Best, Smallest Camera?

What's the Best, Smallest Camera?

Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.

Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be high
on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE quality is
excellent.


I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
excellent photos.

I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take poor
pictures.


So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.


If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!


Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
reviews. Thanks!



.................................................. ...............
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-



Adam

Adam wrote:
> What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
>
> Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
>
> Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
> high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
> quality is excellent.
>
>
> I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
> excellent photos.
>
> I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
> poor pictures.
>
>
> So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
>
>
> If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
>
>
> Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
> reviews. Thanks!
>
>
>

I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe it was
some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras don't have
much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them bigger,
so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
generally working distance is small - less than 3 m.

Pentax Optio SV...just released. 5X optical zoom. Only one

"Adam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:41922408$0$14483$(E-Mail Removed). ..
>
>
> What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
>
> Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
>
> Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be high
> on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE quality is
> excellent.
>
>
> I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
> excellent photos.
>
> I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take poor
> pictures.
>
>
> So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
>
>
> If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
>
>
> Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
> reviews. Thanks!
>
>
>
> .................................................. ..............
> Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
> >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
> -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
>

In article <MDrkd.5472$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Adam wrote:
> > What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
> >
> > Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
> >
> > Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
> > high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
> > quality is excellent.
> >
> >
> > I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
> > excellent photos.
> >
> > I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
> > poor pictures.
> >
> >
> > So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
> >
> >
> > If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
> >
> >
> > Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
> > reviews. Thanks!
> >
> >
> >
>
> I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe it was
> some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras don't have
> much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them bigger,
> so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
> generally working distance is small - less than 3 m.
>
>

Can't speak from personal testing, but most reviews I have read of the
super-small cameras complain of lack of sharpness. Makes sense, since
the resolving power of a lens is a function of its diameter. I
compromised on a 5-megapixel Elph.

Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic pinhole
technology.

"Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ws21-(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <MDrkd.5472$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Adam wrote:
> > > What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
> > >
> > > Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
> > >
> > > Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
> > > high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
> > > quality is excellent.
> > >
> > >
> > > I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
> > > excellent photos.
> > >
> > > I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
> > > poor pictures.
> > >
> > >
> > > So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
> > >
> > >
> > > If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
> > >
> > >
> > > Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info and
> > > reviews. Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe it
was
> > some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras don't
have
> > much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them
bigger,
> > so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
> > generally working distance is small - less than 3 m.
> >
> >
>
> Can't speak from personal testing, but most reviews I have read of the
> super-small cameras complain of lack of sharpness. Makes sense, since
> the resolving power of a lens is a function of its diameter. I
> compromised on a 5-megapixel Elph.

> Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic
> pinhole
> technology.

I thought it was the case that a smaller lens resulted in greater CA (purple
fringing) issues, due to the angle of the light passing through the lens?
It's not about pinholes, it's about glass.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Gymmy Bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tvOdna9_h62kmQncRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic
> pinhole
> technology.
>
> "Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ws21-(E-Mail Removed)...
>> In article <MDrkd.5472$(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > Adam wrote:
>> > > What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
>> > >
>> > > Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
>> > >
>> > > Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
>> > > high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
>> > > quality is excellent.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
>> > > excellent photos.
>> > >
>> > > I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
>> > > poor pictures.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info
>> > > and
>> > > reviews. Thanks!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe
>> > it
> was
>> > some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras don't
> have
>> > much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them
> bigger,
>> > so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
>> > generally working distance is small - less than 3 m.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Can't speak from personal testing, but most reviews I have read of the
>> super-small cameras complain of lack of sharpness. Makes sense, since
>> the resolving power of a lens is a function of its diameter. I
>> compromised on a 5-megapixel Elph.
>
>

In article <tvOdna9_h62kmQncRVn-(E-Mail Removed)>,
"Gymmy Bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic pinhole
> technology.

http://www.astrosurf.com/taf/pot-ris/pot-ris-eng.htm

Gee... I guess for the last 50 years I have been closing my aperture down
(smaller, incase you don't understand this) to get sharper pictures, and all
this time I should have been opening it up (larger opening, bigger f-stop
number)

Thanx for the nonsense.


"Mike Jacoubowsky" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newsh6ld.20601$(E-Mail Removed). com...
> > Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic
> > pinhole
> > technology.
>
> I thought it was the case that a smaller lens resulted in greater CA
(purple
> fringing) issues, due to the angle of the light passing through the lens?
> It's not about pinholes, it's about glass.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:tvOdna9_h62kmQncRVn-(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Function of it's diameter? yeah the smaller ones are sharper. Basic
> > pinhole
> > technology.
> >
> > "Bill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:ws21-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> In article <MDrkd.5472$(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >> "SleeperMan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Adam wrote:
> >> > > What's the Best, Smallest Camera?
> >> > >
> >> > > Price doesn't matter.... atleast 3 or 4 megapixels.
> >> > >
> >> > > Looking for BEST DAY AND NIGHT image quality... doesn't have to be
> >> > > high on other features, as long as the FLASH is good and the IMAGE
> >> > > quality is excellent.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > I want something that will fit in my pocket easily, and will take
> >> > > excellent photos.
> >> > >
> >> > > I know a lot of times, even cameras loaded with features still take
> >> > > poor pictures.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > So I need a truly knock-out pocket-sized one.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > If it runs on standard batteries (AAA/AA) that's a bonus!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Let me know your opinions on specific models so I can look up info
> >> > > and
> >> > > reviews. Thanks!
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > I know that Canon has or used to have the smallest camera - i believe
> >> > it
> > was
> >> > some ixus model (not sure, though). But, generally, such cameras
don't
> > have
> >> > much or any optical zoom, running on AA cells would also make them
> > bigger,
> >> > so you can forget that. Good flash is hard to have if it's small, so
> >> > generally working distance is small - less than 3 m.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Can't speak from personal testing, but most reviews I have read of the
> >> super-small cameras complain of lack of sharpness. Makes sense, since
> >> the resolving power of a lens is a function of its diameter. I
> >> compromised on a 5-megapixel Elph.
> >
> >
>
>

Gymmy Bob wrote:
> Gee... I guess for the last 50 years I have been closing my aperture
> down (smaller, incase you don't understand this) to get sharper
> pictures, and all this time I should have been opening it up (larger
> opening, bigger f-stop number)
>
> Thanx for the nonsense.

Every notice that most 35mm's will only stop down to f16? Diffraction.

With digital, lenses are a lot smaller, and diffraction is kicking in in a
big way. I've found that stopping down my digicam does result in less
sharpness, and opening the lens wider does make things sharper.
--

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com
www.geigy.2y.net

Many of mine went down to f22 and the pics were always sharper. This is a
basic depth of field technique. Every photo manual in the world will tell
you to stop down the lens to sharpen the pic.

Stopping down a lens to less light than f22 or so was not worthwhile as the
focus was as sharp as it was going to get to the human eye and a different
speed was inorder for the exposure. This was not due to a lens being poorly
ground in the centre. The outsides of the lenses are always the hardest to
get accurate. Even the pinhole cameras without lenses at all have good
focus in the centre. This is basic lens technology.


"Mike Russell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:L_qld.8562$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> Gymmy Bob wrote:
> > Gee... I guess for the last 50 years I have been closing my aperture
> > down (smaller, incase you don't understand this) to get sharper
> > pictures, and all this time I should have been opening it up (larger
> > opening, bigger f-stop number)
> >
> > Thanx for the nonsense.
>
> Every notice that most 35mm's will only stop down to f16? Diffraction.
>
> With digital, lenses are a lot smaller, and diffraction is kicking in in a
> big way. I've found that stopping down my digicam does result in less
> sharpness, and opening the lens wider does make things sharper.
> --
>
> Mike Russell
> www.curvemeister.com
> www.geigy.2y.net
>
>