| Author |
Message |
Adam
Guest
|
 Posted:
Wed Nov 10, 2004 7:35 pm Post subject:
Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be high
on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE quality is
excellent.
I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
excellent photos.
I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take poor
pictures.
So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
reviews. Thanks!
.................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SleeperMan
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 10, 2004 9:48 pm Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
Adam wrote:
| Quote: | What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
quality is excellent.
I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
excellent photos.
I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
poor pictures.
So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
reviews. Thanks!
|
I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe it was
some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras don't have
much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them bigger,
so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
generally working distance is small - less than 3 m. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gymmy Bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:26 am Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
Pentax Optio SV...just released. 5X optical zoom. Only one
"Adam" <Adam@mail.home.com> wrote in message
news:41922408$0$14483$a8266bb1@news.titannews.com...
| Quote: |
What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be high
on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE quality is
excellent.
I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
excellent photos.
I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take poor
pictures.
So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
reviews. Thanks!
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
at http://www.TitanNews.com
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 12:56 am Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
In article <MDrkd.5472$F6.1281772@news.siol.net>,
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
| Quote: | Adam wrote:
What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
quality is excellent.
I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
excellent photos.
I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
poor pictures.
So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
reviews. Thanks!
I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe it was
some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras don't have
much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them bigger,
so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
generally working distance is small - less than 3 m.
|
Can't speak from personal testing, but most reviews I have read of the
super-small cameras complain of lack of sharpness. Makes sense, since
the resolving power of a lens is a function of its diameter. I
compromised on a 5-megapixel Elph. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gymmy Bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 5:30 am Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic pinhole
technology.
"Bill" <ws21@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ws21-E38418.14562311112004@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
| Quote: | In article <MDrkd.5472$F6.1281772@news.siol.net>,
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
Adam wrote:
What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
quality is excellent.
I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
excellent photos.
I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
poor pictures.
So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
reviews. Thanks!
I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe it
was
some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras don't
have
much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them
bigger,
so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
generally working distance is small - less than 3 m.
Can't speak from personal testing, but most reviews I have read of the
super-small cameras complain of lack of sharpness. Makes sense, since
the resolving power of a lens is a function of its diameter. I
compromised on a 5-megapixel Elph. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Jacoubowsky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 12, 2004 10:20 pm Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
| Quote: | Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic
pinhole
technology.
|
I thought it was the case that a smaller lens resulted in greater CA (purple
fringing) issues, due to the angle of the light passing through the lens?
It's not about pinholes, it's about glass.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:tvOdna9_h62kmQncRVn-jw@golden.net...
| Quote: | Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic
pinhole
technology.
"Bill" <ws21@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ws21-E38418.14562311112004@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
In article <MDrkd.5472$F6.1281772@news.siol.net>,
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
Adam wrote:
What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
quality is excellent.
I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
excellent photos.
I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
poor pictures.
So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info
and
reviews. Thanks!
I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe
it
was
some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras don't
have
much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them
bigger,
so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
generally working distance is small - less than 3 m.
Can't speak from personal testing, but most reviews I have read of the
super-small cameras complain of lack of sharpness. Makes sense, since
the resolving power of a lens is a function of its diameter. I
compromised on a 5-megapixel Elph.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 13, 2004 12:00 am Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
In article <tvOdna9_h62kmQncRVn-jw@golden.net>,
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote:
| Quote: | Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic pinhole
technology.
|
http://www.astrosurf.com/taf/pot-ris/pot-ris-eng.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gymmy Bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:08 pm Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
Gee... I guess for the last 50 years I have been closing my aperture down
(smaller, incase you don't understand this) to get sharper pictures, and all
this time I should have been opening it up (larger opening, bigger f-stop
number)
Thanx for the nonsense.
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:oh6ld.20601$6q2.15358@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: | Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic
pinhole
technology.
I thought it was the case that a smaller lens resulted in greater CA
(purple
fringing) issues, due to the angle of the light passing through the lens?
It's not about pinholes, it's about glass.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Gymmy Bob" <nospamming@bite.me> wrote in message
news:tvOdna9_h62kmQncRVn-jw@golden.net...
Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic
pinhole
technology.
"Bill" <ws21@cornell.edu> wrote in message
news:ws21-E38418.14562311112004@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
In article <MDrkd.5472$F6.1281772@news.siol.net>,
"SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
Adam wrote:
What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
quality is excellent.
I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
excellent photos.
I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
poor pictures.
So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info
and
reviews. Thanks!
I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe
it
was
some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras
don't
have
much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them
bigger,
so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
generally working distance is small - less than 3 m.
Can't speak from personal testing, but most reviews I have read of the
super-small cameras complain of lack of sharpness. Makes sense, since
the resolving power of a lens is a function of its diameter. I
compromised on a 5-megapixel Elph.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Russell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 13, 2004 9:54 pm Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
Gymmy Bob wrote:
| Quote: | Gee... I guess for the last 50 years I have been closing my aperture
down (smaller, incase you don't understand this) to get sharper
pictures, and all this time I should have been opening it up (larger
opening, bigger f-stop number)
Thanx for the nonsense.
|
Every notice that most 35mm's will only stop down to f16? Diffraction.
With digital, lenses are a lot smaller, and diffraction is kicking in in a
big way. I've found that stopping down my digicam does result in less
sharpness, and opening the lens wider does make things sharper.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gymmy Bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:21 am Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
Many of mine went down to f22 and the pics were always sharper. This is a
basic depth of field technique. Every photo manual in the world will tell
you to stop down the lens to sharpen the pic.
Stopping down a lens to less light than f22 or so was not worthwhile as the
focus was as sharp as it was going to get to the human eye and a different
speed was inorder for the exposure. This was not due to a lens being poorly
ground in the centre. The outsides of the lenses are always the hardest to
get accurate. Even the pinhole cameras without lenses at all have good
focus in the centre. This is basic lens technology.
"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:L_qld.8562$zx1.5345@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: | Gymmy Bob wrote:
Gee... I guess for the last 50 years I have been closing my aperture
down (smaller, incase you don't understand this) to get sharper
pictures, and all this time I should have been opening it up (larger
opening, bigger f-stop number)
Thanx for the nonsense.
Every notice that most 35mm's will only stop down to f16? Diffraction.
With digital, lenses are a lot smaller, and diffraction is kicking in in a
big way. I've found that stopping down my digicam does result in less
sharpness, and opening the lens wider does make things sharper.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Russell
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:41 am Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
Gymmy Bob wrote:
| Quote: | Many of mine went down to f22 and the pics were always sharper. This
is a basic depth of field technique. Every photo manual in the world
will tell you to stop down the lens to sharpen the pic.
Stopping down a lens to less light than f22 or so was not worthwhile
as the focus was as sharp as it was going to get to the human eye and
a different speed was inorder for the exposure. This was not due to a
lens being poorly ground in the centre. The outsides of the lenses
are always the hardest to get accurate. Even the pinhole cameras
without lenses at all have good focus in the centre. This is basic
lens technology.
|
Well, I normally find myself agreeing with you, GB, but this is one of the
few cases where I differ.
I think if you (or anyone else) cares to experiment with the smaller
apertures of their digicam, you'll find that the sharpness does decrease at
smaller apertures. It's not due to lens grinding quality, but the
theoretical limits a small aperture size places on optical resolution.
As cameras get larger, and I include the DSLR's in this, smaller apertures
almost always produce sharper images.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gymmy Bob
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:26 am Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
Simply put, Think about this. Assuming a lens isn't perfect (and we know it
costs big bucks to get the better ones or they would all be better), the
light from different parts of the glass is going to give different parts of
the picture at the same spot. This is called "blur" The more parts of the
lens that contributes to the "pixel" or spot, however small we want to
evaluate, the less accurate it will be to true life or the real world image
we are trying to photograph or represent.
Now we only use a very small portion of the lens and we get less
contributors, and less different parts of the real world's image
contributing to that pixel or photographic spot. This is called accuracy and
we know it as sharpness. This means each "micro spot" or pixel has
completely accurate information or a blend of information as in the previous
paragraph. This is why we try to get large lens and stop them down to the
centre of the lens only because the accuracy there will be better than the
whole lens.
It should be noted that this is a relative thing and not absolute by size.
Usually a 50mm lens using the centre 10% (stopped down) gives a sharper
image than a 5mm lens using the whole ground area. Maybe we are arguing the
same point but the specifics are not specified?...LOL
"Mike Russell" <REgeigyMOVE@pacbellTHIS.net> wrote in message
news:ZhQld.8822$zx1.1255@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
| Quote: | Gymmy Bob wrote:
Many of mine went down to f22 and the pics were always sharper. This
is a basic depth of field technique. Every photo manual in the world
will tell you to stop down the lens to sharpen the pic.
Stopping down a lens to less light than f22 or so was not worthwhile
as the focus was as sharp as it was going to get to the human eye and
a different speed was inorder for the exposure. This was not due to a
lens being poorly ground in the centre. The outsides of the lenses
are always the hardest to get accurate. Even the pinhole cameras
without lenses at all have good focus in the centre. This is basic
lens technology.
Well, I normally find myself agreeing with you, GB, but this is one of the
few cases where I differ.
I think if you (or anyone else) cares to experiment with the smaller
apertures of their digicam, you'll find that the sharpness does decrease
at
smaller apertures. It's not due to lens grinding quality, but the
theoretical limits a small aperture size places on optical resolution.
As cameras get larger, and I include the DSLR's in this, smaller apertures
almost always produce sharper images.
--
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Jacoubowsky
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:15 am Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
| Quote: | Gee... I guess for the last 50 years I have been closing my aperture down
(smaller, incase you don't understand this) to get sharper pictures, and
all
this time I should have been opening it up (larger opening, bigger f-stop
number)
Thanx for the nonsense.
|
This subject came up some time ago; the issue was, why not have much smaller
lenses matched to smaller CCDs? The problem was that, as lenses got smaller,
diffraction problems became more difficult to control, if I recall
correctly.
It's great that you've got 50 years of experience closing down your aperture
to get sharper images, but I'd guess most of that experience was with 35mm
(or perhaps even larger) format film, with appropriately-large lenses.
That's not the same scenario as a small digital camera.
Thanks for my first real flame here though. I was wondering if I'd ever get
hazed! :>)
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Susan Perkins
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 19, 2004 2:22 am Post subject:
Re: Best, Smallest Camera? |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:35:21 -0600, in article
<41922408$0$14483$a8266bb1@news.titannews.com>, Adam <Adam@mail.home.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
|
What's the best religion? <g>
SP
(FWIW, I have a Canon S70, which is a pretty good travel camera. You need to
know what tradeoffs you are willing to make, and whether you will have only one
camera, or several.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in