Resolved Photography - Your comments please.

I just bought a used Nikon Coolpix L28, a pocket digital camera boasting a 20-Meg picture. I made two very similar pictures, both with flash and otherwise same lighting and other conditions, one with the Nikon and another with my eleven-years-older Fuji FinePix S602z 3-Meg camera. I am sorely disappointed with the Nikon. I expected that since it is eleven years newer technology and makes a near seven-times larger picture that it would out-perform the old Fuji -- NOT SO -- not even close!

I thought there might be a user selectable ISO setting in the Nikon that may be set too high that might be causing this very poor quality; but, after over an hour of searching the two-hundred-page manual and Googling, I can't find one.

Comments are desired.

The Nikon 20-Meg on the left and the eleven-year-older-technology Fuji 3-Meg on the right -- see attached image.

Thanks for reading.

 

Alex, I would think that something is wrong with how the new Nikon is set and used. For instance, could it be possible that you are covering the auto-focus sensor with a finger (surely appears that focus is a major problem). Or, are you shooting at extremely close range and not setting the camera for "macro "?

Almost any digital will produce images that will display sharply on a computer monitor where the size is greatly limited. I would imagine that the high pixel count of the Nikon will only be a major factor it extreme blow-ups (say, 11x14, and up).

Funny thing about that link you posted for the Nikon...the sole reviewer is saying pretty much the same thing as you are---grainy results. Here's a real review (and it ain't pretty): http://tinyurl.com/oabz3lb. My bet is, that camera is nowhere as good as the one in your cell phone (which are getting very good.

 

I'm not a digital camera expert, but after trying out two different Canon point & shoot models, I find that the bigger the sensor size, the better the image quality, and point & shoot cameras generally have small sensors.

I don't really understand why camera makers are so obsessed with increasing megapixels (except for DSLRs or near DSLRs). Image quality has suffered for this, because an increase in megapixels can mean an increase in visible image defects if an inferior lens or small image sensor is used. Again, I’m not an expert in this field, but I did a lot of research as to why my two digital Canon models did not measure up in image quality compared to my Canon point & shoot 35mm film camera.

With that said, there were times when the digitals outclassed the film model in certain conditions – like in low light or close-ups. Small-sensor cameras also perform well in bright light conditions too, but I guess that would be true of most any camera.

I use sources like Amazon user reviews for starting points. Maybe someone there has experienced your problem and found a way to compensate for it.

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-COOLPIX-Digital-Camera-Black/dp/B00B7N9COY/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

 

Nope, not covering any sensors.

It isn't close range. These example pictures are actually a seven-inch-wide section of a ten-foot-wide wall. Macro is disabled.

As for other settings, I have chosen highest quality and pixel count; but, I cannot find a user-selectable ISO.

I guess I'm just shocked that an eleven-year-older camera out-performs tremendously. I really did expect that for a given small size display, the Nikon would be about the same and even better at larger displays -- huge disappointment.

 

In my research, that's the same consensus that many other digital camera users came to.

Camera makers need bigger sensors in their point & shoot models.

Sensor size, not megapixels, is what matters​

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography​

 

I also have a Nikon P510 which cost a whole lot more than the L28 and its results are about the same as the L28. They both sport a 2/2.3 CCD. I'm beginning to feel I ******* myself by buying the P510.

I was ignorant at the time. I wish I could have learned this before I bought it.

Se the attachment of the P510 photo.

 

Yes, I understand that; but, for comparison purposes, the represented quality differentials are accurate for the purpose of this discussion. The originals expanded in my NeoPaint program and in PhotoShop essentials show the same quality differences.

I'll differ a little with you on that. Yes, the lens is very important; but, the CCD is just as important.

High quality lens, poor CCD = poor quality picture
High quality CCD, poor lens = poor quality picture

James Martin's posts about CCD size triggered my researching that subject and I gained some very useful knowledge that I had no clue about until now -- how important CCD size (as well as other CCD quality factors) affect picture quality.

It seems marketers have bombarded us with megapixels-megapixels-megapixels and the public, including me, have gulped it without question. Now I'm learning what I have gulped is totally unbalanced.

It reminds me of a job I'm working on right now. I'm insulating a house that was built in the 1960's when they did them (in the south) without insulation. I go to the store and see 3.5-inch thick R13. A novice might think if you cram two layers of R13 into that same 3.5-inch-thick wall that you would get higher R value; but, in actuality, cramming insulation tightly into that wall actually reduces R value because it increases its heat/cold conductance because of the tight packing.

(R value is a measurement of resistance to conductance of heat or cold, the higher the number the better).

The way I see it, cramming too many RGB sensors together on a CCD chip without enough separation between them actually can cause overlap from one RGB sensor to another which can cause a blur effect. And that seems to be what camera manufacturers have done in their quest to win a megapixel marketing race at the expense of picture quality.

Maybe some of what I've written here isn't spot-on; but, I think I'm on the right track. From now on I'll be looking at CCD size as being as important as pixel count, and maybe even more important.

I thank everyone for their comments and I'm gonna' mark this thread solved.