? on older olympus digital

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Josie B, Sep 27, 2009.

  1. Josie B

    Josie B Guest

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

    tia
     
    Josie B, Sep 27, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Josie B

    Ofnuts Guest

    It's a 3 megapixels camera, and current entry-level cameras are 8
    megapixels. Draw your conclusions :)
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 27, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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 :)
     
    Chris Malcolm, Sep 27, 2009
    #3
  4. Josie B

    Keith Nuttle Guest

    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
     
    Keith Nuttle, Sep 27, 2009
    #4
  5. Josie B

    dwight Guest

    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
     
    dwight, Sep 27, 2009
    #5
  6. 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?
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 27, 2009
    #6
  7. Josie B

    ray Guest

    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.
     
    ray, Sep 27, 2009
    #7
  8. 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
     
    Jürgen Exner, Sep 27, 2009
    #8
  9. Josie B

    Paul Furman Guest

    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
     
    Paul Furman, Sep 27, 2009
    #9
  10. 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.
     
    Oy! The Idiots!, Sep 27, 2009
    #10
  11. Josie B

    Ofnuts Guest

    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...
     
    Ofnuts, Sep 27, 2009
    #11
  12. Josie B

    Bob Williams Guest


    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
     
    Bob Williams, Sep 28, 2009
    #12
  13. Josie B

    Josie B Guest

    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 .
     
    Josie B, Sep 28, 2009
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.