? on older olympus digital

I have an older digital camedia c360 camera and wonder if it still
holds up well now a days in terms of quality ?

tia

 

It's a 3 megapixels camera, and current entry-level cameras are 8
megapixels. Draw your conclusions

 

Since max possible detail resolution is proportional to the square
root of the number of pixels I conclude that a sharp detail that takes
3 pixels in the 3MP camera would in an 8MP camera have nearly 5
pixels. So other things being equal I could print my photographs at
nearly twice the size before I started seeing pixellation. But of
course I'd want to know about the other things

 

Josie B wrote:]

I have an older 3 megapixel camera and while it still takes good
pictures I am think of up grading even though I dread the increase in
the files size of each picture.

What I have noticed is the 10 and 12 mp camera, captures more of the
fine detail. As an example if you take a picture of a tree with the 3
mp image a leaf may have the major veins, but the 10 mp camera will also
have the minor veins in the leaf.

If you take landscape picture, the grass will be there but not well
defined, poor edges etc. But the 10 and 12 mp image the blades of grass
will be more defined.

If you take a picture of a cloudy sky the 3mp image will have the
patches of shades of gray, but the 10 or 12 mp image will have the
slight ridges and lines that are in the clouds

 

Funny.... I still have my Olympus D-360L (1.3 megapixel, c. 2000?), in fine
working order. I just dug it out (after reading your post), blew it off, and
put in fresh AAs, and it still works like new. But I wouldn't consider using
it today.

I've been spoiled by a succession of cameras since then, each better than
the previous. There are photos I took with the D-360L (a neice's wedding, in
particular), that I wish I could go back in time and re-shoot with today's
equipment.

By comparison, my second camera (Canon S1 IS, 3MP, c. 2004) was far superior
in image quality and function. The pictures that 3MP camera took were very
impressive (to me, anyway) and do still look very good today. I'm taking a
"walk down memory lane" right now, looking at photos taken in 2004 with that
camera - they look "nice", but I know that my current camera/lenses could do
better. They will always be 2048 x 1536, and would look just fine printed at
5" x 7". But I found that I wanted (needed) more.

Unless you're shooting in RAW, you should understand that sensors have
improved, in-camera processing has improved, camera functions have improved.
The question for you is, does the C360 still meet your needs? If it does,
then do NOT borrow a friend's new camera and play with it.

dwight

 

There have been advances in digital photography in every area since that
camera was introduced: better sensors and processors among them. More
pixels give you more flexibility and usually more acuity, but as others
say, aren't the be all and end all of photography.

What sorts of subjects are you likely to shoot?

 

Why? Is it failing? If not, it takes pictures as good as it ever did. If
those are adequate for you then there is no problem. FWIW - I break out
my old Kodak DC210+ (1mp camera) once or twice a year to take photos of
events at the local library. I hand the cards over to the librarian who
then prints them out as small pictures for the kiddies and parents to
enjoy. For this action - it is completely adequate - a higher res camera
would be overkill. I also like the fact that I have an AC adapter for the
camera, so don't have to sweat batteries at all.

 

Did you notice any degredation of picture quality? Are the pictures not
to your satisfaction? Are you trying to shoot pictures in a situation,
where the camera cannot cope with it but a new camera could? You are
missing a feature?

No? So you are happy with the pictures it is taking and its
capabilities? Then there is no reason for a new camera except for
bragging rights.

jue

 

I have an old C3030 circa 2000 with 3.3MP, it cost $800 back then and I
took a lot of nice photos with it, I think the lens is pretty darn good
and the noise at low ISO is not bad. Long exposures have awful banding.
The jpegs can be manipulated quite a bit compared to some new models
that are already over-processed coming out of the camera and suffer if
you try to raise shadow detail even a tiny bit.

I believe you do tend to get more hot/dead pixels over time and usage.

My C3030 still works although one of the buttons for macro mode failed,
I cut the rubber off that and it can be activated by poking a graphite
pencil in there <g>.

The slowness of turning it on and extending the lens is awful in
comparison to modern cameras but if you aren't in a rush & never tried
faster, it's just as good as it was when new. I managed just fine. The
LCD is small & low res but that obviously doesn't effect the final
photos at all.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

 

Where ever did you get the marketing-ploy idea that more
megapixels=quality?

I have an old 2.1 megapixel camera that takes pixel-sharp images so well
they can easily be printed to 8x10 and some subjects to even 11x14 or
larger. Newer does NOT automatically equate to better.

Tests on 3 megapixel cameras in the past show that, when the optics and
sensor are good, they have finally equaled the information captured in a
full 35mm film frame. The advent of 3 megapixel cameras is when the film
vs. digital wars finally died down.

I have no intentions of ever giving away or selling that old camera because
its smaller entry-pupil perfectly matches the eyepiece exit-pupils of my
microscopes and telescopes. Try buying a digital-eyepiece at that megapixel
resolution some time.

 

I never did.... but the camera quality/features have been going along
with pixel count increase, so the pixel count is a quite effective
criterion to estimate overall camera features(*).

Recent cameras do not take much better pictures than ancient cameras,
but they can take them in more adverse conditions.

Hmmm. I have heard the same thing but with 6 or 8 megapixels. And this
doesn't mean there is no gain in more pixels.

The OP didn't mention it was to be used with microscopes or telescopes.

(*) I find the hard disk size works quite well for laptops...

 

Depends on what you want to do with your images.
If you mainly send pictures to friends and family in E-mails or display
objects on ebay or make 4x6 prints....you have more than enough pixels
to give excellent results.

Back in the "old days", circa 2000, I printed a lot of 8x10s from my 2MP
Canon S10, and I was very pleased with them.
Now I print 8x10s from my Panasonic FZ50...10MP camera and they are
stunning....BUT....when I compare the two outputs without a magnifying
glass, or do serious pixel peeping, there isn't all that much difference
in image quality between the two.
IMO, the big advantage to having lots of pixels is that you have more
flexibility in cropping smaller sections from the original or making big
enlargements from the original capture.
Bob Williams

 

Thank you for ur opinions ,i've had no realproblems and takes good
pictures .I tend to use a hp photosmart 1315 printer as i can slip
the card in its side to print my photos.You are right about having
to look closely to notice pixel degrading .