lens quality or photo quality on small cameras

synature

I like taking photographs more than I like tinkering with equipment. It was a lot of fun to learn how to use a 4x5 many years ago, and then a Hasselblad. But I sold the Hasselblad and bought a Sony F818 and am mostly happy with the switch. I splurged for the Sony R1 and think that the images I get with that, when I've "tinkered" correctly, are at least as good as what I could get with the Hasselblad -- taking into consideration the size of the "negative"

But I've found more and more a need for a pocket machine, or almost pocket machine. The other night I was at a gathering and an enthusiastic amateur showed me his Canon A640 and I was very impressed. A bit bigger than a shirt pocket, but definately in the jacket pocket range, with full manual controls, 4x zoom, 10mp, etc., etc.

So I've been searching out reviews of that and similar size/cost cameras. But mostly they seem to focus on the doodads. The quality of the lens and of the photos the reveiwers tend to leave to the sample pictures. The problem I have with that is the internet pretty much makes images the same. No, I know that's not true, but after a while they all look pretty good to me.

So my question is: Where can I find reasonbly objective information about the quality of the lens in these cameras? None of them are very big pieces of glass, nothing at all like my R1's lens, yet they seem to produce high quality images. Or is it more a matter of the software plus hardware aside from the lens? I find it hard to believe the lens is no longer the most important part of a camera.

ziggy53

synature wrote:

...

So my question is: Where can I find reasonbly objective information about the quality of the lens in these cameras? None of them are very big pieces of glass, nothing at all like my R1's lens, yet they seem to produce high quality images. Or is it more a matter of the software plus hardware aside from the lens? I find it hard to believe the lens is no longer the most important part of a camera.

I think most reviewers recognize that the P&S market is driven by people less interested in ultimate image quality, and more driven by convenience. Most reviews are subsequently about the "experience" of that camera, and less about the technical nuances.

Another train of thought, since you can't separate the lens from the body (of a P&S), what difference does it make to try to test only the lens? It is only the overall result that matters.

In many cases, you are free to download the full resolution image to do your own 100% views and comparisons. Steve's Digicams is great about this, and almost always offers a set of images produced under reasonably similar circumstances of the same objects and scenes.

My own selection process for a P&S camera includes in (more or less) this order:

Responsiveness: Too many cameras in this category are just too slow. Too slow to turn on, too slow to focus, too slow in the display, too slow in shutter lag and too slow in flash recycle. If you miss the shots, it doesn't matter how great the lens and how many pixels. Life often just doesn't wait for you and a slow camera.

Focus accuracy: If the focus is not accurate, it can't be fixed in post. Most of the time, you have to rely on the auto-focus. Make sure that you can.

Color rendition accuracy: While some P&S cameras have a RAW capability, most don't. If you don't have accurate colors, be prepared for long sessions in post, sometimes futile.

Exposure accuracy: A lot of the above logic applies here. Don't expect to "fix it in post".

Lens quality: Frankly, most modern digicams are very capable of producing decent snapshots. Some are better than others at enlargements. The "Compared to" section of DPReview is very valuable for comparing similar offerings from different manufacturers. As long as the image quality matches the intended use, I don't fret too much.

MegaPixels: Like above, most modern digicams have plenty of pixels for snapshots. For me, anything above 5-6MP is probably more than I need. Is more better? Sometimes, but not enough of the time to worry about (for me).

FWIW, I chose the Minolta A2 for my digicam. Similar to your Sony R1, it's not a pocket camera, but I cannot justify any more compromise to the image or system responsiveness, and most "pocketable P&S" cameras are definitely more compromised.

synature

ziggy53 wrote:

...
FWIW, I chose the Minolta A2 for my digicam. Similar to your Sony R1, it's not a pocket camera, but I cannot justify any more compromise to the image or system responsiveness, and most "pocketable P&S" cameras are definitely more compromised.

Thanks for your insight. I would tend to agree that responsiveness should probably be very high on the list. But "pocketable" is also very high for what I'm looking for. It doesn't have to be a shirt pocket, I wouldn't want to carry something like that in my shirt pocket anyway as I'm a fairly active person and once lost an expensive calculator (back when they were expensive) that way.

Intended use. Not so much backup as available when I don't want or can't haul the tripod around with me. So I guess the main factor I need to look at is image quality.

Thanks,

Brandon

likwid

If you are thinking of buying the 640 I read that the 630 which is 8mp actually takes better images because the pixels get more light = less noise. You might want to look into that. Can't remember where I read it though.

// Sebastian

DifferentSeed

Sony has a new one coming out that looks awesome! The W200. 12 MP in your pocket! Ultra-compact, fast response, 3x optical zoom... etc, etc, etc.

You can read more about it here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022703sonyw200w90w80.asp

Definately worth the wait til April or May and only $400

I've had numerous P&S cameras (Kodak, Canon, Casio, Olympus, Nikon) and the Sony's have always been my favorite go-anywhere-always-have-it-with-me cameras. This puppy will probably replace my old and tired Sony T1 and become my new "purse" camera.