[MW Forums]

Casio's new flagship Exilim Zoom camera is the 12 megapixel EX-Z1200, which arrives in July for $399.99. more

[hexor]

I don't care about any more megapixels! 12MP is ridiculous in this package! Give me better zoom capability than the antiquated 3x. At least 7MP, 10x optical zoom, ultra compact, and maybe image stabilization.. then I'd be interested.. Is there one out there that at least matches this request? I don't want a DSLR because I want it to fit in my shirt pocket.

[Steve_S]

More information can be found here: http://www.engadget....-zoom-ex-z1200/
It's worth mentioning that not only is the video capture in H.264, but it has a wide screen mode with a resolution of 848 x 480. I thought that was pretty cool.
But, yikes, putting 12MP on a 1/1.7" sensor. That's not a good recipe for quality. I'd be curious to see how this compares in terms of quality. Based on the specs, it likely either has lots of noise or lots of noise filter compensation which in turn decreases sharpness and effective resolution. Still, 12MP is a nice marketing gimmick.

[swartzfeger]

The megapixel marketing reminds me of the megahertz marketing of the 90's. I recently steered a friend away from a monster 10MP consumer camera in favor of a Nikon D40. He didn't want a slim camera but wanted quality and flexibility but assumed a 6MP DSLR would produce lower quality photos than a 10MP consumer camera. He couldn't be happier with a DSLR.

[Netizen_Kane]

Quote:

---

I don't care about any more megapixels! 12MP is ridiculous in this package! Give me better zoom capability than the antiquated 3x. At least 7MP, 10x optical zoom, ultra compact, and maybe image stabilization.. then I'd be interested.. Is there one out there that at least matches this request? I don't want a DSLR because I want it to fit in my shirt pocket.

---

The closest I know of are the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 and TZ3 models. Close, but not quite all your specs. Both have 10x zoom with optical image stabilization, although the TZ3 starts at 28mm compared with 38mm on the TZ1. Not quite shirt pocket size, but the smallest ultrazooms available, last I heard. I've played with a TZ1 and it's pretty good, although I really wish it had some manual controls rather than just auto and scene modes. And only 5MP, but a lot of experts say too many megapixels on a small sensor is a bad thing anyway. 7MP might be good, but 12MP is beyond diminishing returns and probably sacrifices sensitivity for its added megapixels. Oh, and both also offer the same widescreen movie mode as the Casio, although with M-JPEG rather than AVC. Still, the video looks better than any other compact camera I've tried.

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

The megapixel marketing reminds me of the megahertz marketing of the 90's.

---

From a marketing perspective, that seems to be the case. Sadly, just like MHZ, megapixels do sell cameras, especially in the consumer market. As we both know, megapixels are one of many factors which determines image quality.
I've started to see a trend that shows image quality decreasing as the MP count goes up, unless they provide a larger sensor. Since that's expensive, it's not likely going to happen in the consumer space. First the trend was that the higher MP cameras were showing more image noise. Now, they are heavily filtering them with noise filters.
Anyway, your story reminds me of a similar story. A while back, my neighbor wanted to buy a consumer camera with a large zoom. He settled on a Minolta Dimage Z6 (6MP). But, the image quality was horrible. The image noise was overwhelming. He took it back to the camera shop and came home with a Nikon D50 (also 6MP). As you can imagine, the image quality difference was like night and day. He loves his Nikon D50 and continues to thank me for suggesting he consider a low end SLR. There is a drastic difference in quality between a 1/1.7" and APS-C sized sensor, regardless of MP count.

[Giant840]

Oh you guys are absolutely right. There is a very clear trend where the more MP on a small sensor, the granier and less quality the image is. I own a Rebel XTi with a 10.1 MP sensor. I find the images that this camera produces are superb. I have a couple friends that purchased a compact camera with a 9 or 10 MP sensor, and trying to shoot them at max picture size, the images are not very good. Well, to be fair, the images that these cameras produce are still great images... but you CAN notice the difference.
If I was looking at a decent compact digital camera, I'd be looking at the Canon S3 or S4 IS series. More than enough MP, plus it gives you I beleive a 12x optical zoom... I'd take that any day if I wanted great picture quality, but not the size of a full DSLR.
Cheers.

[Mycroft_Holmes_MW]

Make me wonder where the mega-pixels will stop. Except for very specific purposes, like printing big posters or a zoomable image (like this: http://www.zoomify.com/ ), I'd think most consumer needs are for printing up to about 8.5 x 11. Although it's nice to have higher res images for those big enlargements you might want to do on occasion, it does mean bigger file sizes, slower transfer speeds, and requires more time to open and manipulate such images. At some point the file size would be too unwieldy for everyday use.
How big do you suppose a 12 mega-pixel image is anyway? And how many megabytes?

[VidPro]

Quote:

---

I don't care about any more megapixels! 12MP is ridiculous in this package! Give me better zoom capability than the antiquated 3x. At least 7MP, 10x optical zoom, ultra compact, and maybe image stabilization.. then I'd be interested.. Is there one out there that at least matches this request? I don't want a DSLR because I want it to fit in my shirt pocket.

---

Try Panasonic's DMC-TZ3 series, it is exactly what you described other than at 4.20'' x 2.37'' x 1.47'' it's not exactly ultra-compact, but with 10X zoom, you won't get much smaller. Oh, and it comes in black, silver, or blue.
Click on the following TinyURL, (it's a preview, showing the original URL for confirmation that it is really Panasonic's website):
http://tinyurl.com/3ck95j

[Nobody]

What resolution in pixels?
What are the sizes of the pictures at raw and other available resolutions?
Why are these important figures not indicated?

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

I own a Rebel XTi with a 10.1 MP sensor. I find the images that this camera produces are superb.

---

Same here. I'm very happy with the quality of the images from this camera.

Quote:

---

If I was looking at a decent compact digital camera, I'd be looking at the Canon S3 or S4 IS series.

---

Heh.. they skipped the S4 and call it the S5. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif If I were to go for a compact with an ultrazoom, I'd agree with that choice. I am actually in the market for a small, compact camera that I can just throw in my pocket rather than lugging the camera bag. You know, sort of like the market that this Casio model is trying to address. The S3/S5 series wouldn't meet that criteria for me. I'm looking at the Sony W80 or possibly the Canon SD 850 IS.

[pseudonym]

I've got the Canon S1-IS, which functions pretty well as a video camera, but with its lack of a through-the-camera viewfinder is pretty useless when trying to frame a still composition outdoors. What I'd like to see is:
A shirt-pocket size camera with
>3X optical zoom--must function during video recording
--and--
through-the-camera viewfinder (not a tiny, blurry LCD such as on the S1-IS).
Does such a beast exist?

[Markarian421]

Quote:

---

I've started to see a trend that shows image quality decreasing as the MP count goes up, unless they provide a larger sensor.

---

For sure. Pixel size really should be right up there with (before) megapixels. (Or better, active pixel area and quantum efficiency, but that gets complicated.) Because what's important about a camera like this for the consumer isn't that it has more pixels than most dSLRs, it's that its pixels, at less than 2 microns across, have less than 1/10th the area (and light collecting ability) of a dSLR. In terms of pixel size, these sensors are what you would expect to find in a cell phone, and no matter how nice the camera is, no matter how good the software is, that places a pretty basic limitation of image quality. Just from the cameras I've used it seems like image quality gets seriously compromised when the pixel size drops to near 3 microns, sensors like this have less than half the area of those.
I've heard that some ISO group is working on a standard for "effective" megapixels -- for instance most 7 megapixel consumer cameras have a real resolution closer to 2-3 megapixels, so you're just wasting disk space and adding noise to the image by using a 7 megapixel sensor. But of course the industry is very resistant to anything like that.

[Steve_S]

Quote:

---

(Or better, active pixel area and quantum efficiency, but that gets complicated.)

---

Yeah, I can just imagine how they'd market that. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif Unfortunately, it's not always as simple as size. For example, Sony is doing some interesting things with their SuperHAD sensors, same with Fuji's SuperCCD etc. Without going into detail which you probably already know, lets just say it's tough make an exact comparison.
Unfortunately, the problem is not helped by most of the camera review sites I see. Most of the gallery images are taken outside on the brightest of days. Even poor cameras do okay in these conditions. It's the more common, lower lighting conditions where the differences are more obvious. A good review would consider a better variety of shots. Also, I wish all reviews had more scientific evidence such as testing against industry standard resolution charts, etc. Sure, that's testing the sensor and the lens combination. While that may mean less on an SLR that has replaceable lenses, it's very important for testing compact cameras that cannot replace their lenses. Just my 2 cents.