someone make my mind up! (1 Viewer)

can someone help me decide to go for the coolpix 4500 or keep using my coolpix 800 i have attached a photo taken with the 800 coupled to a zeiss 85 t fl at 20x and full 2x zoom on the camera image auto adjusted and a bit of unsharp mask in photo shop would the same image taken with the 4500 be more sharp and more detail all advice recieved much appreciated.

regards.
scott robertson.
(cressi)

Hi Scott, bit hard to judge on this odd example....it's a whopping 681kb in file size but just 800x600 in physical size. Try using a 'save as' feature on your imaging programme so you can adjust jpeg compression to get the image to a sensible file size (150kb at most).

It's so long since I had a Cp800 that I can't remember what controls it had... not many if my memory serves me right. Very contrasty image, plenty of blown-out highlights. Looks to be plenty of detail though and you may not get a whole lot more sharpness with a cp4500...but there are plenty of other benefits of the cp4500.
Keep playing with it and keep us updated (with smaller photos please),
Regards,
Andy

sorry about the size of the file andy went back to edit it and now seem to have lost it altogether ill try again i thought i had it down to 800x800 dont know what i have done----y computers sorry not the computer but the opperator.

cressi

The physical size in pixels isn't the problem.. it's the file size in kb. What software are you using? does it have a 'save for web' feature, or when you use 'save as' do you get an option at some point o alter the jpeg compression rate?
Regards,
Andy

Here's a more compressed version of your shot (where did that ragged white border come from?)

andy i am using easy thumbnails as for the ragged white border i havent a clue but managed to get it down a bit further without the border sorry i did not include more info the distance was about 80 yds,camera on auto ,set to fine.the camera is a 2megpixel 2xzoom it has a manual setting also but have not tried it yet,also macro ,i will try your suggested settings and see how i get on.regards.
scott robertson.
(cressi)

What do you want to do with your photos? Do you want to make prints? If so, what size would make you happy? So much depends on what you want to do with the pictures.

Jay thanks for the reply,yes i would like to print some out maybe 10x7 my problem is this camera (coolpix 800) good enough, how much more detail would the 4mb 4500 produce compared to the 800, i understand the 4500 has more manual control i.e shutter priority, aperture priority and so on.
so if i had taken the same photo as the one i posted with the 4500 would it be more sharp and give more detail.if you were in my position what would you do.
regards.
scott robertson.
(cressi)

cressi said:

Jay thanks for the reply,yes i would like to print some out maybe 10x7 my problem is this camera (coolpix 800) good enough, how much more detail would the 4mb 4500 produce compared to the 800, i understand the 4500 has more manual control i.e shutter priority, aperture priority and so on.
so if i had taken the same photo as the one i posted with the 4500 would it be more sharp and give more detail.if you were in my position what would you do.
regards.

Click to expand...

Well, what I would do isn't necessarily what you should do. But I can tell you what I've done and why. I can also give you some idea of the potential advantage of a camera with more megapixels.

I like making prints. My "perfect" digiscoping camera would be very much like a CP5000, but with an 8MP sensor and a 4x lens. So I clearly lean toward having more pixels. But there are tradeoffs.

As the sensor becomes more capable or resolving detail, you can't use as much magnification or you have to get a proportionally larger scope. One thing your 2MP enjoys is that you can use a greater 35mm equivalence before you are overmagnifying for your sensor. Or put another way, you are more likely to get a sharp image with your 2Mp CP800 since it is less likely that you will be overmagnifying with it. In fact, assuming that you have a very good 80mm scope, you should be able to get decent pictures even if you are zooming out to 60x.

Now a shift to a CP4500 will increase your horizontal resolution by about 40%. So you should be able to enlarge an image 40% more than you can now and keep the same quality - if you don't overmagnify. But with the CP4500, you'll have to be disciplined and not use all of that 4x zoom and start cranking the scope magnification back to between 20x and 30x. You'll want your overall focal length equivalence to be closer to 3000mm rather than the 4500mm that you could get away with using the CP800.

I hope that give you some perspective to help you make the decision.

Jay,on reading this ,your last posting,I take it that one does not use the maximum zoom on the camera(4500).The less zoom one uses the clearer the picture.If one is using a 30 wide eyepiece,how does one "crank it".What you are saying is that the zoom from the camera should be compatible with the zoom from the eyepiece.How does one know when the settings match up?.I just go by what I see on the lcd and hope for the best.

christineredgate said:

Jay,on reading this ,your last posting,I take it that one does not use the maximum zoom on the camera(4500).The less zoom one uses the clearer the picture.

Click to expand...

Yes, as a general rule, if you use the lowest magnifications and closer approaches, you will get better image quality. Somewhere just past a 3000mm equivalent is the reasonble upper limit for the typical 80mm scope 4MP camera setup.

christineredgate said:

If one is using a 30 wide eyepiece,how does one "crank it".What you are saying is that the zoom from the camera should be compatible with the zoom from the eyepiece.How does one know when the settings match up?.I just go by what I see on the lcd and hope for the best.

Click to expand...

Right. ""Cranking i"t was a reference to the use of a zoom eyepiece.

The main point is how much overall magnification you can get away with. The smaller the sensor, the more equivalent focal length you can get away with before the image gets soft.

As for general digiscoping, its not so much a matter of matching up settings and not using too much magnification. It is usually easier to use rules of thumb for this. For instance, the advice to stay within yellow macro flower range keeps you from going to 4x on a CP4500/995. If you combine that with the typical advice to use 20x or 30x max on an 80mm scope, you end up with advice that limits you to about 3400mm in equivalent focal length and that tends to keep you at an even lower overall magnification.

Going by the LCD is not a good idea. The resolution is too limited to show the potential flaws. The LCD is primarily good for composition and camera settings.

thanks jay i think i will stick with the 800 for the moment and see how i get on i thought the 4500 resolve more detail than the 800 anyway the 4500 is discontinued so they must be bringing out a new model so i will wait and see.
regards.
scott robertson.
(cressi)

cressi said:

thanks jay i think i will stick with the 800 for the moment and see how i get on i thought the 4500 resolve more detail than the 800 anyway the 4500 is discontinued so they must be bringing out a new model so i will wait and see.
regards.

Click to expand...

Please re-read my post and make sure you understand the implications.

A CP4500 can record more detail with its 4Mp sensor. But given the same scope, you will have to be closer (using lower overall magnification) in order to get this greater detail and the same FOV.

So if you move in a bit and use less overall zoom, the CP4500 will yield more information that you can use in your prints. Since printing is one thing you would like to do, more megapixels should be useful - assuming you can get somewhat closer to the subject.