Camera Oasis

Say you're a big company in the camera biz. Your brand's grown a little dusty, and competition heats up. If you're like a few companies, you realize where you've gone off-track. You switch from building awkward, robot-looking cameras, and try to inject a little color, ruggedness and quality into your products. Here I'm thinking of Panasonic, which probably manufactures many digital cameras for other brands, but chose to beef up its own cameras, too. They made water-proof cameras that actually take nice photos. They use Leica lenses in almost every camera. And they often lead the way in innovation, which results in image quality -- which is all that really matters in a camera. What Panasonic didn't do: They didn't sink skillions in a U.S.-only sponsorship for rich white men. They didn't decide to cheapen every camera model in their line with chrome paint and plastic bodies that look like metal, but aren't. They didn't let a maverick marketing VP...

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 of the digital camera review web sites has all but given up individual reviews of point-and-shoot digital cameras. They've decided to focus on DSLRs and their accessory lenses. The exception are "roundup" articles, in which they'll do a quickie analysis of 4-5 compact cameras. Is this well thought-out? P/S cameras may not snag those magazine-cover quality images, but the abundance of intriguing photos over at flickr.com suggests that not everyone wants -- or needs -- a DSLR. A new DSLR costs more than $500; you can buy two, or maybe three high compacts from Canon, Kodak, or Panasonic for that amount of money. I like my DSLR, but carrying it everywhere is a pain. I just don't do it. Most days, you'll find a pocket-size digital camera in my jacket. Most times, it gets the shot I want. Memo to DP-XXXXXX.com: go upmarket, and you might lose the readership that got you where you are today -- a subsidiary of Amazon.com.

Today's observation: never buy a digital camera with the "1" or "One" in the name. My first Panasonic digital camera was the fabled Lumix FZ-1. It was a 12x optical zoom, and the aperture stayed at a constant f2.8 at all focal lengths. It took incredible photos. But it was only 2 megapixels and fairly slow to operate, even in 2003. The next iteration of FZ models fixed a lot of these issues, but I had already invested in the FZ-1. Now Panasonic's come out with this new DMC G1, roughly the same size as my old FZ-1, but with interchangeable lenses like a digital SLR. And a bigger DSLR-like sensor. And an $800 price tag. Right, $800 for a baby DSLR. I can buy a Nikon D60 with lens for much less than $800. What are you thinking, Panasonic? Other "ones" worthy of this list: the Kodak EasyShare One (a wireless digital camera that's about as slow as my old FZ-1). Sigma DP-1 (also slow, and $999 buys you a camera with performance characteristics wort...

Here are two reviews of two current digital cameras that are both going for around $170: TrustedReviews.com gave a lukewarm review of the Kodak Z8612 IS camera. This is a 12X "superzoom" camera that won't fit in your pocket, but will get you pretty decent photos from over 100 feet away. CNET.com had kinder remarks about the Kodak M1033 camera , a personal favorite of mine. This is a very compact pocket model with a typical 35-105mm lens, and a bigger-than-usual 3-inch LCD screen. CNET liked its image quality; in addition, I like how it's insanely light and compact. So how do you choose? If you shoot lots of photos from the bleachers at a football game, the Z8612 is a pretty decent value. But I've always believed that you'll get the best photos from the camera you keep with you. A pocket camera fits better in my sport jacket than a bulky superzoom. Thus, I pack the M1033 for casual shooting, and use a DSLR when photography is the main reason I'm headed out...