Geeks.com, the popular computer parts store, sent us in the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX150 14 megapixel digicam for a spin. This camera has been a hit in the past year, both for its still capabilities, but also for its 720p HD video at 24 fps (film speed).
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-07
Member since:2005-06-28
The problem is that bigger sensors mean bigger and heavier lenses/bodies. And if you try to make them smaller, you will have to make them primes and not have any zoom at all. So it's all a balance game. The real point is, which manufacturer plays that balance game better.
Member since:2005-07-06
Eugenia, you're missing the point, which is that cramming that many pixels onto a sensor that small has virtually no advantages. The picture isn't any better than if it had half that many pixels, but the file sizes are much larger and the operation is slower.
However, this particular model is precisely meant for clueless people (who think more pixels means better quality pictures). Panasonic's other, more expensive cameras have lower pixel densities.
Member since:2005-06-28
Member since:2006-01-01
Member since:2005-07-06
No, although photos might be a bit blurry they are never pixellated, no matter how much you enlarge them, as long as you don't do it in some extremely stupid way, such as using nearest-neighbour.
I have good looking A4-size prints of crops of photos taken with my old 2MP uzi.
Edited 2009-04-16 11:45 UTC
Member since:2006-12-16
You tell that to the thousands of sports and action photographers who used the Canon EOS1D (4mp) for several years, doing magazine shoots, poster shoots etc.
5mp is enough for most people, at least ordinary people - it'll do nice A4 prints, unless you're doing very heavy cropping, then it's not so good. 8mp is a better balance for the average pro photographer. 12mp is about as much as you'd want to go with a FF (full frame) sensor imho - it's about the right balance in terms of pixel size, noise performance, dynamic range etc. That's why the Nikon D3 has been such a huge hit - large pixels, plenty of resolution, awesome noise performance. ISO 6400 is very much usable now.
Dave
Member since:2005-07-06
I kinda agree with you on that as for a normal user 5 MP is more than enough, the 30" Apple Display is 4 MP, and how many people have that. I am not talking about professional grade photographers just talking about people who want to have a digital camera to take pictures of their family, a trip they went to, etc. I would think that Optical Zoom should also be one of the important factors to be looked into before purchasing a camera, the optical zoom of this camera is pretty low just 3.6x. I understand the camera is capable of recording video in 720p, but I would purchase a digital camera for it photo taking capabilities not for its video recording capabilities (thats just added advantage not a primary motive while buying a digital camera).
I would be purchasing a digital camera soon, I am inclined towards Canon Powershot SX10 IS digital camera its 10 MP and 20x optical zoom.
Edited 2009-04-16 13:25 UTC
Member since:2006-12-16
Member since:2005-07-06
That's for sure. At work, we have a trio of Canon Rebel XT / EOS 305 cameras. They're "only" 6MP and the oldest is getting close to 3 years old. Yet the pictures still look much, much nicer (to my eye) than the majority of what I've seen from the current crop of 12/14 MP consumer cameras - even with a newb like me shooting, on full auto.
IMO, anyone who is truly serious about photography would be better off looking for a used DSLR (used Rebels go for about $400-500USD these days), rather than any of the newer "OMG more megapixels means more better" cameras.
Member since:2006-12-16
Member since:
2009-03-21
Member since:2006-01-20
Member since:2007-01-03
Noise will be in all cameras period. Since CCDs are sensitive to infrared wavelengths you will get noise regardless of the size of your sensor. Unless you keep your CCD cool with liquid nitrogen (and even then you'll get some noise due to the inherent statistical probability that *something* could excite a pixel), like they do for telescopes and such, you will have some noise.
Member since:2006-12-16
True, very true. That said, noise below a certain level is not that intrusive to the eye, and the eye is quite tolerant. There's no real need to be super cooling modern DSLRs with liquid nitrogen, it's over kill.
Now for scopes, that's an entirely *different* story - you're picking up very faint detail, and the pixel MUST be very sensitive. Since noise kills detail, noise must be reduced. Hence liquid cooling. Cameras like SBIG, Atik, Apogee, Finger Lakes Instruments, etc mostly employ cooling for this very reason.
A lot of astro imagers will taken many subs (shorter exposures) and stack them in something like DSS (deep sky stacker). For astro shots, you don't necessarily have to have really long exposures, stacking will bring out lots of details. Just make sure to take flats, darks etc.
Dave
Member since:2006-07-26
What does the noise in the photo have to do with Linux? That has to do with the image sensor and the ISO setting you have it on.
By the way, look at greycstoration... http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycstoration/
It works awesome and they even have a GIMP plugin. In Gentoo all I had to do was "emerge gimp-greycstoration". I think the plugin is a little too aggressive by default so I always tone it down but it is remarkable for removing digital noise.
If you want proprietary NeatImage works just fine under WINE.
But again, the noise has nothing to do with Linux.
Member since:2005-07-07
He said Lumix (i.e. the Panasonic camera) not Linux.
And for the record, GreyCStoration is not a viable noise reduction plug-in since it takes far too long to process a single photo. A better alternative is to download the wavelet denoise plug-in for GIMP or run Neat Image/Noise Ninja/etc in wine.
Member since:
2005-07-06
I havn't tested this particular model, but I have a FX35, and have tested some other compact cameras like this.
The main problem I have with these cameras is that they are far too slow. You press the button but when the picture finally is taken a half a second or so later the picture is long gone, especially if you are trying to things like portraits where a smile or a look can be gone much faster than that.
What I would like to see is a camera that records continously and keeps say half a second in storage, that continously gets overwritten. When I press the trigger it saves 10 or so pictures from say half second before I pressed it. That way it could compensate for my onw slow time to react from that I see the picture until I actually press the trigger.
Member since:2005-07-06
Most decent DSLR cameras will do that. IIRC, they usually have a few MB worth of built in buffer memory - when you hit the shutter, the image gets written to the buffer right away, then gets written to the memory card.
That way, you're not limited by how fast the camera can write the images to the memory card - or the speed of the card itself.