Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 84566	2007-11-10 07:58:00	Digital Camera <$1000 ??	Lorcan (12618)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
610275	2007-11-13 21:03:00	So why do all of the current crop of Olympus digi cams (and many from other manufacturers) seem to have poor lenses? Have the manufacturers got so obsessed with megapixels that they have forgotten the lessons from the past about lens quality? Or is it budget pricing that drives the whole thing?	John H (8)
610276	2007-11-13 22:15:00	Cost, I think and also people's perceptions of what is good. Photos I have done for people under difficult weather conditions have always pleased them. Even if I thought they could have been better. Here is an example. I used to have a 3CCD Sony camcorder with Zeiss lens and High Grade Wide Angle lens. That was really sharp and I could leave the W/A lens on all the time. heavy with lots of glass, but worth the $400 cost. Last year I sold the whole lot and purchased a Sony HC3 HiDef camcorder, but no wide angle lens - again $400 for the High Grade. A week ago I wondered about buying one and tried my daughter's $99 standard quality wide angle lens to check on the quality. Maybe I might just go the cheap way? I took a couple of photos of some newsprint stuck on the fridge. Rough, as I couldn't get it to sit perfectly flat, but it will show what I mean. (Tripod used) Below are the results - 1st with just camcorder Zeiss lens, 2nd with the cheap W/A lens. I guess I have to save a bit more! I rest my case www.imagef1.net.nz www.imagef1.net.nz Ken PS My daughter is more than happy with the cheap lens!	kenj (9738)
610277	2007-11-13 22:25:00	One highly technical word - Strewth! How can you be happy with #2?	John H (8)
610278	2007-11-13 22:48:00	One highly technical word - Strewth! How can you be happy with #2? Her perception..... Also her camcorder is an early digital model. (5yrs old) She hasn't seen these pics. Won't show them to her either. Ken	kenj (9738)
610279	2007-11-14 03:22:00	So why do all of the current crop of Olympus digi cams (and many from other manufacturers) seem to have poor lenses? Have the manufacturers got so obsessed with megapixels that they have forgotten the lessons from the past about lens quality? Or is it budget pricing that drives the whole thing? From the camera manufacturers point of view, the margins they make on point-and-shoot digicams has dropped dramatically in the past four years or so, while the number of both brands and models has exploded - making it hard to get market share. So they are always going to try and hit sweet spots where the buyer perceives they are getting a good deal, without it actually costing the vendor too much. Quality lenses cost money. More megapixels do not. Better quality megapixels (i.e. high sensitivty, low noise CCD/CMOS sensors) do cost more. So in a product that costs $500-$800, they aren't going to put in too much that cost them too much. They could put great lenses in there, but it would drive the price up beyond the magic price points and only the photographically astute part of the buying public would notice the difference - so from a sales point of view they'd kill the product by doing so. That's why digicams have so many pointless features - it costs nothign to put them in and it wows the uneducated buyer. This is why the all want a slice of the SLR market - you can sell someone a cheap SLR body and then sell them more lenses and an upgrade to the body latter on. Olympus' local distributor doesn't bring its full range of point-and-shoots into NZ anymore -the good, high-end ones couldn't compete on price with the low-end SLR kits. I've always wanted a compact digicam that's smaller than my SLR, but doesn't compromise on quality for those times when I don't want to lug my camera bag around. But I've yet to find one that really satisfies. Vendors dress up many digicams to look the piece (Canon's G9, for example), but because they can't (or believe they can't) push it's price to a point where it's close to a low-end SLR kit, they never actually have a great sensor/lens combo in there.	Biggles (121)
610280	2007-11-14 04:16:00	Thank you Bruce. That seems to make sense. I guess they also rely on the fact that you can cheat with digicam pix through software enhancements to iffy images, so there isn't the same emphasis on getting it right first time through the development and use of high quality hardware. With film cameras you only really had one chance to get it right so you were much more dependent upon quality lenses. Interesting point you made about Olympus. Maybe that is why I have never been able to find an Olympus compact to complement my C5050Z. My camera is extremely unattractive to look at, and I only bought it after about a year's research and prevarication. When I told the camera shop owner what I had finally chosen and bought from his store, he said the model wasn't very popular, and he only ended up selling them to people who had done a lot of research. I have been trying to find an Olympus compact because of brand loyalty I guess, but also because I have heaps of xD card storage. Looks like I am going to be whistling in the wind cos I am spoiled with what I have got. :(	John H (8)
610281	2007-11-14 04:30:00	Olympus' local distributor doesn't bring its full range of point-and-shoots into NZ anymore -the good, high-end ones couldn't compete on price with the low-end SLR kits . AFAIK Olympus has a new head of the camera division who has dropped the C series compacts to concentrate on SLRs like the E-410 . A 3 lens E-410 kit started at a lower price than the C-8080 did .	PaulD (232)
610282	2007-11-14 04:42:00	Life sure is funny . A not to many years ago SLR cameras had a massive downturn as compact digitals started to take over the market . Some companies actually stopped making them . Now it seems that the pendulum may be starting to swing back as people realize that a lot of compact digital cameras are really only a compromise on quality . Let image quality rule!! Ken	kenj (9738)
610283	2007-11-14 05:12:00	For many years I lugged around a 35 mm SLR and lenses and recently had the option to upgrade my Canon Powershot to a SLR or whatever. In the end I decided the key to taking photos is HAVING THE CAMERA WITH ME. And that means being able to pocket it, so I got another Powershot. Now I have a new experience: a good cellphone camera - a 3.2 mp Cybershot in my Sony Ericsson k800.... Exactly. The important point is to have the camera with you. If it won't fit in your pocket, it won't be there just when you need it. I like the Canon G9 or the S5 IS but if I was travelling I'd only take my Ixus55. FWIIW I have a Fuji 5700 for an ultrazoom cam which is small, very good, and reliable. Even so, for travel it would stay in a bag most of the time.	Winston001 (3612)
610284	2007-11-14 05:15:00	There used to be some great stuff around. I still have an Olympus XA www.cameraquest.com in my odds 'n sods drawer. I carried that one everwhere and used it for print film and my SLR for slides. The XA was so sharp, the image could be used to slice bread. :D Now that was a compact Ken :) :) Snap. :thumbs: I have an XA2 in a drawer and I loved that camera. I replaced it with an Olympus Mju eventually until the digital age took over.	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11