Olympus X43 less than £80, any good?

[pacman1]

http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/5...

I've been after something like this for a while, but have found cheap higher pixel cameras have their drawbacks, not least max optical zoom, unusual or dear memory card, screen size, battery life, etc.
Given the pace of technology and the current recession, surely this is as good as it gets for a while?
Or will I be deeply disappointed with next month's even better offer...

Edited by pacman1 on Saturday 23 January 20:07

[Simpo Two]

pacman1 said:

I've been after something like this for a while

Why?

I shoot weddings for a living with 10Mp and nobody's ever complained about the resolution... 14Mp in a compact with pixels the size of an atom is going to be truly horrible... sorry...

[pacman1]

Simpo Two said:

pacman1 said:

I've been after something like this for a while

Why?

I shoot weddings for a living with 10Mp and nobody's ever complained about the resolution... 14Mp in a compact with pixels the size of an atom is going to be truly horrible... sorry...

So what an I missing then? I thought more pixels meant better quality.
Oh, and to give you an idea of my photographical prowess, my only camera is a very old 35mm Praktica that I used last century!

Would I be better off with This?

Edited by pacman1 on Saturday 23 January 21:14

[Simpo Two]

pacman1 said:

So what an I missing then? I thought more pixels meant better quality.

Aha, that's what they WANT you to believe ... pixels are nothing to do with 'quality' (define quality anyway) - whatever quality is, logic dictates you won't find it in a cheap camera.

Work it backwards. What's the biggest size print you're likely to want? Probably A4, maybe A3. Well I've had A3 prints from a 6Mp Nikon D70 and they look fine. The only real-world reason for needing more pixels is if you want to crop your photos and still have enough resolution left.

Compacts have small sensors to start with. The more pixels you cram on, the smaller each pixel is. The smaller each pixel is, the less light it can collect. Therefore the camera will either have to pop the flash to compensate, or use a longer shutter speed, or use amplification to make a dark image brighter. That introduces a speckling called noise. To cover up the noise, the camera then smudges the image - which completely wipes out any benefit you might have had from the 'high resolution' 14 Mp!!

OK it should give decent results in good light, but that's about it I'd say. The flip side of a 14Mp sensor is that your image files will be needlessly large.

The tragedy is that there are no 'low resolution' compacts - which would give far better real-life performance. I can't recommend a particular one - I have a Leica C-Lux 2 which is 7Mp and, given its limitations, I'm very pleased with - but now replaced by the C-Lux 3 and way over your budget. Have a browse on www.dpreview.com - there are some compact reviews and group tests. One make that always seems to do very well is Panasonic/Lumix - so head for that and you probably won't be disappointed.

The other rule is 'you get what you pay for', so if you're after decent results bear that in mind

[pacman1]

"I see," said the blind man!
Many thanks, ST, I shall investigate..

[kutekrish]

Hi ST,

I also saw this offer at Argos near my place. I have a Sony Cybershot 2MP (very old one). I mostly use it on family trips / functions / sightseeing. I want you to suggest if this Olympus X43 will be a good one than the one I have. FYI, I am not interested in printing images, I just have them on my PC as wallpaper.

Your guidance in this will be greatly helpful.

Thanks.
Krishna

Edited by kutekrish on Sunday 24th January 17:45

[Simpo Two]

kutekrish said:

Hi ST,

I also saw this offer at Argos near my place. I have a Sony Cybershot 2MP (very old one). I mostly use it on family trips / functions / sightseeing. I want you to suggest if this Olympus X43 will be a good one than the one I have. FYI, I am not interested in printing images, I just have them on my PC as wallpaper.

Your guidance in this will be greatly helpful.

Thanks.
Krishna

Hi Krishna - as I haven't used either of the cameras, I can't give an meaningful opinon. PCs are relatively lo-res so you certainly don't need 14Mp or anything like it for wallpaper - 2Mp is actually enough! Your old camera may need replacing but don't fall for the very-cheap-gazillion-pixels thing. I don't know what Argos's returns policy is but you may be able to try one and take it back if it's not as hoped for.

[mcflurry]

kutekrish said:

Hi ST,

I also saw this offer at Argos near my place. I have a Sony Cybershot 2MP (very old one). I mostly use it on family trips / functions / sightseeing. I want you to suggest if this Olympus X43 will be a good one than the one I have. FYI, I am not interested in printing images, I just have them on my PC as wallpaper.

Your guidance in this will be greatly helpful.

Thanks.
Krishna

Megapixels are great marketing, but IMHO a pointless measure of a camera.

A pc wallpaper at HD quality is 1920 x 1080 pixels (2.025mp)
A 6x4 print at 300 dpi is just over 2.1 mp if you did change your mind re. printing a hard copy.

As per the above comments, since 99% of cameras for sale are above 2mp it therefore becomes meaningless. Instead the quality of the lenses, flash, compatibility of memory cards and manufacturer backup are better measures than buying on either price or megapixels

Edited by mcflurry on Monday 25th January 14:02

[Fordo]

Simpo Two said:

pacman1 said:

So what an I missing then? I thought more pixels meant better quality.

Aha, that's what they WANT you to believe ... pixels are nothing to do with 'quality' (define quality anyway) - whatever quality is, logic dictates you won't find it in a cheap camera.

Work it backwards. What's the biggest size print you're likely to want? Probably A4, maybe A3. Well I've had A3 prints from a 6Mp Nikon D70 and they look fine. The only real-world reason for needing more pixels is if you want to crop your photos and still have enough resolution left.

Compacts have small sensors to start with. The more pixels you cram on, the smaller each pixel is. The smaller each pixel is, the less light it can collect. Therefore the camera will either have to pop the flash to compensate, or use a longer shutter speed, or use amplification to make a dark image brighter. That introduces a speckling called noise. To cover up the noise, the camera then smudges the image - which completely wipes out any benefit you might have had from the 'high resolution' 14 Mp!!

OK it should give decent results in good light, but that's about it I'd say. The flip side of a 14Mp sensor is that your image files will be needlessly large.

The tragedy is that there are no 'low resolution' compacts - which would give far better real-life performance. I can't recommend a particular one - I have a Leica C-Lux 2 which is 7Mp and, given its limitations, I'm very pleased with - but now replaced by the C-Lux 3 and way over your budget. Have a browse on www.dpreview.com - there are some compact reviews and group tests. One make that always seems to do very well is Panasonic/Lumix - so head for that and you probably won't be disappointed.

The other rule is 'you get what you pay for', so if you're after decent results bear that in mind

Simpo - have you ever thought about writing a book on modern photography? (actually, your probably going to tell me that you already have) You have a very clear way of explaining things, but without sounding patronising or being needlessly technical. - a hard balance to achieve.

[kutekrish]

Thanks ST & mcflurry for your inputs. Let me Google somemore before I decide

[Simpo Two]

Fordo said:

Simpo - have you ever thought about writing a book on modern photography? (actually, your probably going to tell me that you already have) You have a very clear way of explaining things, but without sounding patronising or being needlessly technical. - a hard balance to achieve.

That's very kind, thank you If I thought there would be any money in it, I might have a go... in fact it began when I wrote an 'idiot's guide' for a former g/f back in the days of film... but the internet is so full of free stuff - and forums like this - that it would be a hiding to nothing I fear.

I have to remember that there is fact, then hard experience, then received wisdom, then educated guesswork and personal opinions - and one has to be careful to draw the line somewhere. I'm also very conscious that there are many layers of experience and knowledge above mine, but it's good to see learners following in my footsteps because those are the ones I feel closest to and can help the most. It's all a ladder and we all have a rung somewhere on it, from which we look upwards at feet above and downwards at heads below - and figure out what to do next!

[mcflurry]

Fordo said:

Simpo - have you ever thought about writing a book on modern photography? (actually, your probably going to tell me that you already have) You have a very clear way of explaining things, but without sounding patronising or being needlessly technical. - a hard balance to achieve.

I'd probably buy it - your pics are top rate

[Fordo]

Simpo Two said:

I have to remember that there is fact, then hard experience, then received wisdom, then educated guesswork and personal opinions - and one has to be careful to draw the line somewhere. I'm also very conscious that there are many layers of experience and knowledge above mine, but it's good to see learners following in my footsteps because those are the ones I feel closest to and can help the most. It's all a ladder and we all have a rung somewhere on it, from which we look upwards at feet above and downwards at heads below - and figure out what to do next!

ah, this would be perfect as part of your books introduction

[Phf8888]

I have one of these cameras. I cannot get it to operate in 14mp mode, in fact it is greyed out and does not allow me to move into the 14mp mode. Has it been miss sold or am I doing something wrong?

Thanks

Phil

[mjforbes]

Hi there,

To get it to work at 14M, turn 'Fine Zoom' off.

Personally, as a long-time user of Olympus compacts, I'm really impressed by this one - only real problem with it is that it eats batteries - not a huge problem, as I've got a bagful of high-capacity rechargables, but a real pain in the backside if I go out without remembering to take a couple of spares with me. Optical zoom is great, and digital isn't too bad, providing you've got a flat, hard surface to steady the camera AND you put the anti-shake on.

Regards,

Matt

[clonmult]

mjforbes said:

Hi there,

To get it to work at 14M, turn 'Fine Zoom' off.

Personally, as a long-time user of Olympus compacts, I'm really impressed by this one - only real problem with it is that it eats batteries - not a huge problem, as I've got a bagful of high-capacity rechargables, but a real pain in the backside if I go out without remembering to take a couple of spares with me. Optical zoom is great, and digital isn't too bad, providing you've got a flat, hard surface to steady the camera AND you put the anti-shake on.

Regards,

Matt

Fine Zoom is another was of describing digital zoom, aka cropping. Its got nothing to do with zoom, and just crops the image/reduces quality. If you've got any interest in keeping as much detail as possible, just switch off digital zoom.

Bad battery life is one of the reasons why I dumped the old Kodak camera (it was good for stills), and why I'm happy that the current panasonic has a battery that'll easily go for 200-300 shots. If a device has bad battery life, its as big a reason as you can get for telling people to steer well clear.

[rottie102]

Why don't you wanna go for something much better and second hand? I would definitely reccomend any Panasonic/Lumix compacts.
Try ebay or www.cex.co.uk - free delivery and 12 months warranty on all second hand equipment.
example
http://www.cex.co.uk/products/Electronics/Photo%20...