Resolution in digital cameras

  Southernboy 17:09 31 Dec 03
Locked

A lot is made of the number of pixels that each camera contains, but it would seem that it is not simply a case of the more pixels, the better the quality.

Jessops, for example, strees the matter of effective pixels.

When I was looking at a Leica DigiLux, I noted it only had 3 million pixels. Leica state that the quality of the lens optics is a major factor and that their camera produces superior resolution the cameras boasting 5 million pixels.

Gone, it seems, are the days when a quality lens, combined with the right film for the subject, were the only requirements. How does one choose a digital camera which incorporates the right combination of lens quality and megapixels? Presumably, the quality of the memory card can vary from make to make?

Can anyone make sense of this minefield?

  ton 17:23 31 Dec 03

click here lots of info and cameras tested here.

  anchor 18:04 31 Dec 03

Of course, with any camera the quality of the lens is extremely important. However, with a digital camera other factors come into play. The resolution in pixels being one of the major ones. Others being the ability to effectively capture the subtleties of colour, and give correct exposure and focus.

No one doubts the quality of Leica lenses, but the Japanese camera makers have been close on their heels for years. At the end of the day it is the number of pixels that determine the image detail captured. If this is combined with a quality lens from a top maker, (such as Canon), then excellent results can be expected. Conversely, a camera with 5Mpixel from an inferior maker, will probably give poorer results than a 3Mpixel camera from a leading manufacturer.

I have not found any difference in the quality of image using different make memory cards.

  anchor 15:02 01 Jan 04

I have discovered that some time ago Panasonic and Leica entered into a partnership to build digital cameras. Leica brought the lenses, and Panasonic supplied the electronics.

The model your refer to, with 3.2 Mpixel, is the Lumix DMC-F1. This is identical to the Panasonic Lumix DMC-F1, (without the Leica logo), and costs only a fraction of the price.

click here

The reviews for this model are only "fair" in my opinion, and better can be obtained for the price.

click here

  hugh-265156 15:09 01 Jan 04
  Southernboy 15:11 02 Jan 04

I have used Leica for years, going back to the M4 purchased in 1966. Over the years I have seen Leica prices skyrocket beyonds the means of most people, and I moved to Nikon and Canon SLRs in the 1980s. After a period of not owning a camera, I have been looking to move back into photography but I find the camera magazines are all Chinese to me now! Mainly because they are all taken up with digital, but also because they are more concerned with publishing photographs than reviews and useful information. Even good old AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER, which I took for years is now a "coffee table" publication.

Anyway, I was initially looking at Canon and Nikon SLRs, but the quality of the more affordable models appears poor. To obtain a models with the robust quality of my old Nikon F or my 1992 Canon, it appears one has to pay nearly £1,000, which is beyond my means. So, I decided to look at digital. I really want an SLR, because I prefer SLR viewing and focussing. Again, these appear to be all in excess on £1,000. It is somewhat confusing as some digital cameras look like SLRs, but they are not.

Can anyone recommend a digital SLR that does not cost the earth, or would I be condemned to a rangefinder model? I have been using a Pentax Espio 140, but the lens is so damned soft in the centre and I am looking for better quality resolution.

  woodchip 15:42 02 Jan 04

I have a Ricoh Caplio RR120 2.2 MP send me by the envelope to the left. And I will send a Pic not in the best res But will print at A4 check the quality of on screen and print and colour

  anchor 16:19 02 Jan 04

If you want a digital SLR, like you are used to, then you are looking at really big prices.

A camera, such as the Canon EOS 300D costs about £730, plus lens, which will be in the region of £250. There are other Canon models, & from other makers, even more expensive.

click here

If this is a bit high for you, then you have to consider lowering your sights. I am very fussy, and chose the Canon S50 compact digital camera this summer. The results are outstanding. To see an example, just as it came out of the camera, auto setting, (no manipulation done), (1.4Mb).

click here

The Canon S50 is £349 here

click here

and will be price matched by Jessops; I know, because I saved almost £100 this summer.

  anchor 16:22 02 Jan 04

Full spec: of the Canon S50

click here

  woodchip 16:45 02 Jan 04

And check these out for mine at Macro mode this can be 4 centimetres away this is with the above camera that I quoted click here and click here and camera click here

  Sheila-214876 16:47 02 Jan 04

I just bought the new Minolta Z1 (almost an SLR in other words looks like an SLR as opposed to a compact) from Bristol Cameras at £260 plus £10 postage. Really good camera 3.2mp with 10x optical zoom lens. But if you want to check it out go to click here and compare prices. Just enter Z1 into the search box.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

iPhone 7 review: a range of small updates add up to an excellent phone

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

How New York’s Stylin’ Seniors became a golden social media campaign

23 Apple Watch tips & secret features: Master your Apple Watch, Apple Watch Series 1 or Apple…