postings in forums
is an extreme attention to detail, maybe too extreme. What I ask
you is, "Do we really need to go down to these levels of detail in
analysing the output of these cameras?"...."could we see these
imperfections with the naked eye if we weren't to use Photoshop or
another similar package?"

Don't get me wrong I think these cameras are getting so good now
that we have to use advanced analysis to discover their strengths
and weaknesses in order to compare them. But what I do question is
whether you can see the difference in an actual photo with the
naked eye; after all that's what most of us will be doing, not
looking at it a 500% magnification in some little window. In
essence what I am trying to say is that, "yes" there more than
likely will be a difference in quality between a low end digicamera
and a high end one, but when you get near to the top end (without
going pro) as the CP5000 there is not much to gripe about, if
people are going to be that particular about digital cameras
outputs then I would have thought that the logical choice would be
to opt for a 35mm SLR as even though CCDs are improving they are
still around 10-15 million pixels away from good quality film. Once
again though can the naked eye pick out these imperfections or
level of detail unless you magnify the image until it's a
meaningless bunch of pixels.

Click to expand...

Arvin Chang said:

To Ken:
The fastest PC analogy is bad since you bought the PC after it was
rated the best, this is more like buying a PC and then finding out
afterwards it wasn't the fastest/best (maybe 2nd or 3rd... like
Steve's Best 5MP rankings).

A more apt analogy to the PC world be the Rambus hubbub a few years
ago, when Intel's 820 chipset, which was suppose to incorporate the
new, faster, better Rambus DRAM, was pulled due to a plague of
issues.

Click to expand...

Arvin Chang said:

Nevertheless, you are right... in 6 months a new camera will be top
dog... so there's should be tears over not being "the best" in a
silly competition that proves nothing.

Click to expand...

Ken. said:

Arvin Chang said:

To Ken:
The fastest PC analogy is bad since you bought the PC after it was
rated the best, this is more like buying a PC and then finding out
afterwards it wasn't the fastest/best (maybe 2nd or 3rd... like
Steve's Best 5MP rankings).

A more apt analogy to the PC world be the Rambus hubbub a few years
ago, when Intel's 820 chipset, which was suppose to incorporate the
new, faster, better Rambus DRAM, was pulled due to a plague of
issues.

Click to expand...

Last I looked Dell and Gateway are selling computers with RDRAM.

Click to expand...

John Davis said:

John

Ken. said:

Nicely written Keith!

Funny....

When I bought my first computer I got the fastest computer there
was by reading all the benchmark scores that I could find. It "was"
fast, but only for a short time if you know what I mean. As soon as
I opened the box MMX was annouced and was out within a month. Now
it is even more of a mute point.

"IF" the 707 is the best camera out there at the moment it will
only be so for a little while. So in a few months the "current"
1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners will mean absolutey nothing.

I don't have a digital camera yet. This will be my first one and I
probably will have it as long as I have had my dad's old 35mm, if
it will last that long that is. :c)

All these 5mp cameras take outstanding shots. They all have their
strong and weak points both mechanically and visually. It is nice
to know that there are choices out there. I do like the resolution
of the sony's very much and appreciate the low light focus. It is
not enough for me to buy one though. The colors, while very
vibrant, are just too much for me to enjoy. That is pure personal
taste though, and I am not knocking anyone that loves them. There
are things to love about those colors too.

I have been coming to this forum much more than I should and if I
ever make a purchase I will surely laugh at myself when I look back
at it. The reviews and forums are a hugh help in the decision
making process! :c) Once I get the camera I plan on taking pictures
with it. I plan on enjoying dpreview by coming back to the forum
to ask and answer questions. The people that come here to say "mine
is better than yours" I feel are losing the point of what
photograpy is all about.

I love the shots that I see coming from the nikon. It still got a
recommended rating and that is a good thing. One has to find the
strong and weak points that a camera has to offer and base the
decision on that. I am finding that you can't have everything when
it comes to a digital camera. It would be nice to own a few for
sure!!!!

We all make buying decisions and hopefully enjoy our choices.

I thank Phil for his reviews and for this site that helps us gather
and share knowledge.

Ken.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Peter Galasso said:

Nicely put, Keith.

Click to expand...

Arvin Chang said:

BTW, Compaq is has switched AMD's DDR, RDRAM's rival.

--arvin

Click to expand...

Grant Youngman said:

Peter Galasso said:

Nicely put, Keith.

Click to expand...

I'd call that a pretty good nail on the head and a darn good pause.
At some level we get lost in the trivia.

And all the discussion will soon be moot anyway when the next
Glitzocam 2700 comes out with better this and better that -- and
all will jump on the bandwagon and buy one, only to find out a week
later that the Technoglam 10000 got a better review by Phil (even
with the slight psychodelic effect in auto-white-balance mode, and
the fact that an assistant is needed to help carry it) and is
definitly sharper than the Glitzocam when examined at print sizes
that will cover a football field. If you walk over there, you can
just make out the Glitzo's softness along the 5 yard line. In the
end, who cares ....

Ok ... I'm an amateur (but a sort of experienced one), and I don't
make huge color prints, etc. But when I look at a lot of the
commercial stuff around, it's been processed and fiddled with and
art-ified so much that I frankly couldn't tell whether the original
was shot with a Glitzo or a Techno or a Brownie Hawkeye. So ... in
the end ... who cares?

--
Grant Y.

Click to expand...