Samsung PL70 and PL55 bring 12 megapixels to the unwashed masses
By Vlad Savov 
posted July 14th 2009 10:40AM
posted July 14th 2009 10:40AM
posted July 14th 2009 10:40AM
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.
I really have to say that all these point and shoot, high megapixel, super cheap cameras that keep popping up really make me wonder if I should have paid 3x the price for a much more expensive fujifilm finepix more than 3 years ago...then I remember it actually takes good pictures, unlike the ones listed above...
And it was 3 years ago.
3 years ago a lot of people paid x times as much for something they could get for 1/xth of the price now.
It's perpetual obsolescence. You can buy a great, hi-spec camera for $xxxx today, and 3 years from now (or perhaps even sooner) you can get something comparable for a lot less.
Yeah just like my 2GB Flash Drive that I have bought for like $45 3 years ago.
And now, I can buy a 16GB for $40 or less.
those are valid points, but I was really trying to say that cramming 12 megapixels into these tiny sensors makes the pictures they take exponentially worse and despite the fact that prices are dropping like lead, so is the quality of the product and what it can do.
I need a new camera!
megapixels != quality image
In fact more and more these days it means a bad image by a lazy manufacturer only churning out yet another slapped together product because the company feels they have to be in the camera business. This isn't 1998 anymore.
Amen.
12 MP on these tiny cheeseball sensors means one thing: NOISE-RIDDLED CRAP.
Don't vote for this with your money.
12 megapixels is about 4 megapixels too much. How about you camera manufacturers stop marketing megapixels and start increasing the sensor size?
The average consumer will apparently never wise up to the fact that more and more pixels crammed into the same tiny CCD sensor results in WORSE images as the necessarily greater noise reduction algorithm effect touches EVERY pixel and results in the complete destruction of every bit of additional fine image detail the additional pixels therefore CAN'T add, resulting in an image that's nothing more than a bunch of digital artifacts. Until a revolutionary sensor technology is developed, we have _long ago_ reached the point of diminishing returns in this STUPID pixel war that is simply a marketing gimmick feeding upon consumer ignorance.
Anyone handled any of Samsung's digital cameras? I remember being initially sceptical when they released their first one, but some of their upcoming models look quite good.
I have a Samsung S85 which about 3 generations before these models here. I think the colours aren't very good when it's not sunny weather and it's too slow between shots. Next camera I get will be tested with more care.
I've got an NV3, which is about 2-ish years old now and I'm still pleased with it for what it is. A compact point and shoot isn't ever going to be a stellar photography experience, but the colours come out quite nicely even in low light; other cameras I've had have tended to make everything quite reddish in this scenario no matter what white balance setting. The downside is that it can be a bit slow taking a shot in low light (like any other P&S), but unlike NLI, I wouldn't say that its too slow between shots.
Dear Engadget,
Your comment section is morphing into 4chan. Please do something about that. I don't really want to switch to Gizmodo...
Seriously what is the different with these and the sl820? If a company just releases the same camera in slightly different packaging whats the point?
Dear John,
Stop crying you whiny bitch.
Yours sincerely,
Orinjz
Samsung cameras suck. I got one for free and never use it.
...what? This is nothing like 4chan. Or any anon-type forum. Not even close.
I agree with the sentiments here, Samsung cameras do suck, because they know nothing about photography. Canon on the other hand, with their digital Elph and Powershot series, takes photos and have image quality that are way ahead of their competitors. The technology used in the Canon cameras is inherited from their line of professional DSLRs, which are trusted by pro photographers everywhere.
The image quality of Canon's small cameras sucks too. Perhaps not as much as some, but it's garbage nonetheless. We were better off with clean 4 MP images than we are with the mottled garbage these cameras are churning out today.
@Misinformation Central:
No
megapixels is a useless marketing term people need to start ignoring. 12 million megapixels is worthless when crammed on a 1/2.33" sensor.
Adding or promoting high megapixels doesn't mean that the image quality is shitty.
Try it out first, read reviews when it comes out.
Don't judge a P&S for it's megapixels.
;)
There are certain limitations that have to do with physics. If you find an image produced from a high-megapixel-on-tiny-sensor camera to be of superior image quality, then you're probably misperceiving some side-effect as a benefit.