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
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the
results. It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera. I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP, interpolated to 12 mp. Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has a 3 meg file in file manager. The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not pixels And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels. I have a background in film photography, and would really like a point and shoot that will take good pictures. I know this is probably a roaring debate somewhere in this group, but I couldn't find it. Anyway my question is: if I buy the new Casio 12 meg camera, I'm guessing my file size will be about 4 megs. Will the overall look of the photograph improve or am I looking at the results of 2 different types of digital cameras? I just assumed size mattered. Thanks, Ron |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:10:45 GMT, Dave Cohen wrote:
wrote: I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the results. It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera. I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP, interpolated to 12 mp. Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has a 3 meg file in file manager. The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not pixels And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels. I have a background in film photography, and would really like a point and shoot that will take good pictures. I know this is probably a roaring debate somewhere in this group, but I couldn't find it. Anyway my question is: if I buy the new Casio 12 meg camera, I'm guessing my file size will be about 4 megs. Will the overall look of the photograph improve or am I looking at the results of 2 different types of digital cameras? I just assumed size mattered. Thanks, Ron 8 mp is more than adequate and you are not going to see any improvement by going to 12 mp. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'true' 6mb file. I assume you are talking about jpeg so the size of the file will be a function of pixel count and compression. Review the settings on your Casio to verify you're shooting to it's best capability. Dave Cohen When filing the images on my computer, I select 'detail' and the size of the file is shown. With the Fuji it's 6+ megs. With the Casio it's 3 megs. So, I'm assuming the fuji is packing more info in the picture than the Casio. The Casio shoots in focus, but the skin tones are hard. Also, I am recording the highest quality possible on the Casio. ThanksRon |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
For someone with "a background in photography" you got lots to learn.
Plain and simple the Fuji is a more capable camera and should deliver better images regardless of sensor pixel count. The Casio line you have is made up of very good pocket size cameras. They all perform about the same regardless of sensor megapixel count. The physical size of these things and the constraints that places on optics are significant limiting factors, among others. You seem confused about in-camera jpeg processing which has two parts: image processing and file size compression. Read and learn. The instruction manual of your Casio is a good starting point . . . |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 22:15:09 -0700, "flambe"
wrote: For someone with "a background in photography" you got lots to learn. Plain and simple the Fuji is a more capable camera and should deliver better images regardless of sensor pixel count. The Casio line you have is made up of very good pocket size cameras. They all perform about the same regardless of sensor megapixel count. The physical size of these things and the constraints that places on optics are significant limiting factors, among others. You seem confused about in-camera jpeg processing which has two parts: image processing and file size compression. Read and learn. The instruction manual of your Casio is a good starting point . . . I've digested the Casio manual and a Sony manual before my first post. Buy your reply pretty much explains it all. Thanks. You are right.. don't know much about the digital revolution that has almost wiped out the mom and pop professional photography businesses. My background is strictly in film cameras. I photographed weddings, portraits and events with medium format camera's , and rarely used 35mm. But when using 35mm, a decent compact camera was just as capable as a SLR if you stayed withing the parameters that the camera would allow. In error, I assumed the same thing about the Fugi and the Casio. But you say I'm wrong in that assumption.... and I believe you. I had a Casio 2 meg camera that worked fine.... the Casio 8 meg camera does a much better job.... and I thought maybe the 12 meg would again, do an even better job. I'm not factoring in jpeg compression... just the simple physics that are obvious to me... an old film guy Also, my quest for quality in a smaller camera was prompted by my buying my daughter a 7 meg Sony, that has much smoother and better skin tones than the 8 meg Casio. Since I'm an old 'manual' photographer, I like the control the Casio offers that the Sony doesn't offer. Again, thanks for your response. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
wrote in message ... I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the results. It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera. I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP, interpolated to 12 mp. Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has a 3 meg file in file manager. The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not pixels And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels. Nothing to do with file size or megapixels. Your problem sounds like the images have too much sharpening for your tastes and you want a softer look. If the camera will not let you adjust you could always do some softening in post-processing. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
wrote in message ... On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:10:45 GMT, Dave Cohen wrote: wrote: I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the results. It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera. I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP, interpolated to 12 mp. Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has a 3 meg file in file manager. The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not pixels And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels. I have a background in film photography, and would really like a point and shoot that will take good pictures. I know this is probably a roaring debate somewhere in this group, but I couldn't find it. Anyway my question is: if I buy the new Casio 12 meg camera, I'm guessing my file size will be about 4 megs. Will the overall look of the photograph improve or am I looking at the results of 2 different types of digital cameras? I just assumed size mattered. Thanks, Ron 8 mp is more than adequate and you are not going to see any improvement by going to 12 mp. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'true' 6mb file. I assume you are talking about jpeg so the size of the file will be a function of pixel count and compression. Review the settings on your Casio to verify you're shooting to it's best capability. Dave Cohen When filing the images on my computer, I select 'detail' and the size of the file is shown. With the Fuji it's 6+ megs. With the Casio it's 3 megs. So, I'm assuming the fuji is packing more info in the picture than the Casio. The Casio shoots in focus, but the skin tones are hard. Also, I am recording the highest quality possible on the Casio. ThanksRon If you are just looking at file size, that is not a good thing to do because both of those cameras have different quality levels for JPEG. One is using perhaps a much higher compression setting, which may or may not be adjustable, depending on the camera. For example, on my Canon 8MP DSLR I can adjust my JPEG quality in the camera menu to produce smaller file sizes. The lower quality files are the same width and height in pixels, just lower JPEG quality (higher compression) with possibly more artifacts. The advantage of the lower quality JPEG is you can fit more images on the same media card. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:53:58 -0700, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom
wrote: wrote in message t... I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the results. It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera. I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP, interpolated to 12 mp. Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has a 3 meg file in file manager. The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not pixels And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels. Nothing to do with file size or megapixels. Your problem sounds like the images have too much sharpening for your tastes and you want a softer look. If the camera will not let you adjust you could always do some softening in post-processing. Thanks for the advice. Not the answer I wanted, but the answer I'll have to live with. Regards, Ron |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:53:58 -0700, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom
wrote: wrote in message t... I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the results. It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera. I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP, interpolated to 12 mp. Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has a 3 meg file in file manager. The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not pixels And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels. Nothing to do with file size or megapixels. Your problem sounds like the images have too much sharpening for your tastes and you want a softer look. If the camera will not let you adjust you could always do some softening in post-processing. You solved the problem. There is a submenu item that lets you soften or sharpen the immage. Well, on 0 the portraits and pictures of my dog were sharp to a fault. I had to go to minus 2 to get a normal (smooth) looking picture. Now, I love this camera. Thanks ALL for the help. I appreciate the honesty and I ain't buying a camera unless it's a SLR type that has a real appeture range. But since I have an Olympus E10, and only use it once every 6 months, I'll probably keep the E10 for more advanced operations.. Even theough The 2 stop apeture range on the Z850 is limiting, it is usable, cause of the shutter speed range. OH yea, this camera without a tripod is a paperweight... a tripod should be glued to the bottom! Regards, Ron Again, Thanks |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Casio 12 meg any good?
wrote in message ... On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:53:58 -0700, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote: wrote in message et... I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the results. It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera. I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP, interpolated to 12 mp. Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has a 3 meg file in file manager. The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not pixels And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels. Nothing to do with file size or megapixels. Your problem sounds like the images have too much sharpening for your tastes and you want a softer look. If the camera will not let you adjust you could always do some softening in post-processing. You solved the problem. There is a submenu item that lets you soften or sharpen the immage. Well, on 0 the portraits and pictures of my dog were sharp to a fault. I had to go to minus 2 to get a normal (smooth) looking picture. Now, I love this camera. Thanks ALL for the help. I appreciate the honesty and I ain't buying a camera unless it's a SLR type that has a real appeture range. But since I have an Olympus E10, and only use it once every 6 months, I'll probably keep the E10 for more advanced operations.. Even theough The 2 stop apeture range on the Z850 is limiting, it is usable, cause of the shutter speed range. OH yea, this camera without a tripod is a paperweight... a tripod should be glued to the bottom! Regards, Ron Again, Thanks Great! It's rare I hit one right on the head but glad I did this time for you! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Casio EX-Z50 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | December 9th 06 08:13 AM |
Good morning or good evening depending upon your location. I want to ask you the most important question of your life. Your joy or sorrow for all eternity depends upon your answer. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good | Rôgêr | Digital Photography | 0 | April 21st 05 03:32 PM |
Casio QV R51? | eppi60 | Digital Photography | 3 | July 5th 04 06:54 PM |