Digital Camera?

p1ckle · Jul 28, 2004

sorry if this is the wrong forum, or not a digital camera site sorta thing!

But been looking at this http://www.fuji.co.uk/digital/cameras/f601/index.php?page=tech_specs

As my girlfriend is afta buyin me a camera for my 21st

jus wanted to know the difference between

"Number of effective pixels"
And
"Number of recorded pixels"

cheeRS for any help!

hobbes28 · Jul 28, 2004

Here's the technical mumbo jumbo on pixels from www.howstuffworks.com

If you read digital camera claims carefully, you'll notice that the number of pixels and the maximum resolution numbers don't quite compute. For example, a camera claims to be a 2.1-megapixel camera and it is capable of producing images with a resolution of 1600x1200. Let's do the math: a 1600x1200 image contains 1,920,000 pixels. But "2.1 megapixel" means there ought to be at least 2,100,000 pixels. This isn't an error from rounding off, and it isn't binary mathematical trickery. There is a real discrepancy between these two numbers. If a camera says it has 2.1 megapixels, then there really are approximately 2,100,000 photosites on the CCD.

What happens is that some of the photosites are not being used for imaging. Remember that the CCD is an analog device. It's necessary to provide some circuitry to the photosites so that the ADC can measure the amount of charge. This circuitry is dyed black so that it doesn't absorb any light and distort the image.

p1ckle · Jul 28, 2004

kinda under stood that!

So would this camera take pictures at 2,832 x 2,128 as claimed?

Or is that jus fantasy?

hobbes28 · Jul 28, 2004

It will. The picture that size probably won't be as clear as one of the 2048x1536 because it's processing the pixels and doubling them. A 3.1 megapixel will still print pretty clear 8x10s so unless you're wanting to print posters, you should be fine.

jadin · Jul 28, 2004

I printed 11 x 14's with a 3.1 and was happy with the quality. To me 100dpi is plenty for a photo. But I think I'm in the minority.

p1ckle · Jul 28, 2004

Cheers hobbes28 and jadin!

Take it this one would be even better?

http://www.casio.co.uk/digitalcameras/qv_r51/

hobbes28 · Jul 28, 2004

Technically yes but consumer reports has said no good things about casio cameras. I take everything they say into consideration. How much is she looking to spend?

p1ckle · Jul 28, 2004

about 250 300 (POUND Sterling) Dont know what that is USD

hobbes28 · Jul 28, 2004

I'd look at one of the Olympus c740 or c750s. they have quite a bang for the buck and they're weather proof. My buddy has one and swears by it.

p1ckle · Jul 28, 2004

cheers! Like to do a bit of research before parting with money!
will check the Olympus site tomorrow! gettin late now!

Cheers for you help though!

hobbes28 · Jul 28, 2004

No problems.

Getting late?? Isn't it like 2AM??

Ant · Jul 29, 2004

hobbes28 said:
I'd look at one of the Olympus c740 or c750s. they have quite a bang for the buck and they're weather proof. My buddy has one and swears by it.

I'd second that recommendation. I got an Olympus c750 recently for about £250. They were originally closer to £400 when they first came out over a year ago but they've come down in price an awful lot because Olympus have replaced them with the latest c765 and c770, but the c750 is still an excellent camera.

It takes very good pics and has full manual exposure control to let you get a little more creative than a straight P&S, lots of extra features too. The 10X zoom is extremely usefull and resolution is 4 megapixels.

My only real gripe is that the shutter lag and the autofocus can be a bit slow sometimes, which can mean getting fast action shots is often frustrating, but to be honest most digital cameras in this price range suffer the same sort of thing, and I've decided that I need a DSLR to do what I really want.

Lossy · Jul 29, 2004

Personally I have the s602z from fuji and it is fantastic. I would definately recomend it and it is well withing your price range. It would be about 200 gbp.

The pixel doubling system works fantasticly well. On the highest setting I have seen prints w/o blur up to small poster size (18/24). The highest I have printed was 11/17 and it looks fantastic, no speckling blur or any other such that plagues enlargments.