How a 6 m pixels sensor can provide a 24 m pixel still pictures? Are these pictures as good as pocket camera pictures? Thanks
1161916
I went on a trip to Portugal and used this camera for video and still pics. It takes great pics!!! I loved the convenience of being able to do both with one camera. Most people would not be able to tell the difference between those pics and those taken with my expensive Nikon. Now if you are just going to take photos...I would use my Nikon. The Photos taken with Panasonic W850K are wonderful and you will be pleased.
786827
According to this New York Times 12/07 roundup of &lt; $300 pocket digital cameras http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/technology/personaltech/06pogue.html the F50fd bested all of the other cameras in the review for image quality, and specifically for low-light situations. It claims that the larger sensor size (not the megapixels) is the reason. Quotes from the review: "The 12-megapixel photos are delightful; indoors, outdoors, with the flash or without." and ... "amazing natural-light performance." ------------------------------------------ Edit: Hmm, but check out also the Customer Reviews above, that say high ISO (low light settings) images have noise reduction artifacts? What was David Pogue thinking, then?
2274071
I think you're right... if you were at the minimum focus distance, then a subject that fills a full frame image will be only partially visible for a crop sensor. To fit the whole subject in your cropped sensor image, you would have to go further back. Electric Boogaloo is wrong, because the pixel density of an 18 MP crop sensor is higher than a 22 MP full sensor, meaning you get MORE detail, not less. A ~35 Mp full frame sensor would have the same detail as a 18 MP crop sensor.
894227
The bigger the sensor, the faster the lens, the better a camera's low light capabilities. This camera, for example cannot compare with the Sony A7S or most other full frame (large sensor) cameras. But for its size and price, this camera has no equal - you'll be surprised how good it is. I've taken very good pictures in low light with no flash, and even better ones with flash. It's the perfect camera to carry at all times. I highly recommend it.
452923
Ditto to J. Kim, photos always look good on the tiny (well compared with an LCD monitor of course) screen, you can at least ZOOM in on the photos to check out the noise factor, check it against what ISO the shot was taken in. Under the law of physics, there is really no way a 1/1.7" sensor can produce images that are on par or better than an APS-C sensor. Although they may look close. Thanks Grandpa Bill, for your comment. With that said, I almost laughed out loud when someone told me he could take a picture from the 8-megapixel iPhone just as good as a DSLR ! !!! LOL! I am still laughing ! ; ) Ditto to J. Kim, photos always look good on the tiny (well compared with an LCD monitor of course) screen, you can at least ZOOM in on the photos to check out the noise factor, check it against what ISO the shot was taken in. Under the law of physics, there is really no way a 1/1.7" sensor can produce images that are on par or better than an APS-C sensor. Although they may look close. Thanks Grandpa Bill, for your comment. With that said, I almost laughed out loud when someone told me he could take a picture from the 8-megapixel iPhone just as good as a DSLR ! !!! LOL! I am... » Read More Ditto to J. Kim, photos always look good on the tiny (well compared with an LCD monitor of course) screen, you can at least ZOOM in on the photos to check out the noise factor, check it against what ISO the shot was taken in. Under the law of physics, there is really no way a 1/1.7" sensor can produce images that are on par or better than an APS-C sensor. Although they may look close. Thanks Grandpa Bill, for your comment. With that said, I almost laughed out loud when someone told me he could take a picture from the 8-megapixel iPhone just as good as a DSLR ! !!! LOL! I am still laughing ! ; ) « Show Less
375004
The camera and light are integrated. There are four small (perhaps too small) LEDs around a small camera. The whole thing is nicely encased in a brass fitting with a water tight front lens cover. The OD of the front of the camera and light is about 15mm. The length is around 63mm. The box gives the following specs: Sensor: 1/6 CMOS Image Sensor, Pixel VGA 300K Pixels, I/O Interface USB2.0/1.1, Color 24 bits Color. Resolution 1280x720, 640x480, View Angle 62Degrees, The camera is fine but the LEDs are a little weak. I ordered a very small LED flashlight and will combine them for my next voyage.
86102
Hi. I have been playing with this camera a good deal the last couple of weeks but mostly on how well it does bracketing and comparing the exposure control settings vs a true representation of the scene at low light. I will keep a hold of the question and test out the GPS this weekend and let you know. Hope that helps. (Great little camera by the way).
489798
I believe you (ranthon007) are operating under a false assumption. Regardless of what image size you choose to use, the actual physical pixels on the sensor must necessarily remain the size they are, and if that's too small to let in the ideal amount of light, well then you're stuck. I'm not sure whether smaller output sizes are done by rescaling or by simply using fewer of the pixels (i.e. not the whole sensor), but while you MAY be gaining some reduction of noise, there is NOT an actual increase of detail.(Anyone please correct me if any of the above is in at all incorrect!)
2078483
The APS-C sensor is smaller, it means less pixels, less details, less light ?? , in other hand with full frame your lens are used at 100%, don't need to multiply for 1,6 as usual (for example a 24 mm Wide lens will be a 38 mm in fact) choose full frame!more info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
2094202
There have been discussions ad nauseam about the true nature of the pixel count. Sorry, I don't even want to set started, there has been so much vitriol on the web about the subject. The raw of a DP3 is about 50MB. SPP, the conversion/editing program provided by Sigma is very, very slow.
696223
I'm already signed up for the pre-order, and the only thing that worries me is the low ISO/daylight performance. From the sample shots floating around the net, the high ISO/low-light images seem fantastic. The daylight captures, on the other hand, seem good, but not great. That said, I have not seen tests done in a controlled environment, by a reviewer I trust. The other thing to consider that this is the first mass manufactured, consumer level back-lit still camera sensor. Will there be QC issues? I betting 'no', but who really knows. Sony does have experience with their similar Exmor R sensors for camcorders, which is comforting. All in all, given it's small size and fantastic feature set, it looks like winner. May not have the absolute best picture quality, but that what dSLRs are for...
391683
Thanks for the opinion on the LX3, I think I'll wait for one of the these new Canons. Agree with your point on megapixels too, it's seems like 12mp is probably overkill for these small image sensors, so I expect I'll probably crank mine down to 10 or 8 to see if I get less noise. Digic 4 sounds pretty cool too, hopefully that will help.
620265
That IS a question that can't be answered as such because there are things just as important to quality than mere pixel count. Just because a camera has higher pixel count than another does definitely not mean the quality is superior. It could be inferior to a specific camera with less pixels. Too many people think higher pixel count equals higher quality. Not necessarily so!!
1353704
This camera takes amazing pictures for a "mostly auto" handheld. It is not a DSLR, of course, but pictures are very good. It is 12MP and has a great sensor and lens, the go pro is 5MP and has a cheaper sensor.The go-pro is not much of a camera for stills in my opinion because they are always fishbowl view because of the wide angle lens. The newer go pro may be better because it has a few settings for 90, 120, and 160 degrees or something like that. Still, small cheap sensor/lens, no flash, not a great image processor in the go pro.
620262
Today's cameras just about all produce very good pictures. The cameras that make the best are those with the largest lenses. A big lens captures more light, and everything else being the same, will produce the best photos. Pixels have very little to do with photo quality, especially when you compare 14 to 20 megapixels. It's like asking what is superior - a computer with a 3.0 or a 3.5 MHz processor. It's the other specs and features than make one "better" than the other - and what makes the best photos is really the person using the camera.
1924594
Sensor size, not megapixels, is what matters. If you cram a lot of pixels onto a small sensor, and put the same number of pixels on a larger sensor, the pixels on the larger sensor are bigger. All other things equal, you end up with better image quality when you enlarge images captured with the camera that has the larger sensor. http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/digital-camera-megapixels-and-sensor-size.html
1518251
My thought was that it is better to have a higher resolution mega pixel. It is a better resolution and if you modify the photos by zooming or printing large photos the quality is better.