Latest Photography Forum Topics:

  • Another question for photographers. what about this photo? (12 posts)
  • Question for photographers. is this photo ok? (13 posts)
  • Help (1 post)
  • Help (1 post)
  • Look at my photo's and tell me what you think?? (26 posts)
  • SLR Camera question? (5 posts)
  • How do you pronounce the name Ansel? Which part is accented? ANsel or anSEL? (6 posts)
  • Where can you get the best prices for digital cameras? (3 posts)
  • Nikon D40 or Canon 20D? (4 posts)
  • Affordable Digicam with manual focus? (2 posts)
  • Is 'Photography' or the 'Camera' section a better place to ask photography related questions? (9 posts)
  • Photography Jobs Online - Which Online Photography Jobs Work For Beginners? (3 posts)
  • Does this picture look normal? (9 posts)
  • Where can I buy a calendar kit? (4 posts)
  • What is the difference between a SanDisk Ultra II compact flash memory card and a Sandisk Extreme II memory? (3 posts)
  •  
    Author Message

    LostIsland

    Members


    Online status

    139 posts

    Location: Cocos Islands
    Occupation: Miller
    Age:

    #78358   2008-05-19 15:50 GMT      
    Why not just "optical zoom" in point and shoots or is it just a useless selling point?

    ScareyTree

    Members


    Online status

    141 posts

    Location: Lithuania
    Occupation: Radiographer
    Age:

    #78359   2008-05-19 15:58 GMT      
    Good question ... it is a marketing tool as is the pixel count and video feature in P&S cameras.

    I think they are all here to stay. Even the elimination of the viewfinder and forcing the user to use the LCD at arm's length ... increasing the chance of camera movement.

    Cat

    Members


    Online status

    143 posts

    Location: Chile
    Occupation: Transit planner
    Age:

    #78360   2008-05-19 16:10 GMT      
    Marketing gimmick. One manufacturer had to do it so they all got into it.

    The function is evil. It ruins pictures.

    BadIan

    Members


    Online status

    147 posts

    Location: Netherlands
    Occupation: Smith
    Age:

    #78361   2008-05-19 16:12 GMT      
    For some, the quality of the image is less important than, simply, capturing the image. So, if some user zooms in to catch a close up of the monkey at the zoo, he's happy just to have a four by six inch print so show friends.

    The such a user, digital zoom is NOT useless, but a pretty handy tool. Remember, three megs is plenty to make a decent four by six print, so, someone with a five megapixel camera can use digital zoom to good effect and STILL get decent small prints.

    BlastTheHeadphones

    Members


    Online status

    154 posts

    Location: Suriname
    Occupation: Bookkeeper
    Age:

    #78362   2008-05-19 16:21 GMT      
    Well, digital zoom is mostly useless but not completely. Remember if you have a point and shoot, you can't switch lenses so any extra zoom may be useful. Picture this, you own one of those superzoom cameras. For some reason the 15 or 18 or 20 or whatever optical zoom isn't quite enough for you. The manufacturer crammed pixels into the picture, so you have a ridiculously large final image. If you use say 4X digital zoom, you add an appreciaple zoom to your image and you still get a rather large print for the average home user. Ofcourse this only works if you were canny enough to choose a point and shoot with loads of megapixels but with reasonably good optics and image processing, otherwise the digital zoom will make a very big mess of the image (well really just make the mess more visible).

    Fly

    Members


    Online status

    108 posts

    Location: Saint Vincent
    Occupation: Auditor
    Age:

    #78363   2008-05-19 17:05 GMT      
    A contact of mine used the digital zoom feature to frame the shot and force the camera to focus on a specific distant object rather than an object in the foreground on the same path. Whilst the resulting image is no better quality than the same photo taken with out digital zoom and cropped to the same "frame" it does get the desired object as sharp as possible with the equipment at hand.

    Cutefrog

    Members


    Online status

    144 posts

    Location: Colombia
    Occupation: Janitor
    Age:

    #78364   2008-05-19 18:51 GMT      
    must be a marketing ploy, because after i tried it once, i decided only an idiot would use it on an 8 mp camera...now a 20mp might (operative word is might) be different.

    FeeltheForce

    Members


    Online status

    159 posts

    Location: Niger
    Occupation: Referee
    Age:

    #78365   2008-05-19 19:31 GMT      
    I completely agree with most of what's been said above.

    It's a gimmick. It's crap. It's terrible ... etc. And I tell my students this all the time. Digital Zoom is EVIL!!!

    And then, one morning I awake, look through the bedroom window into my backyard, check out the bird feeders ... and notice that there's this crazy squirrel - I've named him/her Herky - lurking on the porch roof of my studio, watching the birds at the feeder and waiting for his chance to pounce.

    I've never seen a squirrel sprawled out on its belly before.

    So, of course, I fire up the trusty little Canon S3is mounted on a very sturdy Manfrotto tripod that's standing next to the window (What? Doesn't EVERYONE always have a camera setup on a tripod somewhere in their house?)

    The S3 already has a 12X optical Zoom. But, just this once I want to get in so close that I can see the expression on Herky's face.

    Jump into the Menu, activate the evil Digital Zoom, and away we go!

    Check it out here:
    http://flickr.com/photos/grimitz/2503727480/

    Yes! Of course, you can see the digital noise. And it's not something I would ever try to market.

    This one was shot at 48X, for Pete's Sake!!!

    But ... oh well ... there I go ... violating yet one more rule of good photography from among the thousands I've accumulated over the past 40 years of photography.
    > 1 <