Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / UK Photography / February 2007
Testing my Killfile, plus found a new compact.
|
|
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.
;-)
|
|
|