The best of the "so so"

[Asmarlak]

I think the image quality of ultra-zoom digital cameras is now lower than it used to be and so as how consumers and professional reviewers see that class of cameras, its like selecting the best of the "so so" and declaring them as the best in the market. The manufacturers have been adding many new features to tempt consumers to buy new cameras or upgrade to newer models, at the same time those cameras carry very small image sensors to keep image quality at lower range in order to drag consumers into buying DSLRs which offer better quality images and their market is expected to boom over the next few years. I'm sure those new features are useful when it comes to ease of use and convenience but unfortunately not when it comes to image quality.
I've been wanting to upgrade my older (2004) Olympus C-765 to a newer one regardless of the brand as long as it matches my camera's image quality. I read reviews and viewed sample pictures of many models including the best rated such as the Canon S3-IS and Panasonic FZ-7 which I actually bought for a bargain price at Circuit City for only $139.00 (Brand new in a sealed box) but even that bargain price was not enough for me to keep it when I compared images with my Olympus', and neither the new models from Olympus like the SP-510, and the SP-550 offered matching image quality either. Now I gave up on the idea of upgrading for now and decided to get a telephoto lens converter for my Olympus to increase the zoom from 10-17x. And who knows? I might be tempted to buy the soon in the market the Canon S5 IS if it has my cameras photo quality, although I think it's overly priced at $499. You can check out some of my amature photos at:
http://www.oilandgasinternational.co...slideshow.html

[susaan]

Thanks,you explained in part why my cameras' (Sony DSC H-9) images are soft,in part due to a small sensor ?
-perhaps also,using the zoom distorts the images ?
Thinking about buying the Canon rebel DSLR XTi,to improve image quality-but how to compensate for a HUGE zoom that I am habituated to..certainly the kit lens will not cut it !
Some serious studying to due,now....as getting ready for a long summer touring with the band I shoot for-if I know my bunch,they will rush me out at the last min. to buy a camera,lenses and monopod....
Suggestions ?
Bear in mind I'm a beginner,with small hands and often shoot one-handed,holding onto the stage scaffold.....:blush2:

[Photo-John]

How are you comparing image quality? No doubt, the sensors are small and digital SLRs have better image quality. However, in the past two years, I've been very impressed with the minimal noise and improved image quality even while pixel counts increase. The best example is the 12-megapixel Canon SD950 IS, which has 50% more pixels than its predecessor, the 8-megapixel SD850 IS. I tested both cameras and was amazed to discover that even while increasing the number of pixels by 50%, Canon had actually maintained the same noise levels as the the SD850 IS. And because the SD950 IS has so much more resolution, at the same print size, any noise is effectively minimized because the pixels are so much smaller. If you view files from both (and this goes for comparing any cameras) at 100% on the computer, the noise looks the same. But when you print or resize, the image quality of the SD950 IS is far superior. For this reason, I test and compare for real image quality with prints. Looking at images on the computer is useful. But it can be very misleading if you don't consider the real benefits of increased resolution.

A note about Panasonic - I am not a fan of Panasonic's in-camera processing. I think it looks pretty bad. See my review of the Panasonic Lumix FX35, which I think is spoiled by nasty image quality dues to over-processing. Canon's image processing is very nice. Their images are smooth and basically noise-free at low ISO settings. Same goes for Sony and Nikon. Panasonic makes very nice cameras with great features and performance. But as far as image quality goes, I think they have a lot of work to do.