Should i be more concerned with MP or x zoom?

C

convert

Suspended / Banned
Messages
24
Edit My Images
No
Guys
Hi sorry just me again with yet another question? Sorry :help:

Im as you will probably know by now seeking advise prior to purchasing my first bridge camera as such ive had a few questions but this is the one that has me the most puzzled with cameras fullstop.

When looking at the specs etc should i be more interested in mega-pixels or in x zoom as i will need this camera to perform in most situations what is the more important to have and im of course pressuming its the higher these numbers are that are better? as i am a bit lost with it all too many variations, numbers and different specs.

If someone would be so kind as to hypothetically devise a spec i should be aiming for in terms of a good alround bridge camera able to handly in all modes (mostly auto though) most situations with relative ease.

As always you help, personal recs or suggestions most welcomed
 
I would say neither.

On a small sensor fewer pixels the better IMHO and x zoom means nothing if the lens isn't of very good quality.

So, ignore the specs and get the one with the best image quality.
 
My take is slightly different. MP is a concern depending on how large you intend to print (if you even will print), but once you reach about 8 or 10 mp, unless you are going for much larger than A3+ size or cropping significantly, then the difference between a 10mp and a 16mp camera (for instance) camera isn't as large as you may think.

For instance, take two DSR's , a 10mp Nikon D200 and a 16mp Nikon D7000 (doesn't have to be Nikon, it applies to all makes).

A D200 has sensor resolution of 3872 x 2592 pixels, whereas the D7000 has 4928 x 3264 pixels. Equate that down to a 300dpi print, and you get a D200 print of 12.9 x 8.6 inches, and a D7000 print of 16.4 x 10.9. so for the extra 6mp (or 60% extra) you only acheive a linear print increase of about 25% extra). It's really not a huge as people seem to think, and the large the number of mp you start with, the much larger the increase thats needed in mp before you start seeing massive gains in resolution / print sizes.

As the previous poster alluded to, it's the quality of the pixels rather than the total count that's more important. The reason the Nikon D3S has for many years been the king of high ISO's is that it only packed 12mp (albeit 12 very high quality mp) onto its sensor. The new Canon 1D-X has reduced the number of MP from it's predecessor in the search for even better imiage quality. I'm sure as technology progresses, in the years to come we will be able to pack ever increasing numbers of pixels into the same space with even better light gathering abilities which will make todays sensors seem like they are from the dark ages.

The question on the zoom, really only becomes apparent if you are talking about a fixed lens camera (like a compact). For an interchangeble lens camera (DSLR or EVIL type), if you outgrow the kit lens it's supplied with, you can always trade up. With a compact or bridge camera you get what you are given. Again this is always a trade off. Whilst you can get superzoom cameras (from say 28mm to 500mm or better), these usually come with the penalty of a slower lens design which will force the camera to use higher ISO's as the light fades (f5.6 or slower at the tele end). Obviously IS (or image stabilisation) will help considerably (and nearly all camera have these built in these days), but only if the subject is static. If the subject is moving, IS will only negate camera shake but can't rasie the shutter speed fast enough to freeze motion. Cameras with smaller zoom ranges (or even fixed focal lengths), typcially have much faster lenses (F1.8-F2.8 for instance), which will be their nature allow much faster shutter speeds. Whilst these obviously won't give the "reach" of the superzooms, they will operate much more effectively in a broader range of shooting conditions.

You really need to evaluate yourself what you real objective is with you shooting style. For instance, if most of your work will be birds and animals, then a superzoom (with all it's constraints), is the only real choice. On the other hand, if it's candid or street photography or photos of the kids etc, then a camera with a more modest zoom range (say 24-70 or 28-200), will probably be more preferable due to it's faster lens design.

Hope this helps.
 
Last edited:
There's some truth in all of this.

Personally, I wouldn't worry about megapixels. All modern cameras have more than enough for anything other than huge prints. I've made A4 prints from my old Minolta Dimage 7i with 1200 x 1600 files (2 MP) that are fine, although the camera can go to 5MP (I couldn't afford a larger memory card, they were still quite expensive in South Africa then). That's probably an extreme example, but it makes the point. The problem with bridge cameras is that they have fairly small sensors, compared with most DSLRs, and this doesn't lend itself to high MP densities and good image quality. Less can actually be better.

I agree with the previous poster about zoom range. We were planning to get a Canon S95 compact, which has an excellent reputation, but a fairly modest zoom. My wife decided that she wanted more telephoto range and chose a Panasonic TZ9. It's quite a decent camera, but can't compare with the S95 IMHO, and she finds the 24mm wide angle far more useful than the long end. I wouldn't choose based on long reach unless you really want/need it.
 
Ok guys im not totally confused
Firstly thankyou for you indepth answers some of which i get/understand some i dont but i fully intend reading up on it none the less but for now i would like to set up a typical use senario for you to advice upon then as to what sort of range i would be better seeking in terms of MP & zoom.
So the bulk of my photography would be scenic shots, landscapes and shots taken during our walks up and down the foreshore of the spectacular river at my front door some of which would be distance some close up, but would further likely include images of our pup as she grows then add to that general family images and you have pretty much my most intended uses whilst i would love a dslr i do not feel i can yet justify the capital outlay for one.

Again all help and advice greatefully sought


Dougie
 
I wouldn't worry about either megapixels or zoom.

Megapixels - too many on too small a sensor is likely to lead to reduced image quality. High megapixel sensors have improved, but megapixels can not be used as any indication of image quality.

Zoom - it's impossible to relate x4 or x16 zoom to any specific purpose without looking more closely at the specifications. You need to look at the actual focal length range of the lens, for example a 16-64mm lens and a 100-400mm lens are both x4 zoom lenses!


If you're planning on buying a DSLR later, why buy a bridge camera now? If you instead buy a high-end compact you'll have a good quality pocket camera for the future for those occasions you don't want the bulk of a DSLR to carry round. Something like the Canon S95 or S100 or G12, or the Panasonic LX5.

Or, go straight to the CSC route with an interchangeable lens m4/3 system. These new kids on the block have to my mind pretty much killed the niche that bridge cameras occupied (I must be honest and say that I've never really liked the concept of bridge cameras).
 
MartynK said:
Personally, I wouldn't worry about megapixels. All modern cameras have more than enough for anything other than huge prints. I've made A4 prints from my old Minolta Dimage 7i with 1200 x 1600 files (2 MP) that are fine,
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this. I've made A4 prints from 3mp with no problem and A3 from 6 and 8mp. I'd say forget mp altogether but in reality I doubt you'll find a new bridge camera on the market with a low mp count.
 
I'd go for enough megapixels that you print up to A3 (at 300ppi) if needed (about 12-14mp) and always go for an optical zoom over a digital zoom.
 
convert said:
So the bulk of my photography would be scenic shots, landscapes and shots taken during our walks up and down the foreshore of the spectacular river at my front door some of which would be distance some close up, but would further likely include images of our pup as she grows then add to that general family images and you have pretty much my most intended uses whilst i would love a dslr i do not feel i can yet justify the capital outlay for one.

Again all help and advice greatefully sought


Dougie
Click to expand...

Given that this is the case, I would say then that the zoom would be more important than the MP. I've had perfectly good A3 prints from 6MP DSLR, so unless you're looking at doing some serious cropping, or printing huge, I wouldn't be overly concerned with MP.
 
You're going to get some different opinions here.

I'm staying with my own view, MPs are largely irrelevant. If you ever get to the point when you want to make enormous prints, you'll know what file sizes are required.

On the zoom question, I really don't see any need for more than a moderate wide angle - short telephoto for the situations you describe. Somewhere around 24mm - 140mm equivalent would probably be fine. General/family photography doesn't really need long reach.

You may have some other options too. A good compact will do most of what you want for now, although a boisterous puppy may be a challenge, particularly in poorer light. You did say that you would like a DSLR, and a pocket size compact and a DSLR complement each other very well. Alternatively, you might be able to find a used, entry level, DSLR for around the same price as a bridge camera now? It would certainly be more flexible/versatile.

Bridge cameras were popular when all DSLRs were very expensive, but I think they've lost some of their appeal as DSLR prices have come down, and they're still fairly large and heavy compared with a compact. Just something to consider? I hope you find just what you're looking for and enjoy it. That's the main thing!
 
Probably gonna throw a little spanner in the works here, but anyhow here goes.

From one of your later posts I get the feeling that you are interested in getting into photography and the main reason you are steering away from a dslr is because of the price. If this is true then I urge you to consider a second hand dslr. I have no idea of your budget since you haven mentioned any specific models, but for the price of even one of the cheapest bridges brand new you could pick up a decent dslr with a kit lens.

If your only qualm with a dslr is the price then I say forget the bridge and get a used dslr.
 
MartynK said:
You're going to get some different opinions here.

I'm staying with my own view, MPs are largely irrelevant. If you ever get to the point when you want to make enormous prints, you'll know what file sizes are required.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, I've seen some pretty good A3 prints from 3.2MP.

Anyone wanting to see what 3.2MP looks like should have a look through the D30 images at DP Review.
 
Dave1 said:
I would agree with you, I've seen some pretty good A3 prints from 3.2MP.

Anyone wanting to see what 3.2MP looks like should have a look through the D30 images at DP Review.
Click to expand...

We used to use the D30 for magazine work. Did the job at the time but the D60, D10 and D20 were revelations in comparison :lol:

I think the key thing that comes out of the megapixels and printing issue is the actual viewing distance of prints and this is where megapixel do sway the decision for me.

Just as an example: The D30 produces an image that is about 2050 pixels on the long edge. To get that to A3 (420mm/16.5ins full bleed) the image will roughly be 124ppi, which on close inspection will look pap, but from several feet away will look fine. This is all without interpolation BTW.

Take a 12mp image and you'll get roughly 4200pix on the long edge. Divide that by 16.5 to get the ppi and you're left with roughly 254ppi, which will again look fine from several feet away but will also suffer closer inspection.
It's not the 'magic' 300ppi but if we're told to aim for.

If we do the 12mp @ 300ppi then we're left with an image that's 14ins along the long edge - an A3 print with a one-inch border effectively. Try to get 300ppi from the 3mp image (2050 divided by 300) and you have a print that's about 6.8 inches long.... a massive difference.

In reference to what I do (magazine shooting) then if we can get as much fine detail across that's better because the viewing distances for magazines are typically just inches, as opposed to framed prints that will probably be viewed from three feet or more. As illustrated, my 12mp D2x can nearly make an A3 print without any real noticeable quality issues, but it would b preferable to have something like a 20mp+ sensor to give us the leeway to crop if neccessary*

*(one of our guys has a 5D2 and I haven't seen a massive increase in final detail, although he shoots in JPEG and doesn't really know what he's doing! :) But I'd like more megapixel for sure)

Of course, I'm talking in DSLR terms here where larger sensors are in play, plus lenses that probably resolve detail better. But regardless, you still need those basic elements (the number of pixels) on your side to print large with finer detail.
 
Last edited:
Whaoh
Guys, guys guys what information all very usefull ok to recap then and to inform (sorry i had posted elsewhere more details)

Im middle-aged but disabled with muscle, walking and touch/feel issues which is where my concerns grew as to actual use of some cameras and then i have only sight in one eye making fidgety/small dials and such like really out the question, Photography would be my escapeism, my way out, my peace my quiet when i need some space whilst a given oppurtunity like our recent move into one of if not "the" best area for both scenic and other photographic oppurtunities, so really whether dlsr, compact or bridge i really need one that mainly will work fully auto (with good long-range as well as close ups) so as to be able to cover most bases i mentioned above?

I was advised to get a bridge due to their extra ordinary zoom power for some shots but exemplary close-up capabilities likewise and so weve got to hear with me knowing a bit more i had been looking at (and probably would of bought the Nikon L120 14MP had Argos not of mucked me about currently if they ever get new stock at £120) however i have probably a budget of up to £200 if the right camera can be found.

I doubt i can pick up a dslr and decent lens pack in anywhere near useable condition for that sort of figure and would i think worry about buying such given i have no idea what im looking at to be able to make an informed choice anyway.

The crux of the matter is i only wan to be able to wander (slowly down the foreshore if and when i can with a camera around my neck that will sit on standby for a reasonable time, be able to take with half decent clarity the bulk of the images from land/sea scapes to my puppy/family portraits and exclude a lot of the knobs/dials that i in reality probably woud have difficulty with day to day and thats about it really hence my asking about zoom and MP's to try to assess if a compact might be better (although ive had a few an older HP and a newer 10MP Polariod version neither of which i can honestly say for differing reasons i would be happy having round my neck for such use finding both tiresome, battery hungry and not up to much !!

I respect you guys know what your talking about thus respect your answers and truly hope that with combined knowlege we can possibly get to a model to suit (i accept) a rather unusual case ( i am aware of disabled groups in this field but feel whilst i am still mobile and having fought and won for some 20 yrs + that to look to specific disabled options i'd be giving in a route im not yet willing to take) sorry in advance if ive bored or put you to sleep thought id best explain in as few (all be it a few) words.

Finally whilst i would one day like to work up to a dslr in time depending on a few things in my health continuing as is, that i am able to change lens, carry such with me over lon periods so hence my wanting or rather prefering at least for not to choose the cheaper route untill i am absolutely sure i can manage by which time i would be able im sure to buy a good quality all bells all extra dslr unit (once the house move is paid, women new decoration, curtains, carpets and furniture dont get me started) i trust that those assistin me currently might now get a better understanding of my needs with some background.

Again i thank one and all for their time and look forward to answers having now possibily put a major breakdown in the works let alone a spanner...


Ps - My trusty Blackberry returned some reasonable results today again, sadly its to inconsistant and slow for most things of any importance


Yours
Dougie
 
Dougie - my Dad recently retired and through the Railtrack retirement system he was entitled to a camera (among other things) up to a specific value (think it was about £250).

He opted for a Lumix Fz45 - 14mp, mental zoom range, HD video - and although it isn't like a D700 at high ISOs, it does the job he wants to do fine. He just shoots everything and anything while out walking the dog or when he's out for the day with my mum. I'm amazed at the quality of the images and the 24x optical zoom is excellent. Even the controls are easy to pick up and it has enough 'DSLR' type features (A/M/S/P modes, raw capture, image stabilisation) and I got on with it from the moment I picked it up. Plus it's well made. This model is about £300 RRP but you can get it for around £220 on the web.

I also know Fuji are doing a lot of their bridge cameras cheap on the fuji website and there are some very good refurb deals too.
 
Last edited:
Hi Dougie.
My thoughts are: get a compact with an optical zoom. I'd stay away from digital zoom (any of those that say x12 zoom but x3 optical) There aren't that many on the market, and they tend to be a bit more expensive than the 15mp digital zoom offerings. Having said that, none of the compacts are that good for portraits, better for landscapes. Get one that offers manual settings as well as the usual 'auto', and get a little tripod for your creative landscapes. You don't need massive mega pixels, but most of the newer models offer more than enough for most purposes. Get a compact with a good lens (I had Samsung with a Schneider Kreuznach which was good for the money).
 
Specialman - Many thanks ive been looking at Fuji's today however the choices are totally bewildering to say the least especially when you dont know what your lookin at? it would seem that in the world of camera buying you dont do what you do with (i think) every other purchase in life in that you throw the rule book away and you check affordable price and then dont nessesarily match that to best speck as in highest numerals, figures, sizes or dimensions all very confusing stuff to say the least!

Many thanks for your input however i will of course check out Fujis reburb deals shortly .
 
Photodiva - My worry in your suggestion is due to my varying conditions i really require something thats happy to pick for me thus erradicating the fidgety dial stuff i probably most of all fear apart from which its doubtfull from what ive thus far learnt whether a compact of the type i can afford would really fit the bill and if so then the Polariod that eats batteries ( at times good or bad makes alike we were changing them every 6-10 shots) which destroys my being able to roam along the foreshore happy as i pig in ### shooting as i see.

But thanks for our input all the same helpfull all the same ..
 
No Problems Dougie :)

I think they (the manufacturers) purposely make things difficult. I'm kinda glad I still use a six-year-old camera that i know does the job..... I couldn't choose a new one if I was in a shop now!! :lol:
 
So it looks like were back at the best option really being a bridge camera (i think) by all accounts probably the best im likely to obtain for my given set of circumstances that said then whats my best bet waiting it out for the Nokia L120 14MP from argos or trying to source from the bewildering array of Fuji's currently available??

You guys are truly amazing and ever so tollerant i mean even my ovver alf is going crazy with me now (not that thats unusual come to think of it) so would anyone wish to hazard a guess at which Fuji would be most useable for my needs them ?
 
Specialman - (with added complications) you and i both buddy thought many times of going to touch, feel and see in a shop situation which for most would be enough but i need to see ease of use of auto, menus and a whole host of other stuff that salesmen nowadays simply wont do.... mores the pity
 
Last edited:
A quick look on Fujis refurb site says the S1800 £85 would suffice for all my needs with its description being "However, for those whose approach to photography is more point-and-shoot, the S1800 can also happily be switched to Auto" for hassle-free shooting and total peace of mind." i beleive that if totally true says it all.

Although not sure what if any benefits there are for me going up in range and costs although with-in my budget i could potentially purchase even the biggest/best model listed there, safer for sure than buying secondhand and without doubt less problimatic ( i so, so detest the process of buying/selling anything E-Bay was (with a few exceptions my lifetimes best invention thus far) faceless buying/selling i love it
 
I've got to admit that I know naff all about bridge cameras but from looking at the specs and reviews I think for £85 you probably can't go wrong :)
 
Dougie - the S1800 looks great, especially for that money; manual controls if needed, good zoom (optical as well), HD video, big LCD on the back, chunky controls, good ISOs up to 6400. For what you want I think it will suit fine Fuji do make some nice kit :)
 
Specialman - Many thanks my friend an order for one is about to be placed i really cant emphasis just how helpful you particularily but this community in general have been you really have no idea how i have been treated on another similar community forum i had (before finding this one) asked the exact same questions off amazing how different these communities can be (incidentally i know only to well as for my sins if you like i own, operate and Admin the second largest VW van community forum in the UK but thats for another day).

I now just have to ensure that the s1800 is in fact the useable version i beleive it is at which point i shall definately order immediately ( whereupon albums of Lochaber, Glencoe and loads more will follow make no mistake).

Again thankyou to one and all your combined help, advice and guidance has made the difference for sure
 
Just a last few questions then to anyone who wishes to answer (mainly to me not quite understanding fully what the specs mean on any camera)

Will this camera be able to run on full auto that will take all control to supply the relative settings to best suit the shot/surroundings without any input from me other than to source the picture, point and click?

Is is liable on battery to last a reasonable period of time on so all i have to do is drape it around me neck and bring it up when i see something worth capturing?

Im pressuming with-in reason that it can handle landscape, puppylife, sea, flora & fauna and the odd distance and close-ups and possibly a few shots of the missus if i have too?

Will the resulting image be good enough in quality generally to get prints done, not really something ive ever done or been interested in other than if i can get a good shot of our georgeous puppy Georgie our King Charles bitch puppy (our surrogate child in truth if we can get a good shot it would be frame and posted above our fireplace)

If this camera can do these few tasks successfully i would be so, so pleased so much so that i most certainly would order but wonder if possibly i might be better getting one or two models up the range.

Looking forward to finally starting just in time for the winter snows greeeeaaaaatttt.

Dougie

And thats really all i need it for poss
 
It has a full auto setting that will do everything for you the moment you press the button; the focus will be auto, it will determine the exposure, it'll choose the ISO, it'll even determine who it looks in terms of contrast an colours. And the good thing is, they usually do all this well...

I'd hazard a guess that you'll get a full day out of a charge no problem. Modern batteries are very good and even with the LCD being on and other energy-hungry features in play, I doubt you'll get anywhere near running out. I used to get about 500 shots from my old nikon D200, which was a notoriously bad camera for using batteries.

The lens is apparently equivalant to having a 28-500mm on a 35mm camera. That's a big zoom so it'll do most stuff :)

I reckon that if it's good light and the camera doesn't use too high an ISO, you'll easily be able to print at A3+ without much noise (grain) showing. Shots taken up the ISO chain at 1600 or above will probably show a fair bit of noise, but that's cameras in general, and if the shot is a goo one I'm sue you'll live with it. A4 and 6x4 prints will be absolutely no issue whatsoever. :)

As with most things, there is generally always something better for more money. Stats and spec on paper is all good and well and one camera may match another. But i could be additional fine-tuning that actually makes the more expensive one worth it.

Bridge cameras seem to hover around the 10-14 megapixel area, which is probably as high s you can go and sill keep prices low. Better technology = more cost.

I know it's more info to soak in, but it may be worth heading over to http://www.dpreview.com/products/fujifilm/cameras, as they have an extensive review archive of cameras. you can search by brand and it'll list the reviews on that brand's products. They do very in-epth reviews but you can skip to the last pae of each review and just read the pros, cons and overall verdict.

:thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Specialman - Fear not im convinced i will have a lot of reading to do now due to me having literally this last 5 minutes ordered said camera, a mere 3 days is all im really pleased i found this community and you can be sure i shall be around for a long, long time to come i am sure there will be plenty more questions as we go along but im equally sure that like this one they will be no problem to find an answer too..

"Hello Douglas McPherson

Thank you for your order from The FujiShop. If you have any questions about your order please contact us at contact.shop@fujifilm.co.uk or call us at 08445 532321 Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm.

Your order confirmation is below. Thank you again for your business
Your Order ############ (placed on 7 December 2011 21:23:39 GMT


Many thanks
Dougie
 
Last edited:
Good man. I love my dad's Lumix - feel nice just to be shooting with something that looks a bit like a SLR, but where I'm not always faffing with settings. Kind of brings back the joy of starting photography in a way :thumbs:

(btw, blank out the order number just to be safe :thumbs:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top