size matters
Sun Mar 13 01:38:41 EST 2016
tags: camera, digicam, photography, casio, canon, panasonic, qv35003x, s1is, dmcfz18s, zs40
I'm on my 4th digital camera. Some of you may recall comments about my first digicam, a Casio QV-3500EX, taking better photos than the next two. (Jury's still out on the last camera.) It was slow, 3x optical zoom, 3 megapix, and had nowhere near the functions that we expect now, but the actual quality of the images was better, cleaner. I found a camera-comparison site today that goes back far enough to include that camera.
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/specification/compare/46-580-1628-3445.html
And I can see a few key differences:
Type
Casio
QV-3500EX
Canon
Powershot
S1 IS
Panasonic
Lumix
DMC FZ18
Panasonic
Lumix
DMC ZS40
Resolution
3.34 Mpixel
3.34 Mpixel
8.32 Mpixel
18.10 Mpixel
Maximum resolution
2048x1536
2048x1536
3264x2448
4896x3672
Sensor size
1/1.8-inch
1/2.7-inch
1/2.5-inch
1/2.3-inch
Sensor size
0.55555 inch
0.37037 inch
0.40000 inch
0.43478 inch
Zoom wide (mm)
33mm
38mm
28mm
24mm
Zoom tele (mm)
100mm (3x)
380mm (10x)
504mm (18x)
720mm (30x)
Minimum aperture wide
f2.0
f2.8
f2.8
f3.3
Focus range (cm)
30
10
30
50
Macro focus range (cm)
6cm
10cm
1cm
3cm
I've mostly been taking 3MP photos, to save disk space, since that's still bigger than my computer screens. Going to 8MP or 18MP isn't a strong bonus for me. (Yes, with more pixels I could crop down, but I generally frame the shot for what I want to begin with.)
The sensor size is the first telling difference. (I've converted the fractions on the next line for easier comparison.) The Casio had a much bigger sensor than the Canon that came next, and bigger than the next two. At the same resolution (Canon), that's going to make for much less noise and cleaner images. Against a higher resolution (Panasonics) it's going to be way cleaner. The other big factor is the "Minimum" (i.e. maximum) aperture. F2.8 is considered really good for a budget camera, and the Casio had the significantly better f2.0. That meant it was getting much more light, and light is information, and more data is better data. So simple physics/optics explain why that primitive camera's photos were so much cleaner and sharper. Whiz-bang features can't beat physics.
I'll eventually get those photos on line, and you'll be able to see that some of them are just stunning - refracting water drops on flower petals, a cat's dilated pupils and whisker detail in low light, pollen grains on flowers at macro.
Seems like there should be a market for a budget camera with a bigger sensor and enough glass to give it plenty of light. I was so disappointed with the Canon after the Casio that I just stopped taking pictures. (The Canon also has focusing problems; later models added a focus-assist light.) The first Panasonic was better, but the images were still noisy/muddy compared to the Casio. And with this last Panasonic I've moved to something physically smaller, which is at odds with my desire for a bigger sensor and bigger lens. The first Panasonic wasn't big enough to satisfy me, and too big to be convenient.
[This entry was originally posted as https://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/803741.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]
tags: camera, digicam, photography, casio, canon, panasonic, qv35003x, s1is, dmcfz18s, zs40
I'm on my 4th digital camera. Some of you may recall comments about my first digicam, a Casio QV-3500EX, taking better photos than the next two. (Jury's still out on the last camera.) It was slow, 3x optical zoom, 3 megapix, and had nowhere near the functions that we expect now, but the actual quality of the images was better, cleaner. I found a camera-comparison site today that goes back far enough to include that camera.
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/camera/specification/compare/46-580-1628-3445.html
And I can see a few key differences:
Type
Casio
QV-3500EX
Canon
Powershot
S1 IS
Panasonic
Lumix
DMC FZ18
Panasonic
Lumix
DMC ZS40
Resolution
3.34 Mpixel
3.34 Mpixel
8.32 Mpixel
18.10 Mpixel
Maximum resolution
2048x1536
2048x1536
3264x2448
4896x3672
Sensor size
1/1.8-inch
1/2.7-inch
1/2.5-inch
1/2.3-inch
Sensor size
0.55555 inch
0.37037 inch
0.40000 inch
0.43478 inch
Zoom wide (mm)
33mm
38mm
28mm
24mm
Zoom tele (mm)
100mm (3x)
380mm (10x)
504mm (18x)
720mm (30x)
Minimum aperture wide
f2.0
f2.8
f2.8
f3.3
Focus range (cm)
30
10
30
50
Macro focus range (cm)
6cm
10cm
1cm
3cm
I've mostly been taking 3MP photos, to save disk space, since that's still bigger than my computer screens. Going to 8MP or 18MP isn't a strong bonus for me. (Yes, with more pixels I could crop down, but I generally frame the shot for what I want to begin with.)
The sensor size is the first telling difference. (I've converted the fractions on the next line for easier comparison.) The Casio had a much bigger sensor than the Canon that came next, and bigger than the next two. At the same resolution (Canon), that's going to make for much less noise and cleaner images. Against a higher resolution (Panasonics) it's going to be way cleaner. The other big factor is the "Minimum" (i.e. maximum) aperture. F2.8 is considered really good for a budget camera, and the Casio had the significantly better f2.0. That meant it was getting much more light, and light is information, and more data is better data. So simple physics/optics explain why that primitive camera's photos were so much cleaner and sharper. Whiz-bang features can't beat physics.
I'll eventually get those photos on line, and you'll be able to see that some of them are just stunning - refracting water drops on flower petals, a cat's dilated pupils and whisker detail in low light, pollen grains on flowers at macro.
Seems like there should be a market for a budget camera with a bigger sensor and enough glass to give it plenty of light. I was so disappointed with the Canon after the Casio that I just stopped taking pictures. (The Canon also has focusing problems; later models added a focus-assist light.) The first Panasonic was better, but the images were still noisy/muddy compared to the Casio. And with this last Panasonic I've moved to something physically smaller, which is at odds with my desire for a bigger sensor and bigger lens. The first Panasonic wasn't big enough to satisfy me, and too big to be convenient.
[This entry was originally posted as https://syntonic-comma.dreamwidth.org/803741.html on Dreamwidth (where there are
comments).]