megapixels or zoom lense? Which is best for wildlife,landscapes?

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:50:38 -0600, "Ron Recer" wrote:


"Owamanga" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:16:15 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:

VK wrote:
[]
To the OP:
(a) I have a *very* hard time believing that the digital zoom on a P&S
"does not affect quality at all."

Under some limited circumstances digital zoom can actually improve the
quality because:

- the focussing and exposure may be more accurate

- the JPEG compression will have less effect on the lower resolution
image. This can apply when you use, for example, a 2:1 zoom and the
central e.g. 1024 x 768 pixels of the image are interpolated to 2048 x
1536 pixels before being JPEG compressed.

(I have confirmed this on a Nikon 990 using Basic JPEG compression).

This needs to be qualified:

A digital zoom is better than no zoom at all, but never as good as an
optical zoom.

A digital zoom *can be* better than a digital crop/zoom performed
later in software. This is because the camera has access to RAW data
from the sensor before JPEG compression that your expensive computer
software is missing.

But a digital zoom is not better than a RAW image which is later converted
to a TIFF and then cropped using software in your PC. Also, by cropping
with the PC you have full control over framing the crop/zoom. That is much
more control than you have when trying to frame a digital zoom of a flying
bird or running deer with the camera.

There is a camera that takes RAW and has a digital zoom?

...wow, I learn something new every day.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Owamanga wrote:
[snip]

A digital zoom *can be* better than a digital crop/zoom performed
later in software. This is because the camera has access to RAW data
from the sensor before JPEG compression that your expensive computer
software is missing.

Yes, and also for the reasons David mentioned (focus & metering).

In my experiments with my Coolpix 5000, which were posted and discussed
here back in the fall, at 400% digital zoom (in camera crop), there was
a very slight difference between what the camera produced and what I
could do in Photoshop. The camera seemed to render the tones better,
while photoshop seemed to get the details better. Or maybe it was the
other way around. It didn't make a lot of difference either way.

For my camera and my tastes, if I know I will be cropping anyway, then I
would not hesitate to use the digital zoom. It will save the work of
doing the cropping and I don't need to worry about remembering what I
had in mind.

At least with my camera, there doesn't seem to be any real drawback,
other than the contstraint in metering modes (no matrix meter, but I'm
starting to think that might not be bad...)

Bob

Owamanga wrote:


There is a camera that takes RAW and has a digital zoom?

..wow, I learn something new every day.

Coolpix 5000 takes RAW and has digital zoom, so there is at least one.

I have not tested the method of RAW crop in photoshop vs. digital
zoom. I know the RAW image has the potential to look better, but I
suspect that it would be mainly do to the virtue of it being a RAW
image, rather than a jpeg.

Bob

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:01:12 -0500, bob wrote:

Owamanga wrote:
[snip]

A digital zoom *can be* better than a digital crop/zoom performed
later in software. This is because the camera has access to RAW data
from the sensor before JPEG compression that your expensive computer
software is missing.

Yes, and also for the reasons David mentioned (focus & metering).

Metering definitely, I'm not too convinced about the focus advantage.
I've never used one so maybe I'm missing the experience.

In my experiments with my Coolpix 5000, which were posted and discussed
here back in the fall, at 400% digital zoom (in camera crop), there was
a very slight difference between what the camera produced and what I
could do in Photoshop. The camera seemed to render the tones better,
while photoshop seemed to get the details better. Or maybe it was the
other way around. It didn't make a lot of difference either way.

:-)

For my camera and my tastes, if I know I will be cropping anyway, then I
would not hesitate to use the digital zoom. It will save the work of
doing the cropping and I don't need to worry about remembering what I
had in mind.

At least with my camera, there doesn't seem to be any real drawback,
other than the contstraint in metering modes (no matrix meter, but I'm
starting to think that might not be bad...)

Matrix makes people lazy, in that sense it's a curse. I always use it
when I'm shooting 'subject priority' (ie, brain power busy doing other
things such as focus-tracking & framing a moving bird, than worrying
about taking a 6 point spot average and doing some Ansel math).

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 13:08:35 -0500, bob wrote:

Owamanga wrote:


There is a camera that takes RAW and has a digital zoom?

..wow, I learn something new every day.

Coolpix 5000 takes RAW and has digital zoom, so there is at least one.

I keep meaning to buy a P&S for the wife, this sounds like a good
candidate.

I have not tested the method of RAW crop in photoshop vs. digital
zoom. I know the RAW image has the potential to look better, but I
suspect that it would be mainly do to the virtue of it being a RAW
image, rather than a jpeg.

Definitely, if you can get RAW, digital in-camera zoom should be
avoided (except for the metering advantage previously discussed).
Photoshop will give you precise control over the crop without the
double-artifact issues involved with working on Jpegs.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

Owamanga wrote:

Matrix makes people lazy, in that sense it's a curse. I always use it
when I'm shooting 'subject priority' (ie, brain power busy doing other
things such as focus-tracking & framing a moving bird, than worrying
about taking a 6 point spot average and doing some Ansel math).

I already am lazy, so I guess I don't have anything to worry about.

;-)

Actually though, with a center weighted meter, it's pretty easy to
predict what the camera will do in any giving lighting situation. With
Matrix metering it's harder to guess. I end up re doing shots because I
added exposure compensation because I thought the subject would need it,
but the metering system did something I wasn't expecting.

Bob

Owamanga wrote:

Coolpix 5000 takes RAW and has digital zoom, so there is at least one.


I keep meaning to buy a P&S for the wife, this sounds like a good
candidate.

Of course it's a discontinued model, but it's pretty good. The prints I
get back are easily better than any prints I ever got from 35mm -- most
likely due to bad/dirty equipment at the local labs.

Here's a photo that I did that makes use of RAW mode and multiple
exposures to extend dynamic range:

http://www.2fiddles.com/photos/photography/chicago.jpg

With the accessory wide angle lens it's capable of doing some really
nifty stuff, especially considering the compact nature of the camera:

http://www.2fiddles.com/photos/photography/marin.jpg

Since the accessory lens has no moving parts, and is small and light,
it's easy to stick in a pocket between shots. I can carry the camera
around all day and not get tired of it. I definitely could not say that
about the F4.



Definitely, if you can get RAW, digital in-camera zoom should be
avoided (except for the metering advantage previously discussed).
Photoshop will give you precise control over the crop without the
double-artifact issues involved with working on Jpegs.

Depends on what you're doing I think. RAW mode on the 5000 is slow as
death. If the subject is moving you'll probably get better photos
(albiet with slightly lower technical quality) by using jpg mode. That
random shutter lag is a b****.

If you're only going to make a 4x6 print, then you probably wouldn't be
able to tell the difference anyway. It would probably be hard to tell
the difference at 8x10

Bob

wrote:

Ok, I am looking at two cameras. They will be primarily for outdoor
shooting of landscapes, wildlife etc. This is just for personal
enjoyment.

The cameras:

Fuji e550 6 MP 4x zoom
Fuji s5100 4 MP 10x zoom

One camera has the longer zoom, one has higher megapixels. For shots of
eagles, elk etc, and landscapes, which camera will suit my purposes
better?

If you're shooting wildlife, your primary concern is focal length. A 4MP
image filled with an eagle is much better than a 6MP image with a tiny
dot that might be an eagle. The s5100 is said to have a max zoom that
works out to be something like 370mm in 35mm parlance. The e550 maxes
out at 130mm, which might fill the frame with blue jays on your back
deck, if you're lucky. :-)

If the goal is to shoot wildlife, the s5100 wins this round, but results
will still be mixed.

Go down to Best Buy or wherever, and try focussing their demo cameras on
eagle-sized objects at the other end of the store. You'll figure it out
quick. :-)

David J Taylor wrote:
VK wrote:
[]

To the OP:
(a) I have a *very* hard time believing that the digital zoom on a P&S
"does not affect quality at all."


Under some limited circumstances digital zoom can actually improve the
quality because:

- the focussing and exposure may be more accurate

- the JPEG compression will have less effect on the lower resolution
image. This can apply when you use, for example, a 2:1 zoom and the
central e.g. 1024 x 768 pixels of the image are interpolated to 2048 x
1536 pixels before being JPEG compressed.

(I have confirmed this on a Nikon 990 using Basic JPEG compression).

David


It's effect is usually negative, not to say that it can't have its uses.
I have a picture of a lodge taken from a nearby mountain, which
wouldn't even be visible had I not cranked in the full digital zoom on
top of the 4X optical my camera offers. Yes, it's a bit fuzzy, but it
isn't a speck on the landscape, either.


--
Ron Hunter

bob wrote:
Owamanga wrote:


There is a camera that takes RAW and has a digital zoom?

..wow, I learn something new every day.


Coolpix 5000 takes RAW and has digital zoom, so there is at least one.

I have not tested the method of RAW crop in photoshop vs. digital
zoom. I know the RAW image has the potential to look better, but I
suspect that it would be mainly do to the virtue of it being a RAW
image, rather than a jpeg.

Bob

Well, if you start with all the data, then you certainly have a better
start. Now whether or not you can then convert, and crop, and get a
better image, that's dependant on how good you are with what software...


--
Ron Hunter