Canon reduces pixels...aha!!

[Peter Creasey]

Some of us have wished for a camera that sits out the megapixel race and improves the pixels it has rather than pile on more pixels. That should give less noise and better dynamic range.

Now Canon has announced 2 cameras that not only don't increase the number of pixels, but actually reduce the number from 14.7 to 10 megapixels.

The new G11 has 10 megapixels, down from its predecessor's 14.7 megapixels. The S90 also has 10 megapixels, although it doesn't really have a recent predecessor.

Let's hope that enough people buy these new models to send a signal to Canon and other camera makers that fewer but better pixels do indeed have a following.

Canon High-End, Advanced Digital Cameras (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=113)

[Judy G. Russell]

Some of us have wished for a camera that sits out the megapixel race and improves the pixels it has rather than pile on more pixels. That should give less noise and better dynamic range.They're still point-and-shoots. Cute little toys for sure, but still toys.

[MollyM/CA]

They're still point-and-shoots. Cute little toys for sure, but still toys.

Wellllllll...

The gap narrows all the time.

My Canon D40 with its 12+ mb files (in camera RAW, CR2 -- that translates to maybe 40 mb in a bitmapped PSD, TIF, BMP file) isn't all that much more impressive than my iPhone (an excessively extravagant 800 or so kb Jpeg) or my husband's Sony pocket camera. And that's with several thousand dollars worth of L-glass. Crop? sometimes: a crop to a moderately small percentage will be rough. Reduce -- impossible, in terms of sending to a friend or posting on a CS forum. (Never mind that with my dialup system, it's rare that a picture will post at all...) A reduction to a reasonable size, say 250-- 300 kb for a casual shot, will result only in a muddy, jaggy, barely decipherable picture in many cases.

Going the other way, the Sony W50 (Leica lens -- tiny, but Leica~) produces 800 kb pictures that reduce to 200--300 kb quite nicely -- and the quality is good enough that there's no discernible difference for any purpose I know of* when a JPG is saved onto itself -- once.

(Any purpose that I know of does not include printing murals or even posters. It wouldn't surprise me if the Sony pictures, if my husband would just hold still and let the camera do its work, would make as good a poster as almost any of my D40 pictures taken from a fancy tripod & head with L-glass and IS, at far slower speeds and lower ISO (for, theoretically, greater depth of field) than anything the Sony pretends to.)

The D40 weighs a couple of pounds and more with the battery grip (which makes it possible to turn the camera to portrait orientation and still hang onto it) and L-glass -- that stuff is heavy. AND -- the upscale models are trying to compete with the p&s's with a long list of pre-programmed modes, video, "live" options (totally useless as far as I've discovered) where with much fiddling with setting the user can make the viewscreen (for evaluating photos just taken normally) show a "live" version of what the picture will be. That is, if said user is willing to lie on her face to see the (very poor IMO) rendition on the viewscreen, which is part of the camera back and can't be used to show a view of, say, the underside of a mushroom so low to the ground that the photographer had to dig a hole for the camera body. This is a snap with almost any P&S and may well be a better picture with a P&S, because the extreme angle in such a shot will bugger up the white balance and exposure (yes, an old pro who cut his teeth on expensive film for 60 years or so would be able to use manual setting for exposure, time, etc -- the mushroom would be compost long before I got it perfect and bracketed a dozen or so shots!)

So I dunno. Toy... Olympia's come up with a sort of hybrid, a mirrorless SLR (by their reckoning) that's lighter and swifter, and I think that's the way the ball's going to be bouncing.

Go to BPOD (http://www.ubcbotanicalgarden.org/potd/) and take a look at Dan Mosquin's pictures -- he was thrilled a year or so ago to be able to take his G-something on his trip (guess BC doesn't pay professors much better than CA does).

m

[Peter Creasey]

Cute little toys for sure, but still toys.

Judy, It is certain that Canon sorely hopes that prospective buyers don't consider them as "toys" as you do; otherwise, the chance of a sale at near $500 for these two cameras would be almost nil.

[Jeff]

In the midst of all this new stuff does anyone know anything about a Canon PowerShot A610? I just received three 1.3meg JPEGs, which Irfan View neatly reduced to 1/3 that size by simply saving over them. Why were they so bloody big to begin with? I know the camera 'cause IView told me so.

- Jeff

[sidney]

Why were they so bloody big to begin with?

I always assumed that it is because there have to be compromises between quality and size when you use lossy compression like jpeg. The camera manufacturer would want to make the pictures an acceptable size but no smaller so as to make visible artifacts in any possible picture as unlikely as they can get it. Naturally for most pictures for most purposes you will be able to use a higher compression without any effects that are visible to you in the medium that you are displaying it.

Notice that for some people it is important that the camera let them get their pictures in the huge RAW format because they need complete control over the artifacts that can be introduced by the compression.

[Judy G. Russell]

My Canon D40 with its 12+ mb files (in camera RAW, CR2 -- that translates to maybe 40 mb in a bitmapped PSD, TIF, BMP file) isn't all that much more impressive than my iPhone (an excessively extravagant 800 or so kb Jpeg) or my husband's Sony pocket camera. And that's with several thousand dollars worth of L-glass. Crop? sometimes: a crop to a moderately small percentage will be rough. Reduce -- impossible, in terms of sending to a friend or posting on a CS forum. (Never mind that with my dialup system, it's rare that a picture will post at all...) A reduction to a reasonable size, say 250-- 300 kb for a casual shot, will result only in a muddy, jaggy, barely decipherable picture in many cases.Do you really mean D40? That's a very old camera, no? I have the 40D (roughly two-year-old technology) and none of what you describe is even remotely true. Take a look at this message (http://www.tapcis.com/forums/showpost.php?p=56994&postcount=7) to see the difference between a 40D shot with good glass compared to the best an iPhone can do. Most of these shots are serious crops, all have been very much reduced.

[Judy G. Russell]

Judy, It is certain that Canon sorely hopes that prospective buyers don't consider them as "toys" as you do; otherwise, the chance of a sale at near $500 for these two cameras would be almost nil.There's a big market for decent point-and-shoot cameras, and these are excellent for that market.

[Mike]

Did the article mention that increasing the number of pixels without increasing the size of the CCD (the sensor) often leads to lower quality pictures?

[Peter Creasey]

Did the article mention that increasing the number of pixels without increasing the size of the CCD (the sensor) often leads to lower quality pictures?

Mike, The gist is that in the race to increase pixels the quality of each pixel is reduced. A preferred approach would be to increase the quality of each pixel.

[Jeff]

I always assumed that it is because there have to be compromises between quality and size when you use lossy compression like jpeg. The camera manufacturer would want to make the pictures an acceptable size but no smaller so as to make visible artifacts in any possible picture as unlikely as they can get it. Naturally for most pictures for most purposes you will be able to use a higher compression without any effects that are visible to you in the medium that you are displaying it.

Notice that for some people it is important that the camera let them get their pictures in the huge RAW format because they need complete control over the artifacts that can be introduced by the compression.

IOW the thing is set on a factory default, which is really a factory CYA? I know the camera's owner doesn't have a clue as to compression in the camera or out, or she wouldn't be emailing 1.3meg pictures. Time to spend some time on the phone, if she can find the manual.

- Jeff

[sidney]

IOW the thing is set on a factory default, which is really a factory CYA?

Yes, but you don't know if the camera provides a way to do anything except the default. I'm only familiar with Canon cameras, but the ones I've seen have offered a choice of picture size in number of pixels and a choice of trading off jpeg quality for size. That would work as a way of getting less than 1.3MB files.

Oh, I just noticed that you said it is a Canon A610. I know about those. While in shooting mode press the Func/Set button to get the menu, then use the up or down arrow buttons to get to the Resolution/Compression menu, then use the right and left arrow buttons to select a resolution (from Large, Medium1, Medium2, Small, or Postcard) and a compression quality (from Superfine, Fine, and Normal). The default setting is Large/Fine, which gives you 2592x1944 pixel images. The "Fine" compression is actually what you want for normal images, not the misleadingly named "Normal" setting. I'm sure that she doesn't need 2592x1944 pixel images for most purposes - Medium2 at 1600x1200 will fill up most screens at full size and will be less than half a megabyte for a picture that is 1.3MB at the higher resolution. If that's still too big you can settle for Small at 640x480 which is less than a sixth the file size of 1600x1200, or you can decrease the quality/increase the compression to "Normal".

[Mike]

I'm always afraid that I'll forget to reset the camera just before taking the shot that I need with highest quality, so I always take my photos in maximum resolution, and then reduce the photo (either dimensions or quality, or both) before sending it to someone else.

[ndebord]

Wellllllll...

The gap narrows all the time.

So I dunno. Toy... Olympia's come up with a sort of hybrid, a mirrorless SLR (by their reckoning) that's lighter and swifter, and I think that's the way the ball's going to be bouncing.



Molly,

Those Olympus and Panasonic cameras use the new Micro Four Third's system which gets rid of the mirror alltogether. Expensive and slow shutter speeds, but they are only on the first go-around here and I want the next version which should be out by winter.

[Judy G. Russell]

I know the camera's owner doesn't have a clue as to compression in the camera or out, or she wouldn't be emailing 1.3meg pictures. Time to spend some time on the phone, if she can find the manual.Jeff, she's better off keeping the originals in the 1.3mb size but reducing them for mailing using the free program Irfanview (http://www.irfanview.com/) or Picasa (http://picasa.google.com/).

[Judy G. Russell]

Did the article mention that increasing the number of pixels without increasing the size of the CCD (the sensor) often leads to lower quality pictures?Often, but not always. The sample images from the new 18mp Canon 7D are very very nice...

[Judy G. Russell]

I'm always afraid that I'll forget to reset the camera just before taking the shot that I need with highest quality, so I always take my photos in maximum resolution, and then reduce the photo (either dimensions or quality, or both) before sending it to someone else.Yup yup yup. Always a better idea.

[Jeff]

That's it , Sidney. Thanks! Printing now for instruction later.

Judy, I don't know what Canon intended the A610 for, but its only present use is snapshots. Actually I'm somewhat surprised that she can even get the photos from camera to computer. I'm not surprised that she then sends 1.3meg files. That needs to be stopped at the source.

- Jeff, who once in the dark ages had Kodachrome and a darkroom and who don't know no better now.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

I'm always afraid that I'll forget to reset the camera just before taking the shot that I need with highest quality, so I always take my photos in maximum resolution, and then reduce the photo (either dimensions or quality, or both) before sending it to someone else.
I've adhered to that policy for several years, and have never regretted it. Storage is cheap!

[Judy G. Russell]

I don't know what Canon intended the A610 for, but its only present use is snapshots. Actually I'm somewhat surprised that she can even get the photos from camera to computer. I'm not surprised that she then sends 1.3meg files. That needs to be stopped at the source.Whatever works best, Jeff.

[Judy G. Russell]

I've adhered to that policy for several years, and have never regretted it. Storage is cheap!But time-consuming, when you're talking about terabytes of images...

[Mike]

I'm not surprised that she then sends 1.3meg files.
I suspect part of the reason is that Windows, by default, reduces images to fit on the screen. If she's using the common 1024x768 resolution, the photo won't appear to be very big. Those of us with more knowledge of computers and images know differently.

If she installed the software that was delivered with the camera, it should have the ability to crop/reduce/compress photos.

[Mike]

Often, but not always. The sample images from the new 18mp Canon 7D are very very nice...
Canon has been increasing the size of the CCD in its more recent cameras. I would expect that the 7D would benefit from that.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

But time-consuming, when you're talking about terabytes of images...
True, but we do not have to transfer all those Terabytes in one night. I can back up ca. 60 GB in about 20 minutes. Subsequent backups only add what has been changed since the night before, so they take 3 or 4 minutes.

[Judy G. Russell]

True, but we do not have to transfer all those Terabytes in one night. I can back up ca. 60 GB in about 20 minutes. Subsequent backups only add what has been changed since the night before, so they take 3 or 4 minutes.I have to get a better system in place. Right now I'm doing one full image backup once a month with the HD taken offsite, plus incremental online backups. I need to add incremental backups onsite.

[Dan in Saint Louis]

I have to get a better system in place. Right now I'm doing one full image backup once a month with the HD taken offsite, plus incremental online backups. I need to add incremental backups onsite.
Online backups could take forever. With the current low price of hard drives, local maintenance of backups is cheap. Since Acronis debugged their software I have found it to be reliable, fast, easy to extract old files without performing a complete restore, and it costs only $39 -- although I sometimes see it for half that.

[ndebord]

I have to get a better system in place. Right now I'm doing one full image backup once a month with the HD taken offsite, plus incremental online backups. I need to add incremental backups onsite.

Judy,

Sign up at Inbox for their free email and they include storage... up to 5 gigs before you have to pay (and you can have multiple accounts).

[Judy G. Russell]

Sign up at Inbox for their free email and they include storage... up to 5 gigs before you have to pay (and you can have multiple accounts).Nick, I don't need online incrementals -- I need onsite incrementals. I already have an online backup system.

[Judy G. Russell]

Online backups could take forever.Tell me about it. I started a complete online backup of my entire system on or about January 1. It's 90% complete.... To its credit, it always puts the new stuff at the head of the queue, but at this rate, it'll be a full year before the full system is online and ONLY incrementals are being done.

With the current low price of hard drives, local maintenance of backups is cheap. Since Acronis debugged their software I have found it to be reliable, fast, easy to extract old files without performing a complete restore, and it costs only $39 -- although I sometimes see it for half that.I use Shadow Protect Desktop and love it, and have a system of rotating external HDs. No problems, no issues, but I have to remember to keep swapping the HDs between home and the office to keep a current backup offsite too.