Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    274

    4mpx and 4x zoom or 5mpx and 3x zoom? And which camera?

    Which do you think is better? 4 megapixels with 4x optical zoom? Or 5 megapixels with 3x optical zoom?

    What I mean is, does the extra megapixel compensate for the lesser zoom by allowing more cropping? Or would the extra zoom range more than make up for the lower megapixel?

    I can't seem to do the math. Can anyone help?

    Once I've covered that, I'm considering the following cameras:

    5mpx, 3x zoom: Canon PowerShot A95, Nikon Coolpix 5100, Kodak EasyShare CX7530.

    4mpx, 4x zoom: Canon PowerShot A520, Kodak EasyShare DX7440.

    Keeping in mind that I don't care the least bit about manual controls, I just want a simple point-and-shoot that will take fast pictures, focus well indoors in low light and with flash photos, and use AA batteries... which do you recommend?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sunny California
    Posts
    455
    I don't think the extra megapixel will make much difference, whereas the extra zoom capability is definitely a plus. That said, numerous posters on this forum greatly prefer the Canon A95 over the A520, picture quality-wise.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    2,635

    Smile The math...

    Quote Originally Posted by jessie25
    Which do you think is better? 4 megapixels with 4x optical zoom? Or 5 megapixels with 3x optical zoom?

    What I mean is, does the extra megapixel compensate for the lesser zoom by allowing more cropping? Or would the extra zoom range more than make up for the lower megapixel?

    I can't seem to do the math. Can anyone help?

    Once I've covered that, I'm considering the following cameras:

    5mpx, 3x zoom: Canon PowerShot A95, Nikon Coolpix 5100, Kodak EasyShare CX7530.

    4mpx, 4x zoom: Canon PowerShot A520, Kodak EasyShare DX7440.

    Keeping in mind that I don't care the least bit about manual controls, I just want a simple point-and-shoot that will take fast pictures, focus well indoors in low light and with flash photos, and use AA batteries... which do you recommend?
    It's not enough to compare the "X" power. You also have to figure in the maximum equivalent zoom length, if by "better" you mean more zoom. Given that, here's the math for the Canon A520 (140mm max zoom) vs. the A95 (114mm max zoom):

    Take a full-zoom shot with the A95 (2592X1944 pixels) of some particular subject, take the same shot with the A520 (2272X1704 pixels) at full zoom. So the question is, how much of a crop would you need from the A95 shot to encompass the full-zoom photo of the A520? Answer: Width = 2592 X 114/140 = 2111 pixels wide, which is ~160 pixels narrower than the same image shot with the A520 at full zoom. Repeat the process in the vertical dimension, your cropped image is now 1583 pixels high. So, your crop of the A95 image to equal the 4 megapixels collected by the A520 contains 2111 X 1583 pixels, or 3.34 megapixels. So the longer optical zoom wins the race by a nose. Just for kicks, try this same exercise with a 36mm to 432mm FZ5 sometime. More optical zoom will nearly always win this comparison.
    Let a be your umbrella!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    17
    You simply can not go wrong with the A95.
    The difference between 3x and 4x is negligable and you get the very handy rotating screen which i could not miss anymore (you don't think you need it until you have used it).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    274
    Thanks for helping out with the math, John - that's exactly the calculation I was stumped on. I appreciate it.

    As for the comparison between specific cameras, I admit the rotating LCD is tempting on the A95, but that alone won't make the decision for me - it's really not that big a deal to me.

    Canon A520 versus Kodak DX7440? Either of those versus the Kodak CX6445, which doesn't seem to exist on this website but is also 4mpx, 4x optical zoom and a bunch of other tempting features? Any thoughts?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    29

    Lz2

    There is also the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ2. 5MP Digital Camera with 6x Image Stabilized Optical Zoom.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    College Station, TX
    Posts
    68

    Cool

    the reason i picked the A95 over the A520 for myself was that the A95 had better in-camera red-eye reduction and better low-light focus than the A520. also, image quality was better across the board on the A95. finally, the A520 was too small and didn't feel as nice in the hand as the A95 did. for me, it was three parts image-quality considerations and one part touchy-feely. i figure if i ever need the extra zoom, i'll buy a lens.
    I just want to live happily ever after, every now and then. --Jimmy Buffett

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    21
    dgjdfklgjdfklgjdflgjdfklgjdfklgdfjklj

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,099
    I'd certainly recommend the Canon A95 as your camera of choice.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    274
    Is the A95 really that much better than the 3 Kodak models or the Nikon 5100?

    The Kodaks are looking tempting, I admit; only 2xAA instead of 4xAA, less expensive, seemingly good features and quality. I like the feature that allows you to snap another photo even while in review mode. What is really so much better about the A95, besides the rotating LCD?

    Also, I can pick up the Nikon 5100 for over $130 cheaper than the A95. I'm having a near-impossible time finding reviews on it because I think it was only released in Canada, not in the US. But it's got 5 megapixels, a 3x optical zoom, has an AF-assist lamp, scene modes, is very compact, and comes with rechargeable batteries and a 2-year warranty.

    Does anyone know how the Nikon 5100 would compare to the Canon A95 in terms of shutter lag, low-light focusing and performance and overall image quality? Is the A95 really worth $130 more?

    And how do either of these compare to the Kodak DX7440, CX6445, or CX7530, two of which I can't seem to find reviewed either?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •