Small Camera, Tight Crops
May 22, 2007 8:46 AM Subscribe
Lightweight Digicam Filter: I am looking for a lightweight digital camera with the longest optical zoom. Most small point and shoots have a pitiful 3X optical zoom (because their thin body won't support a longer one) However...
With the announcement of the new Casio Exilim EX-Z1200 the thought crosses my mind: if I had a MEGA megapixel camera like this one, would I be able to get up "close" to my subjects, if need be, by cropping just a small portion of the taken image (effectively being able to "zoom" in close by cropping instead of zooming)?
What's wrong with this line of thought?
With the announcement of the new Casio Exilim EX-Z1200 the thought crosses my mind: if I had a MEGA megapixel camera like this one, would I be able to get up "close" to my subjects, if need be, by cropping just a small portion of the taken image (effectively being able to "zoom" in close by cropping instead of zooming)?
What's wrong with this line of thought?
Response by poster: Thanks billtron. But I want as long a zoom on as small a camera as possible. I have a Pentax Optio S6 right now. I'm thinking of going to a Panasonic Lumix TZ3, which is a bit heavier than the Pentax (approx 8 oz vs about 4 oz), but with a 10x optical zoom.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 9:03 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 9:03 AM on May 22, 2007
Nothing is wrong with it, in fact some of the panasonic cameras do just that automatically - they can zoom further at progressivly lower resolutions by cropping.
posted by true at 9:03 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by true at 9:03 AM on May 22, 2007
Technically that would work, I suppose. However, new ultra-compact P&S cameras like the Sony Cybershot DSC-T100 have 5X optical zooms. That would probably be a better bet than cropping images. Besides, the Casios don't have the greatest image quality compared.
posted by roomwithaview at 9:03 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by roomwithaview at 9:03 AM on May 22, 2007
What's wrong with this line of thought?
The crummy lenses they use tend to just be blurry at full resolution.
Also, 8 megapixels is 3264 x 2448, 4 megapixels is is 2272 x 1704. You don't have that many spare that you can crop it heavily. You can only get 1-2x extra out of it.
posted by smackfu at 9:05 AM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
The crummy lenses they use tend to just be blurry at full resolution.
Also, 8 megapixels is 3264 x 2448, 4 megapixels is is 2272 x 1704. You don't have that many spare that you can crop it heavily. You can only get 1-2x extra out of it.
posted by smackfu at 9:05 AM on May 22, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oops, didn't finish my thought. That should read "Besides, the Casios don't have the greatest image quality compared to the Canons and Sonys."
posted by roomwithaview at 9:05 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by roomwithaview at 9:05 AM on May 22, 2007
Any lens could zoom out to 5x or 50x or a billion-x. The reason that most manufacturers don't bother is that it will look like crap. So, you can compare zoom numbers all day long, and in the end, you'll fall victim to the manufacturer who has a stronger marketing wit than sense of ethics.
posted by cmiller at 9:07 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by cmiller at 9:07 AM on May 22, 2007
What you're describing is exactly what "digital zoom" does.
The new Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 has a 10x optical zoom in a reasonably compact camera, and a very knowledgable friend of mine says it doesn't have the sensor issues of its predecessors. I haven't personally used it, though.
Oh, and now I see you're considering it. So I'm pretty useless.
posted by solotoro at 9:10 AM on May 22, 2007
The new Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 has a 10x optical zoom in a reasonably compact camera, and a very knowledgable friend of mine says it doesn't have the sensor issues of its predecessors. I haven't personally used it, though.
Oh, and now I see you're considering it. So I'm pretty useless.
posted by solotoro at 9:10 AM on May 22, 2007
Megapixels is basically a measure of area in an image. So from 6 mpx to 12 mpx the actual dimensions of the image aren't being doubled.
Focal length can't really be helped on a compact, since they can only telescope out so far before being 'not compact.' They'd have to make the sensor smaller and denser, which is what the increase in megapixels really is, but the improvement in effective zoom will be very small.
At some point, the cost of the new and smallest sensor compact will approach the price of an obsolete DSLR and a cheap 70-300mm zoom lens which will still get much better pictures than the expensive compact.
So yes, any mega pixel bump will increase the 'zoom' a little. But sharpness, contrast, or anything else that's a limitation of compact lens build quality is not likely to get much better.
on preview: what they said.
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:18 AM on May 22, 2007
Focal length can't really be helped on a compact, since they can only telescope out so far before being 'not compact.' They'd have to make the sensor smaller and denser, which is what the increase in megapixels really is, but the improvement in effective zoom will be very small.
At some point, the cost of the new and smallest sensor compact will approach the price of an obsolete DSLR and a cheap 70-300mm zoom lens which will still get much better pictures than the expensive compact.
So yes, any mega pixel bump will increase the 'zoom' a little. But sharpness, contrast, or anything else that's a limitation of compact lens build quality is not likely to get much better.
on preview: what they said.
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:18 AM on May 22, 2007
Kodak's V610 has a 10x optical zoom. It might be worth your giving it a try at a local shop, if that's feasible?
posted by Lionel d'Lion at 9:20 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by Lionel d'Lion at 9:20 AM on May 22, 2007
I've done extreme crops for travel photos where I had a little 3x zoom camera, and also with a telephoto zoom lens on a DSLR. The pictures are barely okay as travel shots. You can see the things that I was taking pictures of ("Hey, I saw a parrot!"), but they're not very pretty pictures.
In addition to the pictures being low-res because of the extreme cropping, you might find that the lens isn't sharp enough. You may also find that random sensor noise that looks fine as a tiny part of a large picture starts to become more noticeable as you enlarge.
Why not try it? Take a memory card in to a retailer that sells the camera you're interested in and ask to try the camera. Take some pictures on your memory card, take 'em home and see how much you can crop before you don't like the images anymore?
posted by aneel at 9:28 AM on May 22, 2007
In addition to the pictures being low-res because of the extreme cropping, you might find that the lens isn't sharp enough. You may also find that random sensor noise that looks fine as a tiny part of a large picture starts to become more noticeable as you enlarge.
Why not try it? Take a memory card in to a retailer that sells the camera you're interested in and ask to try the camera. Take some pictures on your memory card, take 'em home and see how much you can crop before you don't like the images anymore?
posted by aneel at 9:28 AM on May 22, 2007
I've been extremely pleased with my Canon S2. The lens is the strongest selling point for the camera: 12x optical zoom with image stabilizer. The stabilizer corrects for shake and allows you to shoot at lower shutter speeds. The lens alone is worth the price of the entire camera, and it just happens to have a five megapixel sensor attached to it.
The S2 is being replaced by the S3 (and soon the S5), which means it can be found for bargain basement prices (I convinced my dad to get one when I found it on Dell's web site for $218).
The reason it's better to go with optical zoom instead of trying to crop: the part of the picture that remains will be noisy because you're effectively blowing up the sensor noise. Non-SLR digital cameras have tiny sensors which are usually quite grainy at ISO 400.
posted by mullingitover at 9:33 AM on May 22, 2007
The S2 is being replaced by the S3 (and soon the S5), which means it can be found for bargain basement prices (I convinced my dad to get one when I found it on Dell's web site for $218).
The reason it's better to go with optical zoom instead of trying to crop: the part of the picture that remains will be noisy because you're effectively blowing up the sensor noise. Non-SLR digital cameras have tiny sensors which are usually quite grainy at ISO 400.
posted by mullingitover at 9:33 AM on May 22, 2007
I'll second mullingover -- the Canon S2 is a nice unit. It can also do stereo audio recording and up to 640x480 30fps video.
But I wouldn't call it small.
My $.02 = Digital zoom is a worthless feature. Better to frame the pic as best you can in the camera and then work with the pixels you have in Photoshop.
posted by omnidrew at 9:42 AM on May 22, 2007
But I wouldn't call it small.
My $.02 = Digital zoom is a worthless feature. Better to frame the pic as best you can in the camera and then work with the pixels you have in Photoshop.
posted by omnidrew at 9:42 AM on May 22, 2007
What you're describing is exactly what "digital zoom" does.
Solotoro has it. If you are OK with cropping from the full-resolution image, that is exactly the same as using the digital zoom feature of your camera.
3-4x optical is nothing to scoff at. You might consider the availability of "foot zoom" -- actually getting closer to your subject.
posted by fake at 9:46 AM on May 22, 2007
Solotoro has it. If you are OK with cropping from the full-resolution image, that is exactly the same as using the digital zoom feature of your camera.
3-4x optical is nothing to scoff at. You might consider the availability of "foot zoom" -- actually getting closer to your subject.
posted by fake at 9:46 AM on May 22, 2007
omnidrew writes "But I wouldn't call it small."
Not tiny, but I can fit it in a coat pocket. When I stand it next to my 400D with battery grip and 16-35mm f/2.8L lens, it's nearly microscopic :)
posted by mullingitover at 10:25 AM on May 22, 2007
Not tiny, but I can fit it in a coat pocket. When I stand it next to my 400D with battery grip and 16-35mm f/2.8L lens, it's nearly microscopic :)
posted by mullingitover at 10:25 AM on May 22, 2007
Response by poster: 3-4x optical is nothing to scoff at. You might consider the availability of "foot zoom" -- actually getting closer to your subject.
fake, I would if I could. ;-)
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 11:06 AM on May 22, 2007
fake, I would if I could. ;-)
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 11:06 AM on May 22, 2007
As true said, my Panasonic FZ7 does what you're describing, in camera - it extends the optical zoom by using a smaller area of the sensor without the interpolation you usually see in digital zoom. It takes the 12x optical zoom up to 15x, although it only works if you set the camera to take 4MP images rather than the 6MP it can take. The TZ3 may do this as well.
posted by terrynutkins at 11:11 AM on May 22, 2007
posted by terrynutkins at 11:11 AM on May 22, 2007
I'll third the S2. It's a phenomenal camera. I'll probably upgrade to an S5 when it comes out this summer if it is shown to have better low-light performance.
I am annoyed at the megapixel race. I don't realy want more than 4 megapixels. If they could use the same sensor size they use right now with a 4 megapixel camera, I'd be thrilled, cause then low-light performance would be awesome.
posted by AaRdVarK at 11:20 AM on May 22, 2007
I am annoyed at the megapixel race. I don't realy want more than 4 megapixels. If they could use the same sensor size they use right now with a 4 megapixel camera, I'd be thrilled, cause then low-light performance would be awesome.
posted by AaRdVarK at 11:20 AM on May 22, 2007
Another vote for the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3 (10x optical zoom + optical image stabilizer) and the Lumix DMC-LZ7.
I've heard nothing but good things about the TZ3, but I ended up with the DMC-LZ7 (6x zoom + optical image stabilizer) and I'm absolutely thrilled with it. Best birthday present ever. The only reason I chose the LZ7 is because the TZ3 uses a proprietary battery, and if I bought it while I was in France I'd be stuck with the 220V/50Hz charger they'd package with it there.
The LZ7 is fast to power-on, takes sharp pictures, features a one-press button that makes it go full zoom, and some impressive optical image stabilization. It's lightweight and has a nice size screen. One downside is that it doesn't have an optical viewfinder, but I don't miss it one bit.
posted by KevCed at 12:41 PM on May 22, 2007
I've heard nothing but good things about the TZ3, but I ended up with the DMC-LZ7 (6x zoom + optical image stabilizer) and I'm absolutely thrilled with it. Best birthday present ever. The only reason I chose the LZ7 is because the TZ3 uses a proprietary battery, and if I bought it while I was in France I'd be stuck with the 220V/50Hz charger they'd package with it there.
The LZ7 is fast to power-on, takes sharp pictures, features a one-press button that makes it go full zoom, and some impressive optical image stabilization. It's lightweight and has a nice size screen. One downside is that it doesn't have an optical viewfinder, but I don't miss it one bit.
posted by KevCed at 12:41 PM on May 22, 2007
Especially at long zoom, image stabilization is something you'll find yourself wanting. As others have said, many cameras (including my several year old Sony DSC-S60) have digital that does the cropping in camera, rather than blowing up the picture. It's better, but still not very nice.
You really want either an SLR or one of those relatively large prosumer cameras that have 11x optical zoom and far better quality at that range than any of the compact cameras. The Nikon D40 is surprisingly small, but still an SLR, FWIW. The D50 is cheaper, but a little bigger, and can autofocus the ultra cheap 70-300 zoom lens. I got a 55-200 VR, as I shoot almost exclusively handheld, so vibration reduction/image stabilization is an absolute must. The 11x zoom relative to an 18mm lens is enough for me, although I occasionally think a 300mm would be nice.
As far as the Panasonic recommended upthread, depending on what it is that you want the extra zoom for, you may find the lack of an optical viewfinder maddening. LCD lag and shutter lag were the two biggest reasons I finally broke down and bought a DSLR. If you can live with the limitations, by all means go for the compact. Just don't try to shoot fast moving wildlife with the shutter lag or in low light with high ISO on most compact cameras and you'll probably be fine, but do be sure and think about what it is you'll be doing with it and whether it's the right tool for the job before spending your hard earned cash.
posted by wierdo at 1:06 PM on May 22, 2007
You really want either an SLR or one of those relatively large prosumer cameras that have 11x optical zoom and far better quality at that range than any of the compact cameras. The Nikon D40 is surprisingly small, but still an SLR, FWIW. The D50 is cheaper, but a little bigger, and can autofocus the ultra cheap 70-300 zoom lens. I got a 55-200 VR, as I shoot almost exclusively handheld, so vibration reduction/image stabilization is an absolute must. The 11x zoom relative to an 18mm lens is enough for me, although I occasionally think a 300mm would be nice.
As far as the Panasonic recommended upthread, depending on what it is that you want the extra zoom for, you may find the lack of an optical viewfinder maddening. LCD lag and shutter lag were the two biggest reasons I finally broke down and bought a DSLR. If you can live with the limitations, by all means go for the compact. Just don't try to shoot fast moving wildlife with the shutter lag or in low light with high ISO on most compact cameras and you'll probably be fine, but do be sure and think about what it is you'll be doing with it and whether it's the right tool for the job before spending your hard earned cash.
posted by wierdo at 1:06 PM on May 22, 2007
I know your question didn't mention video at all, but it's worth considering that the Canon Powershot TX-1 is small and light (8oz) with stabilized 10x optical zoom AND the ability to shoot HD video at 30fps. (It's the current object of my gadget-lust.)
posted by contraption at 5:08 PM on May 22, 2007
posted by contraption at 5:08 PM on May 22, 2007
Response by poster: I had high hopes for the TX-1, contraption. But the reviews on it haven't been that hot.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 3:18 AM on May 23, 2007
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 3:18 AM on May 23, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by billtron at 8:59 AM on May 22, 2007