Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / February 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Testing my Killfile, plus found a new compact.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Andy Hewitt - 06 Feb 2007 13:14 GMT
Hi chaps,

At yet another risk of brand snobbery from some, I have now configured
my killfile, so I'll see how that pans out. Just to give you some idea,
this is the first time I've actually used a killfile in 9 years of
usenet.

Anyway, I considered carefully all the suggestions made here (well, most
anyway!). In the end I did some extensive research, mainly at Steve's
Digicams, as well as other web locations too. I found as many test
prints as I could.

I really wanted to stick with my most important criteria as much as
possible, but as one of those was cost, I knew I'd have to compromise as
well. I wanted to spend less than £100 if possible, but would go more if
I found it warranted the difference.

You may remember that I wanted something pocketable, weather proof, and
quick with reasonable quality images. Other features were secondary,
although I would have liked a wider angle lens as well.

After many hours pouring over images and reviews, I decided on an
Olympus Mju 500. I found these on eBay for £69, with a one year
warranty, markes as factory returns. Mine actually arrived as a new and
sealed package - and with a 64MB card instead of the advertised 32MB.

Again, at the risk of retort, on looking at all the test images, I
started to find the high megapixel (6MP and up) compact cameras were
rather disappointing. Many showed some blurring on edges, and seemed to
suffer with chromatic aberration. Noise also started to become an issue
in all but the most expensive models.

However, when I compared images from the 5MP models, they appeared much
sharper and had much better definition. Noise also seemed to be much
less of an issue. The reviews I read also seem to confirm this too,
there were many comments about the blurring in particular.

There was also much less difference between the makes and models at 5Mp
too. I certainly compared the images between the contemporary models
from Canon, Fuji and Nikon, and found they were very close to each other
in terms of overall image quality. Moving up the MP range started to
reveal bigger differences though, and there was no doubt that the Canon
were probably the better models here.

In the end though, the Mju 500 just ticked most of the boxes I needed -
weatherproof, good image quality, pocketable, cheap, and robust (it has
a full metal body). The lens was also slightly wider angle than the
others at a similar price level - going down to 35mm.

One observation though, that may be worth some discussion. Did we see
the optimum in compact CCD performance at 5MP? Because I was surely
puzzled by the poor quality of images over 6MP.

Signature

Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

A.Lee - 06 Feb 2007 21:02 GMT
> After many hours pouring over images and reviews, I decided on an
> Olympus Mju 500. I found these on eBay for £69, with a one year
> warranty, markes as factory returns. Mine actually arrived as a new and
> sealed package - and with a 64MB card instead of the advertised 32MB.

Good, I've had a few of the MJU film cameras, and have been pleased with
them, though eventually I've stuck with my original MJU2, as it is so
small. Was yours a one-off deal, or are there more available?

> One observation though, that may be worth some discussion. Did we see
> the optimum in compact CCD performance at 5MP? Because I was surely
> puzzled by the poor quality of images over 6MP.

Could this be caused by the tiny lenses used in these compacts?
Alan.
Signature

To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

Andy Hewitt - 06 Feb 2007 21:20 GMT
> > After many hours pouring over images and reviews, I decided on an
> > Olympus Mju 500. I found these on eBay for £69, with a one year
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> them, though eventually I've stuck with my original MJU2, as it is so
> small. Was yours a one-off deal, or are there more available?

They had a few going when I got mine, and I've only had it a week. There
are one or two sellers on there doing the small Olympus cameras. There
seem to be a lot of the Mju 600s, but having seen the images I can see
why, it was nowhere near as good as the 500.

> > One observation though, that may be worth some discussion. Did we see
> > the optimum in compact CCD performance at 5MP? Because I was surely
> > puzzled by the poor quality of images over 6MP.
>
> Could this be caused by the tiny lenses used in these compacts?
> Alan.

Maybe, I just wonder if they've passed the point of optimum image
quality, possibly for both the lens and the size of CCD. Looks like
they're playing the old numbers game.

Signature

Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Trev - 06 Feb 2007 21:39 GMT
>> After many hours pouring over images and reviews, I decided on an
>> Olympus Mju 500. I found these on eBay for £69, with a one year
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Could this be caused by the tiny lenses used in these compacts?

No its the tiny sensor. The size of which has stayed the same but the pixels
have increased so making more noise. The catch with 5MP is the chip might be
a Sony one and they have found to be breaking down

> Alan.
Andy Hewitt - 07 Feb 2007 00:10 GMT
[..]
> >> One observation though, that may be worth some discussion. Did we see
> >> the optimum in compact CCD performance at 5MP? Because I was surely
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> No its the tiny sensor. The size of which has stayed the same but the pixels
> have increased so making more noise.

Exactly. Each sensor will have to be smaller, and will require more
energy to drive them, which in turn creates more heat, which is the
enemy of digital imaging.

> The catch with 5MP is the chip might be
> a Sony one and they have found to be breaking down

I must admit, that is the first time I've heard of that, or *any* CCD
failures come to that.

Signature

Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Tony Polson - 07 Feb 2007 00:20 GMT
>[..]
>> >> One observation though, that may be worth some discussion. Did we see
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>I must admit, that is the first time I've heard of that, or *any* CCD
>failures come to that.

It has been heavily publicised in the national media as well as the
specialist photo and IT press.

But I am not surprised to find that you are unaware of these issues.
Andy Hewitt - 07 Feb 2007 01:26 GMT
[..]
> >Exactly. Each sensor will have to be smaller, and will require more
> >energy to drive them, which in turn creates more heat, which is the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> It has been heavily publicised in the national media as well as the
> specialist photo and IT press.

Has it really eh? well whoopie for you. Nice of you to provide some
helpful links for that then. I have been reading the forums, and usually
three specialist digital camera magazines, and not seen this at all.

However, a bit of google searching has enlightened me as to the details
of the matter.

> But I am not surprised to find that you are unaware of these issues.

And I'm not surprised to see your usual, unhelpful and insulting
comments.

I am pleased to say though, that I have not owned, and don't own any
camera fitted with the faulty CCDs. My own brand choice of Olympus only
ever fitted the Sony CCD to two models, neither of which are even
remotely current.

Signature

Andy Hewitt
<http://web.mac.com/andrewhewitt1/>

Tony Polson - 07 Feb 2007 11:37 GMT
>And I'm not surprised to see your usual, unhelpful and insulting
>comments.

So much for your kill file.  Another error of judgement, it seems.

Still, at least you didn't waste too much money on the camera.

;-)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.