PDA

View Full Version : Canon S1 IS only 3.2 MP and chromatic aberations at tele?



morkys
07-19-2004, 05:17 PM
Just wondering. I'm looking at the Canon S1 IS vs the Panasonic DMC-FZ10. They both have IS but the Canon is "only" 3.2 MP. Does that make for much difference in picture quality difference. The Panasonic is larger, doesn't have the cool movie mode and is more expensive, although it does have slightly more zoom and 4 MP.

John_Reed
07-19-2004, 05:40 PM
Just wondering. I'm looking at the Canon S1 IS vs the Panasonic DMC-FZ10. They both have IS but the Canon is "only" 3.2 MP. Does that make for much difference in picture quality difference. The Panasonic is larger, doesn't have the cool movie mode and is more expensive, although it does have slightly more zoom and 4 MP.
Tomorrow, July 20, Panasonic is announcing a new bunch of Lumix cameras, including a new FZ3 that's supposed to be smaller than the old FZ1, with 3megapixels, and very fast shutter lag time. Keep your powder dry until you read the announcements of all their new products.

Rhys
07-19-2004, 05:46 PM
Just wondering. I'm looking at the Canon S1 IS vs the Panasonic DMC-FZ10. They both have IS but the Canon is "only" 3.2 MP. Does that make for much difference in picture quality difference. The Panasonic is larger, doesn't have the cool movie mode and is more expensive, although it does have slightly more zoom and 4 MP.

They both have image stabilisation. The Panasonic does have a good movie mode.

morkys
07-19-2004, 05:54 PM
Yep, they all have image stabilization.

The Canon movie mode is twice the resolution of the Panny mode. I just realized that the Panny is really expensive. $899 CDN vs $699 CDN for the Canon IS. Wowza. Oh well. I can wait to see what the new Panny camera's are like. However, if 3.2 MP is good enough, I think the S1 IS is ok.

Rhys
07-20-2004, 05:12 AM
Yep, they all have image stabilization.

The Canon movie mode is twice the resolution of the Panny mode. I just realized that the Panny is really expensive. $899 CDN vs $699 CDN for the Canon IS. Wowza. Oh well. I can wait to see what the new Panny camera's are like. However, if 3.2 MP is good enough, I think the S1 IS is ok.

Actually, I liked both the S1 and the FZ10.

My reason for liking the S1 more has nothing to do with the price and more to do with the facts that:

I already use Compact Flash,
Compact Flash is cheaper than Secure Digital,
The S1 is more compact.
The S1 takes AA batteries which the Panasonic does not.

morkys
07-21-2004, 03:25 PM
Right. What about the 3.2 MP? That isn't a problem?

The other negative is no external flash, not even a synch connection.

Rhys
07-21-2004, 03:40 PM
Right. What about the 3.2 MP? That isn't a problem?

The other negative is no external flash, not even a synch connection.

This is a long-zoom camera. Beyond 10 feet most flashes are useless. It's essentially designed to take pictures of things a fair distance away, IMO.

I'm not so struck on flashes generally. I have used my Metz 45 occasionally. In all honesty though I never found it particularly advantageous and prefer to do my photography during the daytime.

3,2mp is not a problem unless you plan to print to larger than A4.

In theory an external flash could be synched with a flash synch cube.

Jake Conner
07-22-2004, 12:29 PM
Beyond 10 feet most flashes are useless.

My $44 (used) Vivitar 285 HV goes out to 80 feet, ISO 160, F2.8 with no problem, and you can easily get more power if you're willing to pay for it.

Jake

Rhys
07-22-2004, 03:02 PM
My $44 (used) Vivitar 285 HV goes out to 70 feet, ISO 160, F2.8 with no problem, and you can easily get more power if you're willing to pay for it.

Jake

What's the guide number on that?

Jake Conner
07-22-2004, 03:09 PM
I meant 80 feet, this is at tele, btw. The GN for tele is 140', wide and middle are either 100' and 120' or 120' and 130', can't remember which. 140*1.6 is 224 (the tele GN for ISO 160) and 224/2.8 is 80 (hence 80 feet).

Jake

morkys
07-22-2004, 03:29 PM
Ok, so how big is A4 again? If I can do 10 x 12 without seeing pixel dots, then thats fine (no pun intended..lol)...of course, if there is a way to eliminate "dots" when printing, without making the picture soft, I could do that.

Basically the Canon S1 IS is the least expensive 10x zoom with IS so its attractive but the 4 MP camera's tempt me too. Just wish the Canon S1 was 4 MP! Maybe I'll just give it a try. Its hard to pay the money for a 3.2 MP camera. I hate tradeoff's.

Rhys
07-22-2004, 04:48 PM
Ok, so how big is A4 again? If I can do 10 x 12 without seeing pixel dots, then thats fine (no pun intended..lol)...of course, if there is a way to eliminate "dots" when printing, without making the picture soft, I could do that.

Basically the Canon S1 IS is the least expensive 10x zoom with IS so its attractive but the 4 MP camera's tempt me too. Just wish the Canon S1 was 4 MP! Maybe I'll just give it a try. Its hard to pay the money for a 3.2 MP camera. I hate tradeoff's.

A4 is an international paper size

A4 paper'' size: 210297mm (8.311.7")
ISO Paper sizes (http://amath.colorado.edu/documentation/iso-paper.html)

bka314
07-25-2004, 07:29 AM
Ok, so how big is A4 again? If I can do 10 x 12 without seeing pixel dots, then thats fine (no pun intended..lol)...of course, if there is a way to eliminate "dots" when printing, without making the picture soft, I could do that.

Basically the Canon S1 IS is the least expensive 10x zoom with IS so its attractive but the 4 MP camera's tempt me too. Just wish the Canon S1 was 4 MP! Maybe I'll just give it a try. Its hard to pay the money for a 3.2 MP camera. I hate tradeoff's.

Did you folks who always compare 4 Mpx with 3 Mpx ever think this issue over? 4 Mpx is not an improvement over 3, its almost nothing. Let me explain...

The detail that you see is basically the linear (!) resolution, which is just the square root of the megapixels...
Start the story of the resolution from 1 Mpx (1280x960). The step to 2 Mpx (1600x1200) was an 1.25 times linear growth. Next step to 3 Mpx (2048x...) is x1.28, the next step is NOT 4 mpx, but 5! From 3 to 4 (longer side 2288, 2304) you have only the multiplier of 1.12, 1.13. That is 12-13% (this is not just because of the square root, but because that so-called 3 is 3.1 and that so-called 4 is just 3.9).
See the 4 Mpx is just marketing. While from 3 to 5 you have your 25% linear growth again, and from 5 to 8 you have around the same.
Conclusion: 4 is not much more than 3, and 6 is not at all more than 5.

Bad lens or stupid image processing (like Minolta Z2) can make a 4 mpx image much less detailed than a 3 mpx image (like S1 IS).

Anyway - people used to look at bigger prints from further than at the small prints. So you will not be bothered by the softness (you may notice the dots, but if you resize the image to eg. 5 mpx before you print you surely won't).

Let me know, folks, if I succeded to convince you.

bye, Kris

John_Reed
07-25-2004, 02:00 PM
Did you folks who always compare 4 Mpx with 3 Mpx ever think this issue over? 4 Mpx is not an improvement over 3, its almost nothing. Let me explain...

The detail that you see is basically the linear (!) resolution, which is just the square root of the megapixels...
Start the story of the resolution from 1 Mpx (1280x960). The step to 2 Mpx (1600x1200) was an 1.25 times linear growth. Next step to 3 Mpx (2048x...) is x1.28, the next step is NOT 4 mpx, but 5! From 3 to 4 (longer side 2288, 2304) you have only the multiplier of 1.12, 1.13. That is 12-13% (this is not just because of the square root, but because that so-called 3 is 3.1 and that so-called 4 is just 3.9).
See the 4 Mpx is just marketing. While from 3 to 5 you have your 25% linear growth again, and from 5 to 8 you have around the same.
Conclusion: 4 is not much more than 3, and 6 is not at all more than 5.

Bad lens or stupid image processing (like Minolta Z2) can make a 4 mpx image much less detailed than a 3 mpx image (like S1 IS).

Anyway - people used to look at bigger prints from further than at the small prints. So you will not be bothered by the softness (you may notice the dots, but if you resize the image to eg. 5 mpx before you print you surely won't).

Let me know, folks, if I succeded to convince you.

bye, Kris
You're preaching to the choir here, Kris. But people get brainwashed by thinking that the only determinant of better pictures is more pixels! All advertising of digital camera emphasizes that point - our local ads tout only the megapixels of each camera product, irrespective of its other important features, like zoom, lens speed and quality, etc. All digital camera prints involve interpolation, even the pixels that emerge from the Bayer-matrix camera are already interpolated from raw image data. So to get a larger image without "dots," you just have to grow enough pixels through interpolation to be able to print at 160 pixels/inch or more, and you won't see any "dots" without a microscope. I have a very sharp 13X19 print hanging on my office wall made from a 2 megapixel FZ1 image, and there's nary a dot in sight!

D70FAN
07-25-2004, 08:00 PM
You're preaching to the choir here, Kris. !

Ditto. The people buying 8 megapixel consumer digi-cams is proof that PT Barnum was right.

morkys
07-26-2004, 02:44 PM
I realize the difference isn't huge, but the point is, 4 MP camera's are at their limits for blowing up pictures beyond 8 x 10, and I may not go beyond 8 x 10 anyways. I have a "normal" printer which only prints on 8.5" x 11" paper anyways. I just figured that if you're at the limits of resolution and detail with a 4 MP camera, it only stands to reason that you'll "probably" suffer in the look and resolution of a picture if you then go down in MP from 3.9 to 3.14MP. I may try it out, but the other difference is that the Panasonic FZ10's lens is better than the canon's and the panny lens is also longer. 420 mm lens at 3.98 MP vs a 380 mm at 3.14 MP will show differences when blowing up pictures of birds and wildlife I'm zoomed in on.

I wonder how the "purple fringing" ultimately compares between the two camera's.

Again, where the actual limits are, I dont know. I guess I'll have to put my money down and give something a try.

Rhys
07-26-2004, 03:46 PM
I realize the difference isn't huge, but the point is, 4 MP camera's are at their limits for blowing up pictures beyond 8 x 10, and I may not go beyond 8 x 10 anyways. I have a "normal" printer which only prints on 8.5" x 11" paper anyways. I just figured that if you're at the limits of resolution and detail with a 4 MP camera, it only stands to reason that you'll "probably" suffer in the look and resolution of a picture if you then go down in MP from 3.9 to 3.14MP. I may try it out, but the other difference is that the Panasonic FZ10's lens is better than the canon's and the panny lens is also longer. 420 mm lens at 3.98 MP vs a 380 mm at 3.14 MP will show differences when blowing up pictures of birds and wildlife I'm zoomed in on.

I wonder how the "purple fringing" ultimately compares between the two camera's.

Again, where the actual limits are, I dont know. I guess I'll have to put my money down and give something a try.

Ok Let's look at 3.14 megapixels.

3.14 megapixels is 2048 x 1536 pixels
Now let's assume the print size you want is 8.5" by 11"
That gives us 2048 / 11 = 140ppi. 140ppi is quite respectable.
1536 / 8.5 = 180 ppi which is even more respectable.

I'd say that 3.14 megapixels will produce an excellent 8.5 x 11 print for you.

Let's look at 3.98 megapixels now.

3.98 megapixels = 2304 x 1728
Assuming again a print size of 8.5" x 11"
That gives us 2304 / 11 = 209ppi
1728 / 8.5 = 203ppi
Both are quite good.

Now the challenge. Print two pictures - one at 3.14mp and one at 3.98mp and tell me if you can actually see a difference - without using a magnifying glass!

bka314
07-27-2004, 03:46 AM
420 mm lens at 3.98 MP vs a 380 mm at 3.14 MP will show differences when blowing up pictures of birds and wildlife I'm zoomed in on.

I wonder how the "purple fringing" ultimately compares between the two camera's.

Again, where the actual limits are, I dont know. I guess I'll have to put my money down and give something a try.

That I agree. Comparing the "close-bringing power" (my term) of the two you get (420*2304)/(380*2048)=1.24, so you have the 24% (if you use full tele and cut out a 3 Mpx portion of the photo), which is worth to speak about.

The lens of the Pana are really better, at least regarding purple fringing.

The only diadvantage of the Panasonic is size (and the non-AA battery, for me personally).
So if you don't mind size you should go with the Pana.

Kris

ps: This doesn't mean that I would ever give my S1 for a Z10 :)

Rhys
07-27-2004, 05:09 AM
That I agree. Comparing the "close-bringing power" (my term) of the two you get (420*2304)/(380*2048)=1.24, so you have the 24% (if you use full tele and cut out a 3 Mpx portion of the photo), which is worth to speak about.

The lens of the Pana are really better, at least regarding purple fringing.

The only diadvantage of the Panasonic is size (and the non-AA battery, for me personally).
So if you don't mind size you should go with the Pana.

Kris

ps: This doesn't mean that I would ever give my S1 for a Z10 :)

The disadvantage for me with the Pansonic is not its physical size but the battery and the fact it takes Secure Digital memory. If I wasn't already heavily into Compact Flash and already thinking about a possible future dSLR then I'd have been more interested in the Panasonic. I handled and like it though.

lowkl
07-27-2004, 08:50 AM
Only morkys seems to have picked up on the second aspect of the title of this thread -- the dreaded "purple fringing". In this sense I must admit that at max zoom and max aperture, the abberation is noticable, in some cases even in prints.

... but I wouldn't trade in my S1 for a FZ10. Just love the camera! :)

Rhys
07-27-2004, 10:17 AM
Only morkys seems to have picked up on the second aspect of the title of this thread -- the dreaded "purple fringing". In this sense I must admit that at max zoom and max aperture, the abberation is noticable, in some cases even in prints.

... but I wouldn't trade in my S1 for a FZ10. Just love the camera! :)

How do you find it in use? I think I will be having one tomorrow.

lowkl
07-27-2004, 07:59 PM
I've been using the S1 for about 3 months now, taking it on two trips. So far the camera has been functioning flawlessly. The ultrazoom combined with the IS has made it possible to take what would otherwise be "impossible" shots; eg. taking photos off an off-road vehicle while moving. Another cool feature which came handy is the "flip-out" LCD screen - over-the-head shots are now viable!

I also greatly appreciate the use of AA batteries, as the possibility of getting temporary "replacements" when on long trips is a big security blanket.

Even though the camera has a truly great video mode, I haven't really utilised this as taking stills are the limit of my ability.

In a nutshell, a "perfect" camera for outdoor environments.

I was waiting for a camera with exactly the characteristics of the S1 for over a year. Canon seems to have outdid themselves by delivering everything at such a price point. No regrets.

I attach a couple of "shrunk" amature photos, for your reference.

D70FAN
07-27-2004, 10:41 PM
I meant 80 feet, this is at tele, btw. The GN for tele is 140', wide and middle are either 100' and 120' or 120' and 130', can't remember which. 140*1.6 is 224 (the tele GN for ISO 160) and 224/2.8 is 80 (hence 80 feet).

Jake

Man that's not a flash it's an aircraft landing light! Don't you need a license to operate that thing? ;)

Jake Conner
07-27-2004, 11:14 PM
Actually, that's pretty weak compaired to high-end sunpak and metz units... but those start at $250 and go up to $700.

Jake

hostile
07-28-2004, 12:11 AM
I thought I'd throw my $.02 in. Long time browser, first time poster... :)

I just had this same purchase decision.

I had a Canon S50 stolen from work (nice co-workers, hey? :mad: ). So, I had to buy a new camera.

Since I am involved in outdoor sports, where I'm shooting moving objects at a distance, I wanted excellent optical zoom, I.S., and good features.

I absolutely *loved* my S50. It was so advanced (more than I need/understood how to use), yet so easy to use. So, I wound up making it down to the S1 and the Z10.

I finally settled on the S1 due to the cheaper media, and b/c it had an overall less expensive base cost. I outfitted myself for ~$1300 CDN with the S1, 8 NiMH batteries, a USB 2.0 card reader, and a SanDisk 1.0 GB Ultra II CFC. If I had gone with the Z10, it would have been several hundred more due to the higher camera cost and the more expensive media, more expensive battery, etc.

After spending some time with this camera, I'm finding that 3.2 Mp really does look awful compared to the 5.0 Mp of the S50. Sadly, there is no camera available for around the cost of the S60/50 with 10X optical + I.S. I found that in order to get 5.0Mp+ with 10x, and I.S., I had to make the jump to a base cost that was double the S1.

The S1 has a *lot* of upsides to it, especially the video which is a plus for me in my uses. Overall, with Canon's ease of use, I had the camera figuerd out in about 3 minutes. Nevertheless, 3.2 Mp just doesn't cut it - especially when editing the photos on my 21" Trinitron - the lack of resolution is quite noticeable. This has just spurred me on to start learning phototography, and take more manual control over the camera, and how to learn how to frame shots better.

There is still a little voice in the back of my head that is nagging me saying "you should have bought the Z10"... Damn I hate evil Homer... :)

bka314
07-28-2004, 06:30 AM
There is still a little voice in the back of my head that is nagging me saying "you should have bought the Z10"... Damn I hate evil Homer... :)

Once again, if you just wanted to buy it for the higher resolution - it doesn't worth the extra money. Anyway, now that the 5 mpx pana comes, you can worry about why didn't you wait...