If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Does (camera ) size matter ?
I m in the market to buy a 5MP camera. I saw that they come in all
sizes ranging from slightly bigger than a credit card to very bulky SLR sizes. Obviously the diameter of the lens also varies proportionally. I was wondering if it makes any difference if the camera is small. Theoretically speaking if the image sensors are also proportionally sized in comparison with the lens, the quality should not be affected. But I doubt this is the mase. Is there a catch with the smaller cameras in terms of the quality ? --nw |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Norris,
I'd recommend looking at Steve's Digicams review site http://www.steves-digicams.com/ Lens quality does vary with each camera and this would give you an idea since they discuss this with each one they have reviewed. Hope this helps. CM I m in the market to buy a 5MP camera. I saw that they come in all sizes ranging from slightly bigger than a credit card to very bulky SLR sizes. Obviously the diameter of the lens also varies proportionally. I was wondering if it makes any difference if the camera is small. Theoretically speaking if the image sensors are also proportionally sized in comparison with the lens, the quality should not be affected. But I doubt this is the mase. Is there a catch with the smaller cameras in terms of the quality ? --nw |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
I m in the market to buy a 5MP camera. I saw that they come in all sizes ranging from slightly bigger than a credit card to very bulky SLR sizes. Obviously the diameter of the lens also varies proportionally. I was wondering if it makes any difference if the camera is small. Theoretically speaking if the image sensors are also proportionally sized in comparison with the lens, the quality should not be affected. But I doubt this is the mase. Is there a catch with the smaller cameras in terms of the quality ? --nw Ouch! Where to start? Smaller cameras tend to have less space for the sensors which are then less sensitive to the light and/or give more noise (speckles) in the picture. A poor 5MP camera may be no better than a good 4MP. However, if you want a holiday 'point and shoot in daylight' then a small one will be fine. They also tend to be more cramped front to back for the lens so you tend to have - a shorter focal length - distant objects appear smaller - either no optical zoom lens or a limited range. - limited light gathering ability so you can't operate in low light conditions without a flash, and even then flashes are limited in the distance they can cover. 4 metres range for a typical camera flash, perhaps 15m or 20m for a big add-on unit. As for your particular question, the amount of light is the area of the glass divided by the focal length. So if you double the diameter the area quadruples and you get four times as much light. The measure for this is the 'focal ratio' and you'll see figures like f2.8, f4, f5.6. f8, f11 - a halving of light admitted per step (or 'stop' as it's called). These are only generalisations though. Why not lurk in groups like this, or try manufacturer's pages - http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/ca...gs.php?flash=6 is one I found helpful but ignore the hype. I'll don my anti-flame suit now for over-simplifying! Best of luck. Phil |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I have two cameras; one an 8 meg Sony F828 that a blacksmith could probably
use to shoe horses with. The other is a 4 meg (no bigger than king size cigarette pack) Canon S410 that I use for backup. The quality of each camera is good but I much prefer to use the Sony. Why? I have large hands and hate the small size even if I can carry it in my pocket. Size does matter. Be certain that you are comfortable handling whatever you buy. wrote in message oups.com... I m in the market to buy a 5MP camera. I saw that they come in all sizes ranging from slightly bigger than a credit card to very bulky SLR sizes. Obviously the diameter of the lens also varies proportionally. I was wondering if it makes any difference if the camera is small. Theoretically speaking if the image sensors are also proportionally sized in comparison with the lens, the quality should not be affected. But I doubt this is the mase. Is there a catch with the smaller cameras in terms of the quality ? --nw |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 12:42:50 -0500, bob wrote:
The short answer is: all things being equal, a bigger sensor gives better quality images. Bob is right. However, all things are not always equal. For example, I bought myself a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1 (meanwhile upgraded to FZ2 firmware) instead of the also available, bigger, better FZ10, almost entirely for the reason that the FZ1-2 is much smaller. So why did I select the smaller, poorer camera that doesn't make the better pictures? Because there are other considerations. To give just one example, to get the better picture from a bigger camera, you also have to hold it more still than the small one. The better picture requires not only the bigger camera and sensor, but also less camera shake. Not to mention that the smaller camera fits into the small shoulder bag that I always carry with me, while the bigger FZ10 does not. This translates into some relatively less good pictures compared to no picture at all in many situations. Just to widen the view ... Hans-Georg -- No mail, please. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
stewy wrote:
wrote: I m in the market to buy a 5MP camera. I saw that they come in all sizes ranging from slightly bigger than a credit card to very bulky SLR sizes. Obviously the diameter of the lens also varies proportionally. I was wondering if it makes any difference if the camera is small. Theoretically speaking if the image sensors are also proportionally sized in comparison with the lens, the quality should not be affected. But I doubt this is the mase. Is there a catch with the smaller cameras in terms of the quality ? --nw Theoretically it's possible to make small lenses just as well as big lenses (otherwise no-one would wear contact lenses). So the question comes down to what kind of camera do you want? Are you content to lug a huge DSLR, a couple of lenses, a flash, heavy tripod and a few other bits and pieces in a big camera bag (or chuck it in the boot of the car)? or are you a hiker or backpacker where weight is a consideration? Or do you want a camera that will slip in you pocket and you carry everywhere? The catch is what you can do with it. Big DSLRs give you a huge range of options, but is that what you need? You can take perfect pictures with a small 2mpxl P&S camera but you are limited to about postcard sized prints. Personally I chose the middle route a largish camera without interchangable lenses (no dust on the sensor) but with a 6.3mpxl sensor (Fuji S7000) No doubt some snobs will sniff 'It's not a REAL camera' but I find those people talk a lot about how much they've spent but have very little to show for it. 1 Choose you budget. 2 What are you going to use it for? 3 Decide on how big and heavy you're prepared to carry. Good points. Regardless of size, or quality, a camera sitting on a shelf at home doesn't take any good pictures. -- Ron Hunter |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Buy a Digital Camera | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 05 10:01 PM |
Mega pixel and print size and digital camera | Jamie | Digital Photography | 36 | October 20th 04 03:16 AM |
Small size, optical zoom, VGA with sound - camera recommendation wanted | Stu | Digital Photography | 2 | October 8th 04 09:33 PM |
Someone please explain MACRO lenses to me | greg | Digital Photography | 160 | August 22nd 04 01:29 PM |
perspective w/ 35mm lenses? | PrincePete01 | Digital Photography | 373 | August 10th 04 02:21 PM |