8 mega pixel -which one

David J Taylor -this-
part.uk wrote:

I don't understand why you should say that. The zoom ratio has nothing to
do with the size of the pixels. Light level (and therefore noise) would
depend on the aperture (f/number) and not the focal length.

But it's tough making a 7x zoom lens sharp enough for 2.8 micrometer
pixels. The lens has to resolve 179 lp/mm, if possible from corner to
corner, and the larger the zoom range the tougher it is. That's how I
understand it - an expert might be able to give you a more scientific
explanation. Chromatic aberrations are also higher when the zoom factor
is longer.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

David J Taylor -this-
part.uk wrote:

I don't understand why you should say that. The zoom ratio has nothing to
do with the size of the pixels. Light level (and therefore noise) would
depend on the aperture (f/number) and not the focal length.

But it's tough making a 7x zoom lens sharp enough for 2.8 micrometer
pixels. The lens has to resolve 179 lp/mm, if possible from corner to
corner, and the larger the zoom range the tougher it is. That's how I
understand it - an expert might be able to give you a more scientific
explanation. Chromatic aberrations are also higher when the zoom factor
is longer.

Too bad that my 828 didn't read this before I used it. Since it didn't
see this it doesn't know how poorly it should perform.

But then again the results are fantastic from it so it is good that it
never saw your post. And the largest prints I make from it our only 13
x 19" so perhaps I should worry if I make larger prints.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:

David J Taylor -this-
part.uk wrote:

I don't understand why you should say that. The zoom ratio has nothing to
do with the size of the pixels. Light level (and therefore noise) would
depend on the aperture (f/number) and not the focal length.

But it's tough making a 7x zoom lens sharp enough for 2.8 micrometer
pixels. The lens has to resolve 179 lp/mm, if possible from corner to
corner, and the larger the zoom range the tougher it is. That's how I
understand it - an expert might be able to give you a more scientific
explanation. Chromatic aberrations are also higher when the zoom factor
is longer.

Too bad that my 828 didn't read this before I used it. Since it didn't
see this it doesn't know how poorly it should perform.

But then again the results are fantastic from it so it is good that it
never saw your post. And the largest prints I make from it our only 13
x 19" so perhaps I should worry if I make larger prints.

--
To reply no_ HPMarketing Corp.

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
But it's tough making a 7x zoom lens sharp enough for 2.8 micrometer
pixels. The lens has to resolve 179 lp/mm, if possible from corner to
corner, and the larger the zoom range the tougher it is. That's how I
understand it - an expert might be able to give you a more scientific
explanation. Chromatic aberrations are also higher when the zoom
factor is longer.

The Nikon 8700 seems to work pretty well, and it has an 8:1 zoom. With
digital cameras, having a lens whose "resolution" is slightly less than
that of the sensor is probably a good thing, as it will help reduce
aliasing.

Cheers,
David

Arty Phacting wrote:
you are allowed to "not understand"?

Arts

But that is taking the easy way out - I wish to work towards a better
understanding. I am also interested in upgrading my camera.

David

you are allowed to "not understand"?

Arts

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
[]
A 7x zoom
is a bit too much for an 8MP camera with 2.8 micrometer pixels.

I don't understand why you should say that. The zoom ratio has nothing to
do with the size of the pixels. Light level (and therefore noise) would
depend on the aperture (f/number) and not the focal length.

Cheers,
David

you are allowed to "not understand"?

Arts

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
[]
A 7x zoom
is a bit too much for an 8MP camera with 2.8 micrometer pixels.

I don't understand why you should say that. The zoom ratio has nothing to
do with the size of the pixels. Light level (and therefore noise) would
depend on the aperture (f/number) and not the focal length.

Cheers,
David

you are allowed to "not understand"?

Arts

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
[]
A 7x zoom
is a bit too much for an 8MP camera with 2.8 micrometer pixels.

I don't understand why you should say that. The zoom ratio has nothing to
do with the size of the pixels. Light level (and therefore noise) would
depend on the aperture (f/number) and not the focal length.

Cheers,
David

"Leo Reyes" wrote in message
nk.net...
I probably will open up a can of worms, but I am going to get an 8 mega
pixel digital camera and would like to know of anyone that has one and or
some advise. I have been to DPReview.com and looked at all the 8 pixel
camera reviews, but when I look at the picture samples of all those
cameras,
the pictures look the same in quality (unless the author is using the same
picture sample for all 8 mega pixwl cameras)

I took delivery of a Sony 828 yesterday, and will post some impressions if
you want. So far, the handling is way ahead of the others, and image quality
is nowhere near as bad as some of the more vocal users/reviewers claim. I'll
do a little shooting over the next few days and see.

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...

See here :

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...oosing-8.shtml

No no no. Don't see that.

Get the Olympus. It's the one I would get.

The Oly has one of the worst zoom controls on the planet. Totally useless
for accurate framing. For me, it was a fatal flaw.