Recommend a digital camera?

Sorry, that's for the back alone. About $32K for the whole camera, sans lens. But it's only 22 mpixels. And it can still shoot film!

 

Thanks! I've also learned that you can always take a great shot with a dSLR. But you can't take a shot of something great if you decided to leave it at home. So I think it's always good to have a small walk-around camera handy. You might lose something in quality, but you won't miss the opportunity.

Well, they're okay. But why bother with one when you can just pick up this lens for your Canon?

 

Ahh, I'm used to walking around with two of the honkers hung from my shoulders or, worse, my neck, with a third lens in my pocket.:tb-biggrin::tb-biggrin: Besides, the dSLRs are much lighter than film cameras.

You are right, though. A pocket camera comes in handy.

 

Like an Ixus?

 

Hi Hemi!

I understand your points. My short answer is that most editors do not understand the issues surrounding resolution and sharpness. If they are demanding a minimum pixel count without actually examining an image, then they don't understand the process that an image goes through from the snap of the shutter to the printed page. If they don't understand these issues, then you have to meet their demands to get in the door. And P&S cameras that meet their demands are a great solution! The editor is happy; the photographer is happy; it's a win-win situation.

I can't give my long answer today. It has to do with the unambiguous data each pixel receives. Given a bigger lens and a bigger pixel, the unambiguity decreases. That's just optics.

As far as batteries and memory cards--the situation is changing. I've seen batteries and cards in places like Houlton, ME and Fairbanks, AK. I've never needed either, but they were available. With 8 Gbyte cards now cheap ($36?), I don't know how many more I'll actually need.

Remember that the pixel count is all geometric.

 

More resolution taken on its own is a good thing. In the early days of digital cameras it was crucial. Back then, you could make an 8x10 print with a 2MP camera, but a 3 or 4MP camera was a lot sharper and more detailed. Cameras with 5 and 6MP resolution would let you do some cropping and still make great 8x10 prints. But resolution isn't the thing of overwhelming importance anymore. David Pogue of The New York Times recently had identical pictures shot with 5, 8 and 13MP cameras. He had a print from each camera output at 16"x24" and hung them side-by-side in Times Square. He then asked people to pick which camera had taken which print. Ninety-five percent of the people couldn't tell any difference. Of the remainder who guessed only one person chose correctly.

Many photographers have also done comparisons (as Pete apparently has) of digital imagery in the real world (prints, publication production, etc.) and shown to their own satisfaction that adding more pixels to today's consumer cameras doesn't provide much added benefit in the real world. The bigger question is, does it hurt anything?

To answer that, we need to know how camera resolution is increased. Basically each pixel of resolution requires a photoreceptor on the camera's sensor chip. The more pixels, the more photoreceptors are needed. You might think camera manufacturers make room for the extra photoreceptors by making the sensor a little bigger. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The reason is, each time you make the sensor bigger, you have to increase the camera's focal length. This requires the camera and lens to get bigger. The simple truth is dSLRs and their lenses are not large to make some kind of fashion statement. They are large because the sensor in them is bigger.

But consumer cameras are not getting bigger. If the cameras are not getting bigger when the resolution is increased, the camera's sensor isn't getting bigger either. What's really happening is manufacturers are making the photoreceptors smaller. But there's a cost involved in doing this. Ever notice how cheap telescopes have small diameter tubes and fancy ones are really big around? What's the difference? The difference is the smaller the diameter, the smaller the area of sky you can see. The smaller the area of sky, the less light that's there. The less light, the dimmer things look. The dimmer they look, the harder they are to see. This is why the small telescopes are so cheap. Camera sensors work the same way. Each time manufacturers reduce the size of the photoreceptors, they reduce the color accuracy and dynamic range of the images the camera can capture. Among other things, this impairs the ability of the camera to take good photos in darker areas (also known as indoors).

There's also another problem with reducing the photoreceptors to add more pixels. Digital photoreceptors are electronic. All electronics generate some measure of electronical interference as a result of, among other things, the random thermal motion of electrons flowing through and around them. The smaller photoreceptors become, the more susceptible they are to ambient interference. The closer the photoreceptors are placed to one another, the more they interfere with each other. All this interference is picked up by the photoreceptors as image data and shows up on our photos as those grainy colored flecks of noise. In dim light, digital cameras turn up the gain on their sensors (simulating film ISO), which further increases the noise generated. Noise reduction systems can reduce or remove this noise, but they also reduce and remove detail from your photos in the process.

In an ideal world, you want to balance image quality and image resolution. But this isn't what most camera manufacturers are currently doing. Instead, many are increasing megapixel resolution at all costs as a way of marketing their products to us. Combined with shrinking the sizes of their cameras and increasing the zoom ranges, the net result is that image quality is suffering to a degree that perhaps it shouldn't.

 

Thanks, Flandry! That's essentially my long answer.:tb-biggrin:

Yes, I've done a number of comparisons. The most telling were my 6 mpixel sDLR Nikon D70 versus my wife's 5 mpixel Sony P&S, and the D70 versus a pro D2X Nikon at 12.4 mpixels. There were noticeable differences, of course. The Sony has a pretty good lens, but the sensor is tiny. It's 3X "normal" focal length is about 7.3mm to 24mm. The D70's 3X length is 24mm to 72mm, and the D2X's is 35mm to 105mm. The D2X has a full-frame 35mm sensor, while the D70 has a "DX" sensor which is 33% smaller.

Sony versus D70 was no contest. The D70 versus the D2X was also no contest, until we started switching lenses around. Putting a pro lens on the D70 improved results; putting a prosumer lens on the D2X worsened results. With identical lenses, the D2X still won out, but not by such a large margin.

I haven't had a chance to test out the D200 or D300 in a controlled way. I think they will be a marginal improvement over the D70, rather than a revolutionary one.

 

I am sure I don't understand most of this, but in my case I have an older Nikon Coolpix 5000, five megapixels. I also have a Canon A570IS, seven megapixels. The Nikon wins, hands down, on every way I have tried to take a picture. I presumed that the difference in these two prosumer cameras was better Nikon glass, but it could be smaller photoreceptors in the smaller canon A570IS? Please comment if you would. Thanks. I am enjoying the thread and re-reading it often.

 

I've already posted to this thread. I thought I would add that Shamoo737 has a thread on the home page titled "Jim's Lost Pictures", not sure why he did this, but you can see some of my photos taken with the previously mention Canon A620 series. A picture is worth a thousand words. Cheers, Jim CCRR LOST

 

You’re welcome! While it's true, you get what you pay for, I think the point Pete was making and I followed up on is that it’s also true that marketing pressures are having a negative impact on the quality of the consumer cameras made today. All other things being equal, a camera with 6MP will outperform the same camera with 10MP. But 10MP sounds better to consumers, so that’s the one they buy. So that's the one the manufacturer chooses to make. With either resolution, the price of the camera really doesn't change but the image quality does. The same thing sort of marketing-driven decision-making happened in the home audio industry years ago. People got so fixated on cheap amplifiers with high wattage ratings that 700+ watt HT systems are the norm today - despite the fact that the 25 watt amps of yesterday provided superior fidelity.

As long as lower-end consumers base their camera purchases largely on how big the MP number is, cameras at this level will continue to perform at levels below what’s actually possible. By contrast, image quality is everything in the dSLR market. Which is why dSLRs with their massively larger sensors don’t offer resolutions significantly higher than those provided by their tiny point-and-shoot counterparts.

Now saying this in no way means lower cost cameras are lousy performers. There are many good ones out there and, in fact, most are vastly superior to their old film counterparts. I agree, if you find one that works to your desires, that’s all that matters. The whole compact superzoom (10 and 12X) camera class wouldn’t be possible without small sensors (since large sensors = large, bulky lenses). While the small sensor imposes limitations, these cameras can be stellar performers when used within their limits. I wouldn't hesitate to offer one for daytime railfanning.

But the best way to choose the right camera and to help the industry move forward is to not to fall into the MP trap. So push the MP number to the side and instead consider the camera’s other features first.

Yes. It’s definitely the sensor that’s causing the results. Lens quality is actually pretty similar between the two. As you’ve already surmised, the 5MP in your Coolpix 5000 allows it to have larger photoreceptors than those in your Canon. But that's not the only thing affecting the photorecptor size. Your Coolpix also has a larger body with a lens that doesn’t have as much zoom (3X vs. 4X). These “disadvantages” were conscientious decisions made by Nikon so they could house a 2/3” sensor in the Coolpix. This sensor is a good deal larger than the 1/2.5” sensor used in the Canon. In the image below, the sensor on the left is close to what’s in your Canon. The one on the right is in your Nikon.



Due to pressure to make cameras smaller and zoom ranges larger, camera manufacturers aren’t really producing 2/3” prosumer cameras any more. As a result, these cameras are often sought in the used market by professional photographers looking for a high-quality pocket camera.

 

rkcarguy, Ask and you will receive! Understandably with all the answers to your query you've probably given up model trains and photography for stamp collecting. I mentioned that this thread would get out of hand and it has. Bottom line. Buy a Canon A620 or A630 on ebay for $125 and you will never have to deal with this issue again. LOL Cheers, Jim CCRR

 

Not sure why you think this thread has gotten out of hand. I think Flandry and I, and other participants, have tried to put this in layman's terms for those members who wish to follow it. If you wish not to follow it, that's just fine with all of us. The Canons you mentioned are great cameras. If members wish to follow the thread, there's good information here that might help someone understand what makes a camera good, and what makes one less-then-good. I hope you don't have a problem with that.

 

Pete, No problem with you or the thread. I addressed my comment to rkcarguy and referred to his original query of what is a good camera for $100 to $200. He probably didn't much care much about a $32,000 Hassleblad or the theory of what makes a one Nikon better than another camera. Humorous to me I guess. Sorry you aren't amused with it all. Cheers, Jim CCRR

 

Thanks again, Flandry, for taking the lead on this thread. I don't have time to illustrate the difference in size between a 9mm sensor, a DX sensor, and a full 35mm sensor. But I think the difference between a 9mm sensor and a DX sensor might astound some people.

Your analogy to amplifiers is right on. My 20-year-old 40-watt Nakamichi shakes the manse with much more authority than a much newer 400-watt Sony.

 

No problem here. I guess I didn't understand your attempt at humor, which is always appreciated here. The $32K Hasselblad was an attempt at humor on my part. I know of much larger, and much more expensive sensors.

 

Pete, No worries. Honestly, I didn't look back to see who posted about the Hasselblad. Sorry it was you. Anyway, I was amused that my original predition in my original post to this thread came true. These threads sometimes get away and I just wanted rkcarguy to feel like he wasn't getting left out. Cheers, Jim CCRR

 

Well, I've been pretty vocal in this thread so I feel largely responsible. I confess I know extremely little about model railroading and am in awe of the knowledge and skills routinely displayed here. Cameras are an area I'm not so ignorant in. So when questions were asked by others after I'd presented rkcarguy my considered opinion of a good camera for his stated use and price point, I was only too glad for the opportunity to give back a little for everything I've been learning from all of you. If I've put off anyone with my dissertations, I sincerely apologize.

 

This has been a great thread. If you're into cameras, then the details may or may not interest you, so you can skip them, and find good info in the other posts.

How's an 8000 x 8000 sensor sound to you? And it's a big sucker too, used in satellites.