Sony's new DSC-W300 brings 13.6 megapixels to point-and-shoots
By Paul Miller 
posted February 25th 2008 8:58AM
posted February 25th 2008 8:58AM
posted February 25th 2008 8:58AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Pointlessly excessive.
It may be useless to you but not for people on a budge. I rather get a Canon PowerShot.
From a megapixel standpoint, yes, but I think 6400 ISO is nice. Like all P&S it'll be auto-ISO, and be noisy as hell, but will be good for low light in-door low-light shots that would otherwise be missed by the casual user that uses these cameras.
and excessively pointless!
6400 ISO may be nice, but it's a compact and the only company with a moderately decent "super high uber ISO" setting is Fuji. What's the point of 13MP, it's just going to show up all the noise :P
I mean, i'd much rather they made a 6MP camera with a half decent sensor, decent zoom and more useful features (say stuff like more manual controls) for the same money.
Link
Link
Link? Anymore information?
Ah, yes, sorry about that. I was off fighting Gannon and such, y'know saving the princess.
Heres more info:
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3320
I would bet it has no manual features and the noise/blurring resulting from noise reduction makes it unusable from ISO 1600 and up.
Actually if its like any of the top end W series cams we have previously seen it will have a manual mode allowing you to adjust shutter speed and apature. You will see some noise with high iso but you wont get blurring, the whole point of iso mode is so you dont have to use a flash in low light levels, because the shutter isnt so slow you dont have to use a tripod. However if you dont like high iso, dont use the feature, use a slow shutter in manual mode with a tripod.
Fair enough about the manual features, I hope they aren't buried in a menu.
I guess my point was, that's a lot of pixels on a small sensor. Each pixel's going to occupy around 1/20th or so of the area that it would on something like a Canon 400d. The Sony has 4x the max ISO. So it's taking 80 times less light, or thereabouts, and attempting to make some sort of image. The Canon does cost more than twice as much, but nonetheless I can't really see all these extra megapixels and high ISOs as anything but marketing gimmicks.
I'd like to see compact camera manufacturers concentrating on things like battery life, shutter lag, LCD lag, or anything that might make a different to the average photographer. I really don't think 13.6mp and 6400 ISO is preferable to the 8mp and 800-1600 ISO that the average midrange compact seem to settle on. Though I do like to see IS becoming commonplace; again, this makes a practical difference.
Yaaaaay! Finally a camera with 13.6 megapixels! AND 6400 ISO! I bet it's not superfluous and stupid at all and that the quality is fantastic at 6400!!!
I, for one, will bow in awe to our 13.6 Megapixel, 6400 ISO overlords!
One aim: Sell larger memory sticks. The end. (I used an 5MP Sony f717, probably the best non DSLR digicam ever made, and I guarantee that the image quality from the f717 will be better than this new pointless 13MP machine. Sony have lost the plot, trading innovation for marketing hype. Very sad! Be far better to guy by a Sigma DP1 whose huge sensor will do justice to all those megapixels.)
When everyone else is bringing out 13MP cameras why shouldn't Sony too? The ignorant people who buy a camera based on the megapixel number are far more than the people who really know that it doesn't make a difference. The same ignorant people even buy mobile phones based on their megapixel number.
Paris: Sony would earn more respect if they backed up the Megapixels with a nice lens. A small lens cannot allow in as much light. See Panasonic and Leica cameras, lenses much larger.
Just be happy they're not advertising interpolated megapixels anymore...
Wonderkid: you mean like the Sony H series cameras?
H series are nice, but still not as innovative as f series. The whole none DSLR digicam market is lacking in innovation and I imagine it is so people purchase DSLRs that are the new hot property. Either way, for those wanting a quality compact, the Richoh and Sigmas are the way to go.
Wonderkid: Oh sorry I also recognized you might be talking about the 28mm lens on the Panasonics with the Leica lens. Sonys recently expanded from 21mm to 25mm. Those 28mm lenses are pretty big. I do like the Zeiss lenses on Sonys though.
"A small lens cannot allow in as much light."
Since when is this true? I think you mean that a lense with a small maximum aperture relative to the focal length of the lense (large f-stop value) doesn't let in as much light. And a small sensor generally produces more noise than a larger sensor given an equal number of photosites (megapixel count) on both.
Search Google for these two lenses:
Nikkor 70-200mm 2.8 ED IF
Nikkor 50mm 1.4
Which is bigger? Which let's in more light? And by how much?
The 50mm. 4 times the light.
As you can see, the theory that a physically larger lense lets in more light than a smaller one is fundamentally wrong. There is more geometry to take into account.
Razor: Re lens size, I was not referring to focal length, but the diameter of the optics. Just look at the front of the DSC-W300 lens and then Google the f717 or other top notch digicam and notice the significant difference in diameter of the lens. All to let in more light - and with more light, less noise! :-)
In response to Razor:
While your general point is correct, the specifics are flawed. The amount of light gathered (total number of Photons) is proportional to the surface area of the aperture (focal length/f-ratio).
The surface area of the 200mm lens is Pi*((200/2.8)/2)^2 = 4007 mm^2
The surface area of the 50mm lens is Pi*((50/1.4/2)^2 = 1002 mm^2
Thus the 200mm lens gathers about 4x the light as the 50mm lens.
The key is that the image from the 200mm lens is magnified 4x over the image from the 50mm lens.So the image has 16x the area and 4x the light. Because of this the INTENSITY (number of photons per unit area at the focal point per unit time.) of the light in the 50mm lens is 16/4=4x greater then that of the 200mm. i.e. a f1.4 lens produces an image that is 4x as bright as a f2.8 lens.
I do believe the amount of light in a picture is also relative to the pixel density of the sensor - the more dense, the less light hits each individual picture, making the resultant image darker - case and point is the 40D vs 1D MKIII, the 40D has a much greater pixel density (same as 400D) and more pixel than the 1D but the 1D has perceptively brighter resultant images due to the larger pixel that can absorb more light, which creates an overall better image quality capable of being magnified to the same size as the 12mp 40D at a better quality.
Of course, if you don't have a nice fat low light lens (
Physicsdude, go back to school. I wouldn't be so harsh if your math was so incredibly wrong. Surface area? The focal lengths I mentioned do not refer to diameter.
If you want to learn more about optics, try the glossary on dpreview.com as a starting point. Or pick up one of John Hedgecoe's books on photography.
Sometimes I'm just amazed by the stupidity I see on the Internet. The worse part about this is that it appears people actually believe your seriously flawed logic.
Link!
... That ridiculously high amount of megapixels would only make sense for a compact point-and-shoot only if it has some really wide lens, which I doubt it would.
... That ridiculously high amount of megapixels would only make sense for a compact point-and-shoot only if it has some really wide lens, which I doubt it would.
funny intro line
But how big is the sensor? If its a standard compact sensor, the 13+MP will probably be more of a negative than a positive. If that's the case, i'd rather have a camera with less than half the megapixels. But then again, thats why you buy a DSLR (looking forward to getting a chance to really get into my D300 in Colorado next month)
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-25-2008/0004761444&EDATE=
Does the average person really need more than 5-7 megapixels?
here is the full details.
http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3320
My camera is 6MP, and I'll guarantee you it will take better pictures than this. Small sensors, no matter how ludicrous the MP count, will always be noisy and unsharp. I'd like to see camera manufacturers find a way to put a larger size sensor into smaller bodies, rather than perpetuate this absurd megapixel race
Is Sigma the only company that gets it? Why can't one of the large 3 (Nikon, Canon, Sony) make a compact with an APS-C sensor instead of a compact with way too many pixels crammed onto a sensor half the size of a penny? I guarantee a megapixel APS-C camera such as the Pentax K100d will look better even printed at large sizes. Here's coping Ricoh will put a large sensor in their next Caplio.
With a sensor like that in a P&S camera say goodbye to optical zoom.
Sony did - the R1. However, it didn't sell very well (Why pay almost as much as an XT for a non-replaceable lens) and compared to other similarly sized prosumer cameras, had very limited zooming. In a nutshell, it didn't give very much space saving compared to a compact DSLR, and the features lost where too great.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscr1/
I'm not a big fan of the super zoom R1 style of cameras. Why not just buy a SLR if you want a non-pocketable camera with a big zoom? Sigma has proven that a small camera can still have a big sensor (albeit with a fixed lens). But lets not forget there were plenty of 35mm film cameras with optical zooms that could easily fit in a pocket. Surely someone can make an APS-C size pocket camera. It doesn't even need a huge zoom. I'd be fine with a 3 step 28mm-70mm f4-5.6 equivalent.
Here's what I don't get.
The average consumer will probably only make prints that are about 5x7, or at most, 8x10. If they're printing anything larger, chances are they're going to get it done the old fashioned way—at a studio.
So, why would you want so many megapixels? You really only need about 5 to get a nice clear 5x7. Hell, I've printed decent 4x6s with my really old DSC-P52, and that was 3.2 megapixels!
Another point is, a lot of consumers also DON'T print their photos at all. I mean, we often share our pictures with each other via email, photobucket, flickr, etc. Why would you need a 13mp picture there? I prefer when the picture looks close to actual print size on-screen, which would mean scaling the picture down before placing it online.
I just don't get it, but maybe someone can enlighten me. My W80 (a regretful replacement to the superior W50 before it) and my D40 are all I need. If I really wanted some poster sized stuff, I'd probably save my money and get a film camera *shrug*
true however, some people like to print out their photos I print out 12x18 and I think their too small of course, I have nice printers at work, also at some of my old and current jobs I print out large banners and you can tell the difference when you stretch out even 10MP pictures trying to make a 8 foot banner. We need large megapixel digital cameras cause we don't have the time to do it old school with developing film. Of course we/I use SLR's, and I would never buy a point and shoot, but more megapixels with better image sensors are always needed, just not in a point and shoot.
The easy answer:
The e-penis. The average consumer buys stuff based on numbers. More megapixels, in their view, mean a better image, with no consideration for any other factors. But when said consumer goes out with his buddies and they all compare their penis lengths, er... I mean cameras, Joe Blow can have the bragging rights of having the "best" camera in the group.
And the technological illiterate will believe it, and try to outdo him with the next best thing that comes out. Thus gadget companies sell more gadgets, and the cycle continues.
And for the record, my Fuji 3800, a 3.2 megapixel dino does pretty nice 8x10s. Love that colour.
Why more megapixels?
Well, more "detail", which is what we are discussing the need of here, is not only useful when printing out large poster sized images. It also allows one to zoom in when viewing, see things close up, get a better feel for what was actually there at the time of the shot. I zoom in on my photographs all the time when viewing. The more detail captured, the more accurate description one has of the scene, even if, unfortunately, it can not all be visible at once. Then one can always make a huge print later if desired. Also, of course, is cropping; one doesn't always get the perfectly composed shot, so it's nice to have options.
Futility of increased pixels:
Of course shrinking the size of pixels without better light capturing technology will result in more noise. However, high ISOs can be reduced down to a tiny image, sub-megapixel, which is still better than not having any image at all. Yes, full resolution would be nice, but that's reality I guess.
If a 6MP model of camera gives a less noisy image than a 12MP model at the same settings at full resolution, the 12MP camera still does not pull in significantly less light(or does it?). The noisy 12MP image can be reduced to 6MP and will not be worse than the 6MP image.
Further, on a sunny day, there is plenty of light to go around. I've seen images from tiny sensor, high MP cameras, and with plenty of light, their full resolution output looks as good per pixel as a similar sensor with half the resolution(or quarter, etc.).
I'd much rather see more dynamic range than more megapixels. Would be nice to have larger photosites on the sensor so that I could take more images using natural light.
3X zoom again...
i have a W100. I don't use it much, because 3X zoom is not enough...
This megapixel thing is getting pretty gimmicky, learn from Canon, and give 6x optical instead. And nobody needs a 'smile shutter mode',instead a better sensor will be welcome.
Whats the real deal then! I am in the market for a new camera! We are going to italy for our honeymoon and i want a camera that will be an outstanding purchase that won't leave me looking for a while! HELP THIS DUMMY buy something sweeet! $400 MAX!
Pop quiz hot shot!
How many megapixels does the human eye have?
here's the answer:
http://www.maxim.com/askmaximeyeballsandipods/articles/19369.aspx?src=tstam
w200 was f**king noisy and incapable of taking bright photos at iso 100. I'm using it about a year and what I have is iso noise instead of a clear photo. I don't have any idea why sony took iso levels higher. Older models like p150 or p200 are noticably better and "clear" than w200.
w300 is my last resort for sony. Hoping to have bright and clear photos.