can anyone explain

[kirisute]

the picture have gone somewhere ,i'm surprised at the size difference ,can i close down dropbox at my end yet?

not even a RAW function on this new thing!

yeah you can close dropbox! i have them here!

z710

ax350

 

your z710 image is 3072*2304

your ax350 is 4608*3440

 

instantly you can see how much closer you are in your ax350 shot....your getting more definition in the fur tree and more detail in the trees at its base

colour saturation is very different between the two but considering todays weather i would suggest the ax350 is giving a better reproduction of actual values wheras the z710 is adding too much saturation. but thats personal taste

also of note in the full iamges is the focus points.

the ax350 is giving a much broader focus and definition than the z710....if you look at the full iamges at 100% you will notice a greater definition in the trees directly behind and too the left of the bush in the centre of the image.

so overall i would say your getting a better quality of image; but to be fair the difference is minimal...even so though to the human eye you will rarely tell the difference between an 2mp image and 5mp image when printed at 5*7.....the differences between 5 and 16 are noticable but you have to realise what your looking for and "joe bloggs" woudlnt in most cases notice at 5*7 or even a4!

 

you could probably get better images if you changed your auto focus settings on the new camera to centre ae, or spot focused on the main bush and then re-framed the shot by forcing a exposure reading there.

 

even so, at the end of the day if your not happy with the results then thats your call....id be tempted to head out and fiddle with some settings more and test more thoroughly...though to be honest ive never liked Fuji anyway....

Edited March 8, 2012 by kirisute

[chesters1]

well thanks for that most enlightening ,i will put in your dropbox dooda an old e550 picture i think is unzoomed .

i tend to go by the detail as you zoom in on the picture and both the ax and the z seem (in my eyes) not to be as good as the e550? or rather the detail goes blurry quicker .

it seems more obvious in fine things like grass but it maybe just me?

 

as i said in my introduction i'm just a snapper so the camera rarely comes off auto

 

perhaps the last one is zoomed

try this the focal length is shorter

 

feel free to delete the ones i sent you

Edited March 8, 2012 by chesters1

[kirisute]

well thanks for that most enlightening ,i will put in your dropbox dooda an old e550 picture i think is unzoomed .

i tend to go by the detail as you zoom in on the picture and both the ax and the z seem (in my eyes) not to be as good as the e550? or rather the detail goes blurry quicker .

it seems more obvious in fine things like grass but it maybe just me?

 

as i said in my introduction i'm just a snapper so the camera rarely comes off auto

hard to find a focused area in that shot! LOL

can you remember what you focused on?

anyway....take a look...see the noise around the leaves and the fence? like film grain? makes the image seem like its printed on sand....but if you cant be sure if this is full size or not or as clean a data from the camera as you can get we cant say too much about it.

this is a crop from my Eos450d. things look a wee bit clearer in this ball park..not as much noise etc

but then again the Eos is a different beast altogether and unless your shooting side by side shots you can compare fairly.

 

in effect i think your zooming into the same levels but not realising that at the same "virtual zoom" of your image your actually looking at double or treble the size of pixels. where as in printing you will get more pixels into the same area for your eye to look at, resulting in more definition and less noise.

providing the rest of the image is taken sensibly and the camera is working well!

but thats heading out of snap shooting and into learning to use all the features of your camera.....

 

your last one is nice...good focal range, not alot of noise in the dark areas and good clean image.

if your really worried about it take the same shots and print them at high quality on photo paper at the same size..say 5*7 then take a look at the resulting image. we very very rarely look at an image at its full resolution...in fact its onyl something like the new Ipad that might be even close to be able to showing a decent 16mp image at full size at full definition!

its comes down to how you look at the images. if they are not printing at your chosen size well then its wrth looking into or investing in something else.

i dont think your new camera is being awful..i just dont think youve looked at things quite right or taken enough piccies with it to judge it fully

i notice it doesnt have image stabilisation and is a fairly different beast when it comes to the lens config and capabilities of your old camera though..the old one retailed at $400+ when first released..the new one $99 ish?? the new cam is a "point and click" special..the older one was a buit more advanced and capable of offering a little bit more in the way of quality i think.

maybe thats what your now noticing

 

in the end Mega pixels do not a good photo make! and people need to realise that. mega pixels is a generic term to give the public a "bigger is better" figure to buy towards. in the end it comes down the cameras sensors, the lens quality, iso speeds the sensor is capable of and all manner of things beyond the mega pixlels.

Mega Pixels equal one thing...bigger print size!

but beyond 5 mega pixels you will never ever, i promise you, print larger than you will have pixels for! 5 mega pixels will easily print out about 10*7 or roughly A4...a3 will produce a slight blurring.

http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

what this website refers to as a "true photo"...would be the film equivalent...ie like for like pixels to original.

in real terms i would suggest you would be obviously noticing blur at double size pixels..a 5 meg image will happily print 10*7 looking at their chart id suggest you could happily up-scale the result by two stages with acceptable blurring of the image in print.

so how often are you going to print a 13 inch image? but wait...you have 16MP....thats a 36*24? print alot of canvas images to hang on your wall do you??

see what i mean?

http://www.photocanvasprinting.com/printsizeguide

this ones even better!

10 Mp at 40 inches plus!!!

the thing is when you stand next to a 40 inch print and look at it it will look bloody awful! pixelated and crappy! stand back far enough to view it correctly and it will look awesome! your doing exactly the same when you zoom into your images digitally!

 

sam ewith lcd TV's etc...there is a rule of thumb that to get good quality viewing then the closest viewer should be no closer than twice the width of your screen and no further than 5 times. closer than that then it becomes pixelated and looks awfull beyond that it starts to become clear and looks great further and you start to lose detail.

Edited March 8, 2012 by kirisute

[chesters1]

very interesting and i have read it twice just to make sure.

i'm not sure the price makes a difference in old compared to new i used a crap digi with a built in floppy drive that cost an arm and leg but the price reflected the newish technology to this older technology ,things tend to drop in price when the markets full of stuff no-one wants or theres too much competition.

 

i tend to judge a camera by zooming in to the interesting part rather than a wide shot of nothingness ,yes i know having a point and shoot camera isnt much use for it but i cant afford a SLR or even a bridge camera.

still interesting though and the amount of pixels is what i occasionally point out as being meaningless ,you dont need a big picture you need more detail .

anyway thanks for the effort ,still not happy about this camera and its lack of detail at zoom .

i may have a browse and get some camera details about the other cameras they sell and get a refund saying its blurry and choose another model

 

the lumix DMC-FS35 is about the highest i can go on my savings but i needed a panoramic function

 

as for focused areas i dont use focus i just point and shoot or if i remember select landscape mode

Edited March 8, 2012 by chesters1

[kirisute]

very interesting and i have read it twice just to make sure.

i'm not sure the price makes a difference in old compared to new i used a crap digi with a built in floppy drive that cost an arm and leg but the price reflected the newish technology to this older technology ,things tend to drop in price when the markets full of stuff no-one wants or theres too much competition.

 

i tend to judge a camera by zooming in to the interesting part rather than a wide shot of nothingness ,yes i know having a point and shoot camera isnt much use for it but i cant afford a SLR or even a bridge camera.

still interesting though and the amount of pixels is what i occasionally point out as being meaningless ,you dont need a big picture you need more detail .

anyway thanks for the effort ,still not happy about this camera and its lack of detail at zoom .

i may have a browse and get some camera details about the other cameras they sell and get a refund saying its blurry and choose another model

 

the lumix DMC-FS35 is about the highest i can go on my savings but i needed a panoramic function

 

as for focused areas i dont use focus i just point and shoot or if i remember select landscape mode

90 quid from Argos...some really nice cameras about for that money!

Fuji t200

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/part...as|14419442.htm

You like fuji:)

[chesters1]

90 quid from Argos...some really nice cameras about for that money!

Fuji t200

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/part...as|14419442.htm

You like fuji:)

 

nice zoom but no panorama feature as far as i can see ,i will have a browse cheers

[kirisute]

nice zoom but no panorama feature as far as i can see ,i will have a browse cheers

in all honesty your going to be paying a goodly sum of cash for panoramic features that will drop quality on other features.

if it was me id be happy using software to create panoramics rather than throwing cash at the feature....the cash would be better going on better zoom or lens quality/faster shooting speeds etc

if you could stretch to this:

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/part...7C14419441.htm#

and accept doing panoramics in software you would never look back!

this is the newer version of my s2is and they are superb cameras...quick on batteries but photo quality for price is 2nd to none

[ayjay]

nice zoom but no panorama feature as far as i can see ,i will have a browse cheers

 

Many photo programmes can stitch several pics together, no real need for a panorama feature.

 

I would show you some but they are too large (in MB) to upload direct and photobucket reduces them to fit the browser.

[kirisute]

Many photo programmes can stitch several pics together, no real need for a panorama feature.

 

I would show you some but they are too large (in MB) to upload direct and photobucket reduces them to fit the browser.

 

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/710/s...mpanorama1.jpg/

this is one i did of screenshots from a video game. stitched using photoshop photmerge which is the best panoramic stitcher ive found. but there are plenty of others out there. note the video game is pretty tough to sticth well because its constantly moving and changing..especially the aurora effect in this image. so photoshop did a truly superb job of putting it together

for a mostly static landscape the reasults would be much better.

i really wouldnt lose features like lens quality and speed etc for the bonus feature of panoramic....which to be honest doesnt involve advanced algorithms but in most cases simply offers a "virtual" guide to where to take the next photo in the seuqence by overlaying the previous photos edge over the display window.

[chesters1]

cheers ,i'v tried the software versions with fairly good results but never perfect ,i'v been playing with the serif version last week with so so results.

the good thing with the 3 frame panorama is that there's less to stitch together in the software