# Which 7mp digital camera is the the best?



## sidcool (Dec 3, 2006)

which out of sony,canon & nikon is the best 7mp dig cam?


----------



## vijay_7287 (Dec 3, 2006)

nikon all the way


----------



## mohit (Dec 3, 2006)

y specifically 7mp ? y dont u post ur budget so we can help u buy a digicam accordingly ? 

megapixels are not the only thing that u should look for while buying a digicam.


----------



## NikhilVerma (Dec 4, 2006)

I wonder why didn't you include Kodak ... Because v705 dual lens camera is a great 7MP camera from Kodak .... Just read the reviews on the internet


----------



## sysfilez (Dec 4, 2006)

the more number of mega pixels the bigger the printouts.


----------



## mohit (Dec 4, 2006)

sysfilez said:
			
		

> the more number of mega pixels the bigger the printouts.



BIG deal.


----------



## Tech Geek (Dec 4, 2006)

I will go for Nikon.


----------



## sidcool (Dec 4, 2006)

well what i am looking for best in built memory,pic quality and economical price(according to features) my bugdet is from Rs. 20000 to 25000 .


----------



## sidcool (Dec 4, 2006)

well what i am looking for best in built memory,pic quality and economical price(according to features) my bugdet is from Rs. 20000 to 25000 .


----------



## NikhilVerma (Dec 4, 2006)

Well we seriously need more detail before one can give u any advice. MP of a camera do matter when u are going for larger print sizes. But if you are not interested in printing then there are other cameras which have lower MPs but have great features.


----------



## mohit (Dec 4, 2006)

20-25k ...hmm get the Sony DSCH2 or Canon S3IS ....real good cams.


----------



## ranjan2001 (Dec 4, 2006)

sysfilez said:
			
		

> the more number of mega pixels the bigger the printouts.


Very well created myth by those companies who want you to buy cameras every year.

Some time compare a 5MP cell phone camera with a 2 MP digicam with 1MP digi SLR & you will get to know if MP is what makes the print big or not.

Its the quality of pixels which matter not how many of them which matters.


----------



## mod-the-pc (Dec 4, 2006)

Sony DSC H5 would be a good deal I guess


----------



## NikhilVerma (Dec 4, 2006)

ranjan2001 said:
			
		

> Very well created myth by those companies who want you to buy cameras every year.
> 
> Some time compare a 5MP cell phone camera with a 2 MP digicam with 1MP digi SLR & you will get to know if MP is what makes the print big or not.
> 
> Its the quality of pixels which matter not how many of them which matters.



It is indeed ... But when are you are talking about the top of the line companies like Sony, Kodak, Canon and Nikon. I don't think a 2 MP camera of any brand will beat the 5MP camera of the same or the other brand. megapixels *DO* matter otherwise you would be taking pictures in 640x480 resolution rather than 3072*2304 it's only that if it's the range of +-1MP then the lower resolution cam might be better than the higher res. But if there is a difference of over 2 MP in between two cameras I don't think the lower res camera can claim to have better quality than the higher res camera. Also mind you that some cameras like Kodak digitally enhance the photos WHILE you shoot them, so that they appear better than other cams.


----------



## ranjan2001 (Dec 4, 2006)

> some cameras like Kodak digitally enhance the photos WHILE you shoot them


all cameras need to do that not only kodak, since the image is captured on CCD in single channel only, where as the output is required in 3 channel RGB.



> I don't think the lower res camera can claim to have better quality than the higher res camera


Since I own 4 of the canon cameras I can claim that, try to understand this objectively.

THe CCD size remains constant, 2 yaers ago it contained only 6MP, today it contains 8MP, next year it will contain 10 MP just wait n watch it will soon contain 100MP......................now when u increase the pixel without increasing the size of CCD you need to reduce the size of pixel, thats where the problem is.

Its like a child has 1 bar of chocolate, he is told 10 will be better....well he gets 10 pieces of the same chocolate, its the number game which people are attracted to & the companies are playing it.

No one bothers about the quality of pixels bcoz of ignorance. The sony camera boasting 10MP resolution is one classic example of this, I can beat the results any time with my oldest 4 mp OBSELETE camera from canon bought 6 yrs ago.
Reason is simple the pixel size in 4mp is bigger which helps better tonal range to be captured in low light conditions, whereas 10MP sony will bring NOISE 50% in the same low light conditions.

My point is simple dont make decisions to buy camera on MP count, its like how much ram does thsi computer have? does that question sound right? no................... bcoz 1GB of cheap ram vs 512mb of compatiable ram will out proform the higher 1GB ram.


----------



## NikhilVerma (Dec 5, 2006)

Perhaps you are right about CCD sizes. But can you provide some example of it ? I'm just curious ... Take same pictures from your different canon cameras and post them here.

And the enhancing thing you are saying is called conversion, I am talking about enhancing , changing the normal image. Like increasing the saturation of the images etc


----------



## ranjan2001 (Dec 5, 2006)

> And the enhancing thing you are saying is called conversion, I am talking about enhancing , changing the normal image. Like increasing the saturation of the images etc



All cameras record image in its native raw format & the image is captured in single channel, which is only dark & muddy black & white image, from this data the analog to digital convertor calulates the RGB value based on single channel (green) & has to make red & blue pixels, this is where all the enhancing R&B, tonal correction, saturation, sharpness etc is done as per the setting choosen in the camera & has to be done if you want jpeg images.

Cheaper camera dont allow you to save raw formats but they still capture in raw & raw files from any camera will out perform its own jpeg images. So its all about understanding pixels & its quality, if you do then you can easily do the same job with 6MP rather than a 10MP camera.

Will post some images when I am free, so you can see for yourself.


----------



## janitha (Dec 5, 2006)

@ranjan2001
Megapixel is not all but it matters much.
Processor is also very important.
CCD size is important. In case of full size (36mmx24mm) CCDs like in case of high end Digi SLR cameras like Canon EOS 1Ds it produces much better quality in addition to being able to use ordinary lenses without change in focal length. (Sorry, in case of Canon it is CMOS and not CCD)
Finally, not all sensors (CCDs) output in single channel as you said. The brand Sigma (reputed independent lens manufacturer) has (for the past few years) a sensor which outputs separate RGB. They call their CMOS sensor Foveon. In the case of their "SD9D" model the sensor is Foveon X3 CMOS (3.54 million pixels x 3)
See the link below
*www.dpreview.com/news/0202/02021102foveonx3tech.asp


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 5, 2006)

I recommend *Sony Cybershot DSCW70 7MP Digital Camera*

*Features:*

7.2 Megapixel Super HAD CCD 
Large 2.5"1 LCD Screen 
Simple Controls, Function Guide 
High Sensitivity Mode 
Carl Zeiss 3X Optical/2X Digital Zoom/6X Total Zoom 
Stamina Battery Power 
14X Smart Zoom Feature 
Capture Images In-Camera 
Memory Stick Duo Media


----------



## ranjan2001 (Dec 5, 2006)

> The brand Sigma (reputed independent lens manufacturer) has (for the past few years) a sensor which outputs separate RGB. They call their CMOS sensor Foveon.



hahha I indeed forgot that people buy this camera too & yes this does not record images in single channel, it does RGB composite developed by Faveon.

Some 6 years ago I had seen a demo of this sensor costing 16 lakhs & it never saw the light of the day, sigma is written off from the commercial market inspite of having technically advance sensor which proves a point that commercial viability of technology is quite important.


----------



## drgrudge (Dec 5, 2006)

*Where and what cam to buy?*

I'm planning to buy a Digicam. This Dubai Shopping festival is around the corner as well. Even in the GITEX promotions, I saw Nikon and Canon 6 MP models (I don't know the name of the models) for Dhs 1000 (~ Rs 12,000) with 1GB/512MB card and Epson Photo Printer. Sony 7/8 MP model was costing around Dhs 1,450 (~ Rs. 17,000 - 17,500). Are these cams cheap? We'll be getting similar type of offers during DSF as well. Can I go for them? 

Now my cousin is going to Chennai (via Dubai where he'll be waiting for over 5-6 hours for the Emirates conmnecting flight to Chennai). So I want to know if cams are cheap in USA, Dubai or in India? I've no idea abt the rates of various cams in India. 


I was also thinking that higher the MP, better the cam and the prints. This thread dispelled that myth.  

I don't care about the brand whether it's Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm or Kodak.. I want to buy a good cam with the picture stabilization thing, good quality in low lights as well and should last long. I'm ready to spend upto Dhs 1500 (~ Rs 18,500 / $425). 

Suggestions guys.... Also where to buy? In Chennai, New York or in Dubai?


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 5, 2006)

Sony, Nikon and Canon are all reputed brands. I like Sony for using 'Carl Zeiss' lens, unargueably the best in lens manufacturers. 

I recommend *Sony Cybershot DSC-W70 *

*img244.imageshack.us/img244/7602/dscnew5sb2.jpg

*img247.imageshack.us/img247/5361/dscnew6qp7.jpg

*Basic Features*

7.2-megapixel CCD. 
3x zoom lens (equivalent to a 38-114mm lens on a 35mm camera). 
Variable digital Smart Zoom (up to 14x at VGA resolution), or 2x Precision Digital zoom. 
Real-image optical viewfinder. 
*2.5-inch color LCD monitor. *
Automatic and Program exposure modes. 
Built-in flash with five modes and an intensity adjustment. 
*58MB internal memory. *
Sony Memory Stick Duo slot (no card included). 
*USB 2.0 computer connection. * for extremely fast transfers
Power from one rechargeable LiIon battery pack, charger included. 
Software for Mac and PC. 


*Special Features*

*High Sensitivity, Twilight, Twilight Portrait, Snow, Beach, Landscape, and Soft Snap modes. *
Movie recording mode (with sound). 
Multi-Burst slow motion mode (16 frames at up to 30 frames/second) and Burst continuous shooting mode. 
Email (VGA) modes. 
*Shutter speeds from 1/1,000 to 1/8 sec in Auto mode; 1/1,000 to one second in Program mode, and 1/1,000 to two seconds in Twilight mode. *Aperture range from f/2.8 to f/13, depending on zoom position. 
Creative Color Mode menu. 
Image Sharpness and Contrast adjustments. 
Self-timer for delayed shutter release. 
Macro (close-up) lens adjustment. 
Spot, Center-Weighted, and Multi-Metering modes. 
Adjustable AF area, two AF modes plus manual mode with five distance settings. 
Auto ISO setting or 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1,000 ISO equivalents. 
*White balance (color) adjustment with six options. *
DPOF (Digital Print Order Format) and PictBridge printing compatibility.

It's price in India is around Rs14500/-.  Your budget of Rs18500 is too high for a 7MP Camera! You can stick to 7MP camera unless untill you don't want to print a mega poster of the snap. I will assure you that even with this one you will shoot at 3MP mode. At 7MP mode, the each mage size may go upto 10MB! 

Regarding purchase, Dubai is a good option than US. If I was you, I would rather purchase in India considering its decent price.


----------



## janitha (Dec 5, 2006)

Quote
"I like Sony for using 'Carl Zeiss' lens, *unargueably the best* in lens manufacturers."

Carl Zeiss is good but have you heard of the Canon lenses of L, IS and USM series?


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 5, 2006)

janitha said:
			
		

> Quote
> "I like Sony for using 'Carl Zeiss' lens, *unargueably the best* in lens manufacturers."
> 
> Carl Zeiss is good but have you heard of the Canon lenses of L, IS and USM series?



Well, I would have never quoted that statement if I didn't know about the Canon's L series. Amoung these two Carl Zeiss scores more. Seeing is believing right? Here is the proof!

*www.16-9.net/lens_tests/1740.html
*www.16-9.net/ultrawides/


----------



## janitha (Dec 5, 2006)

@kiran.rkk
The answer is quite simple.
It is childish to compare quality of a zoom with that of fixed focal lens.


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 5, 2006)

Now I would say if your Canon 17-40mm produces such a horrible shot @21mm, better stay away from it! What is the need of such lens that specify range as 17-40mm? Good digital Camera's under only optical zoom will never produce such huge variations. They are manufactured to handle optical zoom in the specified focal length zone.  Fact is fact. Whether you take it or ignore it in a childish way is left to you.


----------



## janitha (Dec 5, 2006)

Any body who knows the basics of photography knows that the fixed focal length ones give better quality, the main reason being there are less no. of lens elements. Professionals prefer them.
Secondly vast majority of greatest photographers the world over prefer the L series ones and many hire it when they cant afford to buy.
Third, do you think a 17-40mm will perform equally at 17mm and 40mm?
(Sorry, we are deviating from the initial post.)


----------



## Tushar.bar (Dec 5, 2006)

i used canon s3is its good 4  20k ~25k  , 6mp, 12x Optical zoom, Rotatable LCD, Record video with streo sound 640x 480 @ 30 fps or 320x240 @ 60 fps
Direct movie botton and other exciting feature(google 4 it)


----------



## sidcool (Dec 5, 2006)

which one of sony,nikon,canon have more built in memory


----------



## janitha (Dec 5, 2006)

Each has various models with different specifications including built in memory. Further the built in memory is not that important, with memory prices so low nowadays.


----------



## sidcool (Dec 5, 2006)

is nikon a viable model for home use.


----------



## janitha (Dec 5, 2006)

Yes, Nikon also has good models suitable for home use.
For specifications and approximate prices in Indian Rs., visit-

www.jjmehta.com


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 5, 2006)

janitha said:
			
		

> Any body who knows the basics of photography knows that the fixed focal length ones give better quality, the main reason being there are less no. of lens elements. Professionals prefer them.
> Secondly vast majority of greatest photographers the world over prefer the L series ones and many hire it when they cant afford to buy.
> Third, do you think a 17-40mm will perform equally at 17mm and 40mm?
> (Sorry, we are deviating from the initial post.)



Digital Camera's have improved a lot. No. of lens elements? For obtaining a optical zoom of 3X, a manufacturer need not think so much. I wonder what made you think Optical zoom reduces clarity drastically! Certainly not to the extent of shots produced in the review. Go through some major photography reviews, then you will come to know which is better, L or Zeiss. 
It's very funny you say that a lens of 17-40mm focal length can't handle just 21mm! And now you want to clarify regarding 17 and 40 mm shots! How much difference does it make between 17 and 21mm? If this little difference produces such unfocused image, I believe it is not worth comparing with Zeiss lens.


----------



## sysfilez (Dec 6, 2006)

sidcool said:
			
		

> well what i am looking for best in built memory,pic quality and economical price(according to features) my bugdet is from Rs. 20000 to 25000 .


get ur self a canon S3IS, its a very good one.  well u can compare ur buy with other cameras @ www.dpreview.com its one of the best sites regarding digi cams.
pls do let us know wat u finally bought..


----------



## Ch@0s (Dec 6, 2006)

kiran.rkk said:
			
		

> Digital Camera's have improved a lot. No. of lens elements? For obtaining a optical zoom of 3X, a manufacturer need not think so much. I wonder what made you think Optical zoom reduces clarity drastically! Certainly not to the extent of shots produced in the review. Go through some major photography reviews, then you will come to know which is better, L or Zeiss.
> It's very funny you say that a lens of 17-40mm focal length can't handle just 21mm! And now you want to clarify regarding 17 and 40 mm shots! How much difference does it make between 17 and 21mm? If this little difference produces such unfocused image, I believe it is not worth comparing with Zeiss lens.



Looks like you have no clue what you are talking about. First of all any sort of zoom lens is a slower lens than a prime lens cos you need far larger number of lens elements to make a zoom compared to a prime. Since the prime can be optimized for a particular focal length, the construction is a lot simpler. I have 3 lenses on my EOS 350D... a canon USM 28-105 f/3.5-4.5, a Tokina 19mm-35mm f/3.5-4.5 and a canon 50mm f/1.8 prime. The 50mm is the best of the lot by a mile... and its also the cheapest. Both the zooms costed around 250$ whereas the 50mm costs just 90$. Why you ask? Since the easiest lens in the world to construct is a 50mm prime. Similarly, any other faster prime will beat a zoom. So the link you provided is completely dubious. If the dude compared a prime to prime, it'd be sensible. But comparing an F4 zoom to an F/2.5 prime is lame. Also those images aren't focussed either... if thats all he can do, he shud donate his 17-40mm F4L to me .

Secondly, don't compare lame digicam lenses with a canon L series. The latter are some of the best lenses you can get on this planet plain and simple. Carl Zeiss neither provides the range nor the quality of Canon L lenses overall. 

Thirdly, coming to the question of megapixel, it really doesn't matter. First look at the sensor size, the lens thats supplied in the digicam and the kind of images it produces, what is the low light performance like? The 3X or 5X or 100X optical zoom doesn't matter either cos a point and shoot will produce horrible images at those extreme zooms.

@janitha: Dude you were right in all but one counts... All canon DSLRs are CMOS not CCD.


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 6, 2006)

^^^
It seems you have no clue of what I am pointing to. You have totally mislead my quote in terms of cost. It is obvious that zoom lens is costlier than the prime ones. 

If you were aware of the current development in the cams, you should know that the zoom lens manufacturing have changed a lot. Days have gone when manufacturers used mechanical couplings in the lens. Due to this kinda mechanical mode, the zoom lens were producing drastic images compared to primes. Now-a-days manufactures use USM (ultrasonic focusing motor) that gives you high speed autofocusing and precise control of zoom. So there is not much difference in shots produced by these with primes. Now, when I say that don't start comparing shots produced at extreme limits say 50mm (for a 28-50mm USM lens) with that of 50mm prime. But I will assure you that at 28mm you will get a extremly clear shot. Even in the review, you could see not much variation. The shot was taken at 21mm, very well with in the limits of 17-40mm range. At this range you should expect a good shot. But it didn't. Canon USM lenses do have this problem. They won't produce crisp sharp pictures with the lens wide open. But it does produce outstanding center performance. So a good choice for crop camera's. In the review there is a possibility of out-of-focus. But do you think reviewer doesn't know manual focusing? Come on, since you own a Canon, you can't be biased to such a extent to call the review as dubious.


----------



## Ch@0s (Dec 6, 2006)

Its obvious from your ignorance that you've never used an SLR... USM has existed since early 90's and its not a new phenomenon. Also the zoom level is controlled by hand not by the motor. Its only focussing thats done by the motor. Simply put, a zoom is meant for convenience and between similarly priced zooms and primes, its an absolute no contest. Primes will absolutely walk all over zooms. About canons having issues wide open, all lenses are softer wide open compared to higher apertures. You make it sound as though its a canon only phenomenon. I do concede the fact that canons are not the best at the edges, however nothing beats them in center performance. Also the lens is not wide open, the camera's aperture is . 

Zeiss lenses are actually assembled by cosina... a maker with dubious quality control. There's a fair chance that you could get a lemon. True they do have some outstanding models but that does not mean every single Zeiss lens is good and you can't generalize it way down to a point and shoot sony. Its the same with all lens makers... they have a few crappy ones in their reportoire. The canon 18-55 that is bundled as the kit lens with the rebels is absolute rubbish. I'm not biased towards canon... the whole world says the L series is the best range of lenses overall other than this particular website. However it doesn't really matter cos neither me nor the thread creator can afford to own one so all this is meaningless rumblings.


----------



## ranjan2001 (Dec 6, 2006)

Poor guy he must be reading this & wondering Why did he ask that simple question.

Hey guys pixel matter for those who buy camera for pixels alone, to a photographer what matters is the image, surely its created of pixels but the image speaks ............................not the pixels.


----------



## janitha (Dec 6, 2006)

@Ch@os
I congratulate you for your patience in explaining things correctly to a person who persistently and adamantly continues with his evidently wrong arguments.
I was fed up and stopped.
BTW did you not see the following sentence in my post?
(Sorry, in case of Canon it is CMOS and not CCD)

Actually it was Canon who started using it in DSLRs at a time when CMOS was considered  a "cheap and low quality alternative to CCD with the only advantage of lower power consumption".


----------



## drgrudge (Dec 6, 2006)

Ahhh... this thread got hijacked....  

Any more suggestions to what I asked in the first post of this page...


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 6, 2006)

@Janita, 
Wrong arguements? Beware of using such words. Well people tend to use such words when they can't justify their statements. When did you support your statements? Any sort of justification made? Atleast I gave give links and did support my statements. I was taking it in a positive way and went on to discuss with you guys. This is a forum, a place for discussion, a place to prove. Everyone have their own views. I think Zeiss is best. You think Canon's L series is best. The choice is left to you. Some feel that the Zeiss is contrastier. Zeiss has high color saturation than Canon. So for some it may feel like Canon produces soft pictures than Zeiss. It is individual perception. All eyes don't see the same way. Janita, you need to grow up to learn to discuss than giving lame excuses like that. 
Enough is enough.. If someone feels discussion as 'wrong arguments', there is no point in discussing further.


----------



## janitha (Dec 7, 2006)

@kiran.rkk
just a few words
1.You can get any sort of link to website to support any of your lame arguements.
2.Try to find how many serious professionals prefer Carl Zeiss.
3.As pointed out by Cha@s,Zeiss gets some of their lenses manufactured by Cosina, a manufacturer well known for their cheap low quality independent lenses.
Quote
"Janita, you need to grow up to learn"
Yes , I am still trying to learn even after using SLRs and lenses for nearly three decades.


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 7, 2006)

^^^
Okkk.
When did you support your arguements? You were always telling Leica is best makers of lens on the planet. That's it. Now why should I believe it? Did you provide any evidence? Nope. And what is this all about Serious priofessionals? If you have seen some professionals using Canon's, that doesn't mean all are using the same. Go around photographic forums on net. The Leica and Carl Zeiss debate issue never shows sign of ending.

I need to address the Cosina issue which you guys raised. Get your facts right first. Cosina, a reputed Japan-based company manufactures lenses for Zeiss. Japan are really good in lens making. And if you question Japan's quality standards, well - I can't answer you that! Cosina also makes lens for one more giant - Nikon. It is marketed by Nikon as Zeiss Ikon- one of the best in the industry. Not only Nikon, they also makes lenses for other brands too. So according to your's and chaos facts, all these brands are in trash bin and Canon stands on top. Sorry guys, you are fully biased!  Didn't you ever know this in your 3 decades of photography? Bizzare! Sometimes just experience doesn't count. You need to be in touch with the latest happenings. Even though I am not havin experience in terms of decades, my 10 years avid photography and regular updates of happenings can say that.


----------



## ranjan2001 (Dec 7, 2006)

Chill out guys!



> Ahhh... this thread got hijacked....



Yes this is highly HIJACKED......................anyone know what's the demand of the highjackers where are they wanting to take this.

The typed text on these forums dont have the ability to convey the feelings , thus making a discussion sound like an  argument  I did not answer his question bcoz the question to me did not sound right, hence gave him a clue that pixel is not the only thing you should look for in the camera, surely lenses count, surely the maximum F/no. counts too so there are many other factors which needs to be counted. There is no simple answer to this one.


----------



## Ch@0s (Dec 7, 2006)

kiran.rkk said:
			
		

> ^^^
> Okkk.
> When did you support your arguements? You were always telling Leica is best makers of lens on the planet. That's it. Now why should I believe it? Did you provide any evidence? Nope. And what is this all about Serious priofessionals? If you have seen some professionals using Canon's, that doesn't mean all are using the same. Go around photographic forums on net. The Leica and Carl Zeiss debate issue never shows sign of ending.
> 
> I need to address the Cosina issue which you guys raised. Get your facts right first. Cosina, a reputed Japan-based company manufactures lenses for Zeiss. Japan are really good in lens making. And if you question Japan's quality standards, well - I can't answer you that! Cosina also makes lens for one more giant - Nikon. It is marketed by Nikon as Zeiss Ikon- one of the best in the industry. Not only Nikon, they also makes lenses for other brands too. So according to your's and chaos facts, all these brands are in trash bin and Canon stands on top. Sorry guys, you are fully biased!  Didn't you ever know this in your 3 decades of photography? Bizzare! Sometimes just experience doesn't count. You need to be in touch with the latest happenings. Even though I am not havin experience in terms of decades, my 10 years avid photography and regular updates of happenings can say that.



Cosina... reputed you gotta be kidding right? They mostly make bargain basement cheapo lenses mostly that are rebadged all over the place. Nikon makes its own top of the line lenses (the VR lenses) and doesn't depend on anyone. Maybe you should get ur facts straight. As I said before... Zeiss does not figure in the bags of most professionals simply cos they have very few good models and as usual cosina is a bit of a hit or miss.

Edit: It seems using Zeiss lenses on canons means using adapters which basically implies no autofocus... Enuf said .


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 7, 2006)

Ch@0s said:
			
		

> Cosina... reputed you gotta be kidding right? They mostly make bargain basement cheapo lenses mostly that are rebadged all over the place. Nikon makes its own top of the line lenses (the VR lenses) and doesn't depend on anyone. Maybe you should get ur facts straight. As I said before... Zeiss does not figure in the bags of most professionals simply cos they have very few good models and as usual cosina is a bit of a hit or miss.
> 
> Edit: It seems using Zeiss lenses on canons means using adapters which basically implies no autofocus... Enuf said .



Oh! Now I am confirmed that you know nothing about photography and its updates. 

Cosina is the successor to *Nikō (or "Nikoh")*, a company set up as a manufacturer of lenses in 1959. In 1966, it started to manufacture 35 mm compact cameras and 8 mm cine cameras, in 1968 it started a glassworks, and a year later started the manufacture of 35 mm film SLR cameras. Nikō changed its name to Cosina in 1973. (The first part of the name is a reference to the Koshi area within Nakano, where the founder came from; while the 'Na' represents Nakano.)

Although the name Cosina has previously appeared on compact and SLR cameras for 135 film, it is best known as a manufacturer of cameras and camera components for other brands. During the late 1970s, Cosina made a name for itself in 35 mm rangefinder cameras with a well-built, high quality fixed-lens camera using an aluminum body and a simple shutter-priority autoexposure system. *This rangefinder camera was adopted as the basic chassis for several excellent camera models, including the Konica S3, Minolta 7sII, Revue 400se, and Vivitar 35ES.*

Cosina is also well known for manufacturing 35 mm SLR cameras to the specifications of other manufacturers and distributors, such as the *Yashica FX-3 (1979), FX-3 Super, and Super 2000, the Nikon FM-10 and FE-10, the Olympus OM-2000, and various Vivitar models.* A Cosina design, the 1982 Cosina CX-2, was copied by the Russian optical firm LOMO as the popular Lomo LC-A.

In 1982 Cosina began to manufacture lenses in a variety of SLR manufacturers' lens mounts. In 1991 it started to produce glass molded aspheric lenses, and in 1996 plastic molded aspherical lenses. It began producing digital cameras in 1997.

At about this time, plans were started to produce a new 35 mm rangefinder camera, complete with wide and ultrawide lenses for the Leica screw mount, and also a basic camera -- similar to a rangefinder camera but without a rangefinder or viewfinder -- for mounting these. Having obtained the rights to the name Voigtländer from Ringfoto in Germany, Cosina introduced a Voigtländer 15 mm f/4.5 and 25 mm f/4 lens (neither of them rangefinder-coupled) and the Voigtländer Bessa L body in 1999. It quickly followed with a wider range of cameras (starting with the Bessa R, with viewfinder and rangefinder; and the Bessa T, with rangefinder but no viewfinder); and a set of lenses including the Heliar 12 mm f/5.6 lens, which on its introduction was the widest rectilinear lens ever marketed for still photography.

Cosina manufactures a Rollei-branded rangefinder camera, and is acknowledged to manufacture (and to have helped design) an Epson digital rangefinder camera as well. *Its manufacture of a new Zeiss Ikon Leica bayonet mount rangefinder camera and Zeiss lenses in Leica bayonet mount was announced in October 2004, and it is already (April 2006) producing these.*

*Cosina made again a jump into notoriety in the photography world by manufacturing for Zeiss their six new ZF lenses for Nikon mount. ZF is a new range of interchangeable lenses for Nikon SLR cameras, both analog and digital. ZF lenses bring the highly acclaimed Carl Zeiss image quality to the Nikon SLR camera system, which has been the preferred equipment of millions of professional and ambitious amateur photographers for decades.*

*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosina

*www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9?Open

I HOPE you understand every BIT from the above quote.

You seem to be in your 'own' world of dream photography.  Just lame statements. Absolute rubbish.


----------



## Ch@0s (Dec 7, 2006)

^^Duh... there's nothing over there in that article that refutes what I said... it makes camera bodies but makes sad lenses.... thats the truth. Try running cosina lens problems in google and you'll get a few million hits . Copy pasting from wiki without interpreting anything proves nothing and makes you look lamer than ever. I'm a newb to photography but u seem like someone who's no clue of what you are talking about. First things first... have you ever touched an SLR? I doubt it... just copy pasting from google will get you nowhere... get a life. Also for your info... I tested a 19-35mm cosina as well before i got my tokina 19-35 and needless to say it totally sucked. Major autofocus issues.


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 7, 2006)

^^^^
wht? again lame statements. Can't you read too? Hey man.... are you aware of what you are speaking? Huh! Rubbish and more rubbish. Do you know forum etiquettes? When one gives source links, it is for the credability of the post......FORGET IT. It seems you will never learn anything. 
Be in your OWN dream photography world. ALL THE BEST.


----------



## janitha (Dec 7, 2006)

Zeiss=Cosina=Leica=Rollie=Nikon=Konica=Minolta=Vivitar=Olympus=Voigtlander=Yashica=
More than enough. Is it not Ch@os?


----------



## ranjan2001 (Dec 7, 2006)

Guys please tell us "Which 7mp digital camera is the the best?"
Anyone arrived to any conclusion?


----------



## krazyfrog (Dec 7, 2006)

Actually i don't understand why anyone would need a 7 mpix camera, especially for home use. For home use a 4 mpix camera is more than enough, IMHO. 
Btw, speaking about lenses, i've read that NASA uses Carl Zeiss lenses in all their manned space missions.


----------



## ranjan2001 (Dec 7, 2006)

krazyfrog said:
			
		

> Actually i don't understand why anyone would need a 7 mpix camera, especially for home use. For home use a 4 mpix camera is more than enough,



Well someone buys camera for creating images others buy for  how many pixels it has......................there i s no reason why u need 7mp now, same month next year 2007 they would be talking 10MP & the story will remain continue.....................thats the way it is, marketing people have to sell it.


----------



## janitha (Dec 7, 2006)

Yes, lf it is for general purpose snapshots, to be printed on post card or maxi size, 3 or 4 MP will suffice but if the purpose is to send pictures for competitions where a minimum size of 8x10 is generally required, higher megapixels will be needed,  if you want to shoot wildlife maximum optical zoom will be useful, if it is sports fastest shutter speed and response time are essential, if you want to shoot in low light maximum aperture and higher ISO will be handy and so on and so on........


----------



## Kiran.dks (Dec 8, 2006)

krazyfrog said:
			
		

> Btw, speaking about lenses, i've read that NASA uses Carl Zeiss lenses in all their manned space missions.



Yes. The 50 mm Planar f/0.7 lens was created for NASA to take pictures of the dark side of the moon. It was also used for movie-making. NASA goes for Carl Zeiss! But..............!!!


----------



## drgrudge (Dec 8, 2006)

I went to Carrefour yesterday and checked the *Canon Powershot A 710 and A 800*. They're available for Dhs 1349 (rs 16.2k/$365) and Dhs 1499 (Rs 18k/$405) respectively inclusive of 512mb SD card whcih I get for "free". Price might reduce to 5% during the DSF. 

Sony cams just looks good, the quality in Canon models were actually good and they're coslty as well. Looks like I'll buy A 710 or 800 only. Are they worth buying at the cost that I mentioned?


----------



## F2006 (Dec 9, 2006)

which camera is the best means which is the best camera manufacturer right.
ok we all know sony but sorry to say not for digi cams.sony is known for hi-fi systems,the play stations,the walkmans,sony explod the car audio.and the sony wega.Nikkon is a strong manufacturer in the field of digi cams but due to limited service they are hard to repair if anything goes wrong.(i am not talking abt the metro cities but taking considiration of whole of india).so now we are left with Canon(delighting you always).when we say canon only one thing comes into mind the digi cams and camcorders.canon have made a significant research in bringing the digi cams into the market.they have got a experience of abt 70 years in the camera bussiness.apart from this my personal experience tells me that the canon is the best digi cam we can buy.any make or any model. i am saying this because i have used both the sony(DSC_W1) and canon(ixus 60).the picture clarity of canon is mind blowing.THE REST IS HISTORY
do not just say what others say.research and than say.

F2006

PEACE


----------



## sidcool (Dec 10, 2006)

my friends say that sony is not doin good in the dig cam business(is it true?)leaving canon & nikon .as our friend F2006 says nikon does not have a good consumer coverage.So is canon a good choice for me as i need good features in my dig cam.


----------



## 7Fred7 (Dec 19, 2007)

krazyfrog: "Actually i don't understand why anyone would need a 7 mpix camera, especially for home use."

I need one. I'm not interested in producing 2 metre posters, but I do like to play with the image, and I regularly crop to obtain either the parts of particular interest, or a better balance. A low mp camera doesn't provide much scope for that. 

Of course, megapixels aren't the only issue. Lens quality and CCD quality are equally important. Take a look at the Fujufilm FD series. The lens is good. The CCD is good for 6mp. But Fuji succumbed to market pressure. They changed from 6mp in the FinePix F31fd to 12mp in FinePix F50fd - using th same CCD. It was hardly worthwhile - too many pixels crammed onto the CCD result in overall quality loss, even with the higher resolution. Having said that, given suitably matching components, 12mp has terrific potential.

The whole problem is in the marketplace. People understand BIG megapixels, not the other issues, so that's what they go for. The manufacturers are obliged to either supply according to demand, or take a fall in their market share.


----------



## GeekyBoy (Dec 19, 2007)

You posted in a thread which was abandoned for more than a year !!!


----------



## ranjan2001 (Dec 19, 2007)

7Fred7 said:
			
		

> The manufacturers are obliged to either supply according to demand, or take a fall in their market share.



I wish the manufactures be obliged to our demands (they are simply not) Instaed they create their own hype about more & more megapixels not many manufacture create a hype about the size & quality of those pixels.

The long pending demand in digital photography has been give us 6-10 megapixel camera which is full frame & has 16 bit image depth with bigger size pixel & S/N ratio very low with iso range 50-6400 costing $2000-$3000........................................has any manufacture obliged yet ?????



			
				GeekyBoy said:
			
		

> You posted in a thread which was abandoned for more than a year !!!


Highjackers are still around the corner dont worry.


----------



## Ganeshkumar (Dec 20, 2007)

Missed last year... 

Any conclusion for last year discussion or arguement or fight..??


----------



## maverickrohan (Jan 7, 2008)

Why only Sony, Canon & Nikon!

I agree, most of their cameras are good but if you guys asked me which 7MP camera to buy today it has got to be without doubt the Fujifilm Finepix S700. I just bought one a couple of days back for $165. During Christmas it was for $125. Now it is for $189!!!

Anywaz, I will not write about it lot, you can see these links for more, currently it is the hottest digicam in the US with novice/serious/advanced photographers showing interest in it!!:

*www.digitalcamera-hq.com/digital-cameras/fuji-finepix-s700_reviews.html

*www.fujifilmusa.com/digitalcamera/...dbid=863590&urltype=overview&NavBarId=I863590

Just say this much ... It has an awesome lens, advanced features, easy to use, easy to upgrade the firmware, has lots of filters and lenses for it and I LOVE IT!!!


----------



## nvidia (Jan 7, 2008)

Sony is any time the best


----------



## max_demon (Jan 7, 2008)

Anyone Forgot cannon powershot A710 IS?


----------



## sysfilez (Jan 15, 2008)

y 7mpx go for more.


----------

