Connor
What is it that makes a Digital Camera good?, Is it the amount of megapixels, or it's features, I don't know, what is it? Also what is likely to be the best Camera on the market as of right now?
Answer
There are 2 things which combine to make a good digital camera. The first is the sensor. Physical size of sensor is much more important than number of megapixels. The bigger the sensor, the clearer the image and the less noise you will get, especially at higher ISO settings. The second is the quality of the lens. There's no point in having great "features" if the lens distorts them.
Megapixels are pretty much irrelevant when you get beyond about 8. A 7.2 megapixel camera can produce a 20"x16" enlargement at 150 pixels per inch. Just how big do you want to go? As you cram more pixels on to the same sensor size, the individual pixels get smaller, so it gets much more difficult and expensive to make them more sensitive to light, which means they don't perform well in low light. That's why most cheap compacts with high megapixel counts give rubbish results at high ISO settings in low light.
Those reasons combined is why DSLR cameras outperform most compacts, apart from one or two expensive large-sensor compacts. DSLR cameras have large sensors and interchangeable high-quality lenses.
So the best image quality is actually going to come from a Hasselblad with huge sensor and fantastic lenses. But that is going to cost many thousands and it will be huge and very heavy. Being the "best" camera for image quality does not make it the best camera for most people.
Even if we stick to the more affordable standard DSLR cameras, there are several levels. The best image quality right now comes from full frame DSLR cameras. The Nikon D800 is the best out there right now. But that is still expensive. It is also big, heavy and needs a big, powerful computer to handle the 36MP pictures.
Of course the D800 isn't going to be "best" if you want small, lightweight and portable. It also doesn't have the fastest motor drive around, so may not be best for fast-moving sports photography. So what is technically the "best" camera for image quality is not necessarily the best for you. You have to take into consideration your budget, what you want to use the camera for and how big and heavy you are willing to put up with.
There are 2 things which combine to make a good digital camera. The first is the sensor. Physical size of sensor is much more important than number of megapixels. The bigger the sensor, the clearer the image and the less noise you will get, especially at higher ISO settings. The second is the quality of the lens. There's no point in having great "features" if the lens distorts them.
Megapixels are pretty much irrelevant when you get beyond about 8. A 7.2 megapixel camera can produce a 20"x16" enlargement at 150 pixels per inch. Just how big do you want to go? As you cram more pixels on to the same sensor size, the individual pixels get smaller, so it gets much more difficult and expensive to make them more sensitive to light, which means they don't perform well in low light. That's why most cheap compacts with high megapixel counts give rubbish results at high ISO settings in low light.
Those reasons combined is why DSLR cameras outperform most compacts, apart from one or two expensive large-sensor compacts. DSLR cameras have large sensors and interchangeable high-quality lenses.
So the best image quality is actually going to come from a Hasselblad with huge sensor and fantastic lenses. But that is going to cost many thousands and it will be huge and very heavy. Being the "best" camera for image quality does not make it the best camera for most people.
Even if we stick to the more affordable standard DSLR cameras, there are several levels. The best image quality right now comes from full frame DSLR cameras. The Nikon D800 is the best out there right now. But that is still expensive. It is also big, heavy and needs a big, powerful computer to handle the 36MP pictures.
Of course the D800 isn't going to be "best" if you want small, lightweight and portable. It also doesn't have the fastest motor drive around, so may not be best for fast-moving sports photography. So what is technically the "best" camera for image quality is not necessarily the best for you. You have to take into consideration your budget, what you want to use the camera for and how big and heavy you are willing to put up with.
Digital cameras and Slr possible improvements?
Tony
are there any possible improvements in any area, that either of these cameras need?
Answer
Although highly doubtful, fewer pixels in compact digital cameras would be an improvement. Canon has acknowledged this by reducing the pixel count in their G11 which replaced the G10 from 14.6mp in the G10 to 10.0mp in the G11. Fewer pixels occupying the same sized sensor means slightly bigger pixels and better performance in low-light and at higher ISO settings. However, after years of marketing "More megapixels is better!" manufacturers will find it difficult to explain to the consumer why fewer megapixels is suddenly "better".
In the DSLR realm things are beginning to get interesting. Sony's introduction of their Translucent Mirror Technology in their SLT A33 and A55 may force Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, Canon and Panasonic to re-think the traditional DSLR. At 7fps shooting with the SLT A33 and 10fps shooting with the SLT A55, continuous full-time auto focus, no mirror black-out, 2D or 3D sweep panorama and Auto HDR Sony has a lot to brag about. How the other manufacturers respond to these Sony cameras will be interesting to say the least.
Add the E-V-I-L (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras from Sony, Olympus and Panasonic into the mix and the traditional DSLR comes under further attack. If these cameras begin taking market share from sales of traditional DSLRs among first-time buyers it will be interesting to see how Pentax, Canon and Nikon respond.
Features normally found in only pro-grade DSLRs (Nikon D3, Canon 1D) will begin trickling down to the consumer-grade DSLRs at a faster rate to offer the entry-level buyers more "bang for the buck" at a cost comparable to current DSLR entry-level prices. The introduction of aids in the viewfinder for manually focusing will force other manufacturers to follow suit.
Its going to be interesting to watch what happens over the next couple of years.
Although highly doubtful, fewer pixels in compact digital cameras would be an improvement. Canon has acknowledged this by reducing the pixel count in their G11 which replaced the G10 from 14.6mp in the G10 to 10.0mp in the G11. Fewer pixels occupying the same sized sensor means slightly bigger pixels and better performance in low-light and at higher ISO settings. However, after years of marketing "More megapixels is better!" manufacturers will find it difficult to explain to the consumer why fewer megapixels is suddenly "better".
In the DSLR realm things are beginning to get interesting. Sony's introduction of their Translucent Mirror Technology in their SLT A33 and A55 may force Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, Canon and Panasonic to re-think the traditional DSLR. At 7fps shooting with the SLT A33 and 10fps shooting with the SLT A55, continuous full-time auto focus, no mirror black-out, 2D or 3D sweep panorama and Auto HDR Sony has a lot to brag about. How the other manufacturers respond to these Sony cameras will be interesting to say the least.
Add the E-V-I-L (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras from Sony, Olympus and Panasonic into the mix and the traditional DSLR comes under further attack. If these cameras begin taking market share from sales of traditional DSLRs among first-time buyers it will be interesting to see how Pentax, Canon and Nikon respond.
Features normally found in only pro-grade DSLRs (Nikon D3, Canon 1D) will begin trickling down to the consumer-grade DSLRs at a faster rate to offer the entry-level buyers more "bang for the buck" at a cost comparable to current DSLR entry-level prices. The introduction of aids in the viewfinder for manually focusing will force other manufacturers to follow suit.
Its going to be interesting to watch what happens over the next couple of years.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment