Pentax optio W10 vs. W20

[gyork]

For owners of the W10 and others in-the-know, is the W20 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080701pentaxw20.asp worth the extra $50 to $75? I'm no camera aficionado, simpler the better, looking to capture those fleeting moments of recent, close, wildlife encounters (seals, loons, bald eagle, ?porpoise/dolphin)

Gary

[EEL]

First, I agree with Brian and will go further and say I hope there is a special place in Hell for the designers who do not incluude a "real" viewfinder on these types of digital cameras. Second, for casual photos I rather doubt the increase in pixels means much if anything. Third, the anti-blur feature is the only thing beyond pixels that seems different and upping the ISO speed to enable the use a higher shutter speed is, IMHO, not a good solution for the reason that higher ISO speeds mean lower picture quality. It is not anti-vibration like some digital SLRs have. On the 10 you can select the ISO speed and/or shutter speed to reduce chances of getting blurred pictures due to motion which is an issue when you are taking photos from a kayak. Is it worth and extra $50? Don't know as there maybe other improvements in the software which result in enhanced pics.

I find it is quite important to go through the manual and play with the camera quite a bit to understand what you can do to maximize picture quality. Just becasue these cameras can be used as point and shoot cameras does not mean they should be used that way without a little tweaking from the defaults.

Ed Lawson

[djlewis]

>... for casual photos I rather doubt the increase in pixels means much if anything.

I used to say that... until someone pointed out that more mPixels means you can crop the resulting image more and still have it look decent.

This is especially important when trying to catch kayak action on the water. Often you can't be too near the "action" and still take one or two hands off the paddle to snap the picture. So you wind up shooting from quieter water, more distant than you like for a well-framed shot. But if you can crop later -- or equivalently, use soft zoom -- you can still get a good quality image out of it. This also helps reduce the effects of camera and subject motion.

I do agree about the need for an optical viewfinder. Note, however, that the Optio Wxx has a preview mode which brightens us the LCD quite a bit, and that LCD is pretty big too. That all helps, but still doesn't totally solve the problem, IMHO. I jsut wish that Pentax made the optical viewfinder on the 43WR more accurate -- it runs 20-30% too tight, that is, shows a lot less than will appear on the image.

--David.

[shewhorn]

>Second, for casual photos I rather doubt the

>increase in pixels means much if anything.

Yep... 6 to 7 megapixels is trivial and depending upon the sensor design it may even ADD noise to the image (smaller photosites = increased noise due to thermal issues). Typically my observation has been that when a manufacturer releases a new sensor the noise performance stays the same. If the noise performance stays the same on a pixel per pixel basis but we're talking about a higher resolution sensor then in that case the higher resolution sensor will produce slightly less noise for a given print size. Still... 6 to 7 is such a small jump that if the other features are all the same and noise performance on both sensors is the same, etc. I'd just buy the less expensive camera.

Cheers, Joe

[shewhorn]

>>... for casual photos I rather doubt the increase in pixels means much if anything.

>

>I used to say that... until someone pointed out that more

>mPixels means you can crop the resulting image more and

>still have it look decent.

In theory this makes great sense but in practice you have to make significant increases in resolution to have this make a big difference in an actual print. In the case of 6 to 7 megapixels with these two cameras it's not even worth considering IMO. In order to double the resolution you need to quadruple the pixel count so in this case we're talking a 24 megapixel sensor in order to double the resolution. 6 to 8 mp is also a trivial jump. 6 to 10... OK, now you can start to see some differences.

If you're finding that you constantly need to crop into a photo to get what you want then you may not have the right tool for what you want to do and might want to consider a camera with a little more "reach". For example if you're trying to photograph a distant subject... you'll get MUCH MUCH MUCH better image quality out of a 4 megapixel camera with a 200mm lens then you will from an 8 megapixel camera with a 100mm lens (focal lengths are in 35mm equivalents).

There are many things that have a much larger impact on image quality than pixel count such as the quality of the anti-aliasing filter, lens quality (pincushioning, barrel distortion, chromatic abberations, sharpness of center vs. edges at the extremes of the zoom range, etc.), dynamic range, performance at high ISOs, etc. In terms of resolution and image quality if given the choice between a 4.5 year old 4 megapixel Canon 1D and any current 8+ megapixel camera on the market I'd go with the 1D.

I guess the primary point I'm trying to make is that there are other far more important characteristics that influence image quality than pixel count. How much dynamic range does it have? How accurate is the metering system, can it be easily fooled in tough lighting conditions? How is the color, how well does the auto white balance work (shouldn't be an issue in daylight, most manufacturers have that nailed but in different lighting situations, especially in tungsten light or mixed light sources this can make a huge difference in image quality)? How does it perform at higher ISOs (noise)? How fast is the lens? How fast is the autofocus system? Is there significant shutter lag? How well does it fit in my hand? Are the controls easy to operate and get to quickly? What's the lens quality like (this is one of the most important considerations).

All of these things to me are FAR more important to the final image quality at 8"x10" print sizes and smaller than the pixel count. I've noticed that with digital cameras people tend to zoom into the image 100% and use that as a criteria to judge image quality but this is not the way we actually view images. Typically an image is either printed, or it's put up on the web at dimensions that are usually no greater than 600 pixels.

So... there you have my rant on pixel counts. :-) LOL

Cheers, Joe

[bob budd]

Although its a somewhat obscure feature "digital zoom" reduces your effective pixel count. Rather than projecting a magnified image on the image sensor a portion of the image sensor data is deleted. Though software can be used to reconstruct such an image from its smaller parts it still begins with a lower resolution raw image.

[djlewis]

Joe's notes about pixel count are well-taken -- he's the pro here!

I'm thinking of (a) "all other things equal"; ( a relatively cheap, point-and-shoot, waterproof digital camera -- I don't care to mess with big gear and bigger housings on the water, though I know some pros like Carl of ConnYak get fantastic results that way.

But Joe, how about the movement factor? Say I'm trying to shoot someone on a standing wave in a tidal race and get a reasonably close-cropped image, at least not a "distant blip" kind of shot. It's pretty hard to be in the race yourself and shoot another paddler -- you can't afford the hands off the paddle. But even if you could, camera movement would be significant and might ruin the shot.

So I'd think you'd do best to shoot from a nearby eddy and either crop the result or digitally zoom it (those are equivalent, right?). That would certainly help with safety and camera motion issues. Would it also help with subject motion?

--David.

[brwells]

The motion change in the Pentax is done in the software. It detects a shift of most of the pixels and essentially "shifts" them back. It is not an optical change such as what Canon and other high-end cameras and lenses utilize. Not that this is bad, but it is not as precise especially for fast moving or detailed shots (which is, unfortunatley, what we often want to photograph such as Joe rolling in a breaking wave.)

The pixel count is important for the reasons mentioned, but it is detrimental if one wants to do what Brad and Bill do which is to set the camera up to take shots every ten seconds. Then the higher pixel count will allow for less photos. Of course this is somewhat helped by using 1 or 2 GB SD cards.

The viewfinder problem is the one reason I have yet to place the order. However, I have been taking photos for years outdoors and have found a simple way to create a sun shade for the screen. It's made of plastic, folds, and velcroes to the camera. It is not a solution, but it does help.

P&H Capella 163

Red/White/Black trim

[djlewis]

>The pixel count is important for the reasons mentioned, but

>it is detrimental if one wants to do what Brad and Bill do

>which is to set the camera up to take shots every ten

>seconds. Then the higher pixel count will allow for less

>photos.

I think you can set the resolution lower in most cameras, and thus cut the size of the image files. At least you can in my Optio 43WR. I don't know what that does to the quality of the image, however. It's not a simple matter to convert one digital resoultion to another without losing quality. Anybody who's tried to use a LCD computer monitor in anything less than its "native" resolution has seen this.

> Of course this is somewhat helped by using 1 or 2 GB SD cards.

As has been true ever since Intel's original integrated memory chip, memory gets cheaper and cheaper every year, probably even faster than CPUs speed up.

--David.

[Bill Gwynn]

Brad and I have both "dumbed down" our resolution to 1024 x 768 to allow more pics on a SD card. Also, that resoultion is just fine for the web where we post our pics.

[brwells]

Hence my point - getting the higer pixel count on the W20 is "wasted" if one is going to use a lower resolution anyway. But, with the big SD disks, this is pretty moot these days.

Brian

P&H Capella 163

Red/White/Black trim

[Ben Fuller]

Could I interest someone in my old Nikonos? 35 mm and 80 mm w. various finders? Of course you only get 36 pics and you actually have to look at the light to set the exposure and guess or do some preframing for distance. Still there is no shutter lag, the results are outstanding and you can use the case to drive a tent peg. I am glad that I got a Pentax 43.

[subaruguru]

I agree, and chased an older Pentax Optio 43WR with viewfinder. They're still around on eBay, etc. Although marketed only as water RESISTANT, the difference in ommersion tests between the two adjacent JIS standards apparently is trivial for our purposes, as I'm told the 43WR is good to 3m (10 ft).