Camera Oasis

Can you spot the difference between these two digital cameras? The black camera is a new Kodak M583, a 14-megapixel compact with a Schneider lens, 8X optical zoom. The red camera is a GE Power Series E1680W, with 16 megapixels and an 8X optical zoom. To me, they appear to have come off the same assembly line, someplace in Asia. Their prices are nearly identical, too. At the moment, Kmart is offering the GE camera at $20 under the Kodak. On the other hand, 16 MP on a 1/2.3 sensor will probably result in less than satisfactory images. GE is one of those drugstore brands that hardly any camera review website takes seriously. Kodak, on the other hand, said earlier this year that they would re-strategize their camera business to sell only profitable cameras. I'm thinking this meant sourcing some cameras from GE's General Imaging business, just as Hewlett Packard appears to have done.

Last week brought thrills galore in my camera collection. One example: I found a name-brand 12-MP digital camera online, with manufacturer's warranty, for $39.99. Even with $5 shipping, it's still a great deal -- especially since I plan to give the camera as a gift later on. At the other end of the spectrum, I visited Wally World for a few supplies, and wandered past the camera bar, where a salesperson was telling someone why he should by a 12-MP camera instead of a 10-MP camera: "You can make larger 8 x 10 prints with the 12-megapixel camera." I wanted to interrupt the conversation with: "When was the last time you printed an 8 x 10 print?" For many of us, photographic prints are an afterthought. I print only a few photos a year, usually as gifts or to frame and display. When I get a frame-able photo, I have Adorama Pix or KodakGallery do the printing. But most people lean toward 4 x 6-inch prints, if they print at all. (The discontinued camera above is a...

In my film camera days, a roll of 35mm film gave you a negative of 36 x 24mm. That area was the "recording surface" for the images I shot. Digital cameras today are promoted for having 8, 10, or 12 megapixels. That's not the size of the recording surface; it's geek-speak for the number of tiny recording cells on the sensor. You can squeeze millions of these cells on a sensor. But if the sensor itself is only 7.2 x 5.3 mm -- typically the size found in a pocket digital camera -- you have less overall area in which to capture an image. Add megapixels, and you're just squeezing more tiny cells on a small sensor, which leads to image degradation in the form of "noise." So, when you're looking at different cameras, megapixels are irrelevant. It's the size of the sensor that really determines image quality. There's a semi-technical explanation of this at this web site, and a simpler (and somewhat exuberant) discussion on Ken Rockwell's webs...

One good indicator of whether you'll get sharp photos from a camera is if the camera lets you adjust the image quality setting. This is generally found as a menu option called JPEG Compression. Inexpensive digital cameras generally don't allow you to adjust JPEG compression. Other cameras let you choose different compression levels, such as "Standard" or "Fine." Choosing the "fine" setting results in slightly larger image files, as the camera's processor isn't squeezing your image file into a smaller "standard" setting. If you visit Flickr and use their Camera Tracker, you can track down a specific camera and view the output quality. (Check out full-size versions, not the default snapshot size). Then see if the image quality meets your expectations -- and visit the manufacturer's website to see if the camera's specs list several JPEG compression levels. Don't confuse this with image size. Most cameras permit you to se...