help understanding CCD on cameras !!!

  JE-KM 01:52 28 May 2007


I was looking at getting a Casio Z1050. Its 10mp with a 1/1.75 CCD.

Then I read a few reviews that said ultra-compact cameras may have high megapixels, but they have a tiny CCD which makes them worse.

So then I decided to get a Sony DSC-H7 bridge camera. Its 8.1 megapixels and gets better reviews, but the CCD is 1/2.5 which is SMALLER than the ultra compact.

I don't get it. Am I mssing something? Which camera has the best ability then?


  ^wave^ 09:37 28 May 2007

i have just gone through what camera to buy. i was a bit disapointed in my fuji a370 i got some good results and also some poor ones. after doing a lot of research i went for a canon a640. the conculsion i came to was that to take good pictures you need to get light into a camera so you need a good lens, some of these smaller cameras dont let enough light in so you get mixed results. anyway i am very pleased with the canon a640 and i got it from camerabox for a great price and excelent delivery

  hzhzhzhz 10:41 28 May 2007

If you're happy with the size and features of the Sony,then go for it.

I have a Canon S3 which has a 1/2.5 ccd, I also have a Fuji 6500 which has a 1/1.7 ccd.

Which takes better pics?

Photo quality is brilliant on both of them.
I wouldn't worry about ccd size if I were you.

I'm speaking as an amateur.
Good luck with your choice.

  hzhzhzhz 10:52 28 May 2007

If you intend to take a lot of low light shots, then consider things like Image Stabilization and also the cameras performance at higher ISO settings.
The Canon I have with its 1/2.5 ccd is much poorer at Iso 800 than the Fuji with its 1/1.7 ccd is at Iso 800.
Both of my cameras have high zoom but the Fuji does not have Image stabilization, so its more difficult to get a blur free image in zoomed in shots.

  hzhzhzhz 12:05 28 May 2007

As far as I see it, the Casio has more pixels on a larger ccd than the
10mp on a 1/1.7 ccd

8.1mp on a 1/2.5 ccd.

To me this would mean that pic quality would be similar except in extreme enlarging or cropping,where the 10mp of the Casio would come out better.

  jack 14:08 28 May 2007

As the technology advances almost weekly and firms compete with claims- it becomes an allmost impossbile
choicw even for the most ardant photographer
If only we could mix and match --- if only.
High quality optics is a must.
A pocket camera offering 10m pixels is to no avail if the lens is a spot of plastic as a tack head.
and so it goes on- bigger this faster that and more confusion all round.
This is what many of us consider to the the ultimate aid in camera selection
click here

  JE-KM 23:10 29 May 2007

Thanks all...

Despite the Sony Bridge camera having a 15x Carl Zeis lens, the reviews all say it produces awful, noisy, purple-fring pictures.

Just goes to show that there is no logic to the specifications.

The casio is cheaper and ultra-compact, with a basic lens. the the pictures are significantly higher quality.


  hzhzhzhz 08:29 30 May 2007

click here click here. I'm not sure if those are the cheapest prices anout but I have used this company and found them ok.

  Stuartli 22:29 02 Jun 2007

>>some of these smaller cameras dont let enough light in so you get mixed results.>>

Untrue. No matter what the size of the lens, if it's an 2.8, an f3.5, f5.6 or whatever, it will allow exactly the same amount of light through for the appropriate sensor or film frame size at each f stop.

Large film cameras have large lenses - digital cameras with small sensors have smaller lenses. It's all relative.

  ^wave^ 09:11 06 Jun 2007

i understand what you are saying about the f stops my point is would we use a pin hole camera no we have lens today so maybe i should have said that the glassware is not up to it

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review

Converse's new logo: the trainer brand looks to its heritage for a fresh identity

Mac power user tips and hidden tricks

Comment lancer Windows 10 en mode sans ├ęchec ?