The macro shot in the camera tests is very good at determining which ones do the best at very close range. Resolution tests at full zoom are important, but do not give any relative comparison of zoom range. I propose a test to determine the telephoto capabilities. A shot of the macro setup with the dollar bill and coins at a distance of five feet would show how well each camera would do for long distance shots. Or a billboard at 100 yards. While I have not seen tests here of the Sony FD91 (14x) and D700 (5x) here, you will probably do a report on the Casio QV-8000SX which has 8x optical zoom. For cameras with less zoom range, it would be interesting to see the difference between a 28-70mm and a 38-115mm zoom at long range as well as macro. I think telephoto capability is at least as important as macro, and hope to see it included in the tests.

Dan Morris

-- Dan Morris (dmorris512@aol.com), August 14, 1999

Answers

This is an excellent suggestion - What might work well would be a double shot of the "Far Field" test outdoor shot, one with the lens at maximum wide-angle, one at maximum telephoto. - We'd need to put something with strong, *repeatable* detail in the frame, so people could compare resolution meaningfully.

On the macro shots, we always try to shoot whatever the minimum area (maximum magnification) is that the camera's capable of. Sometimes, this is at maximum telephoto, but other times, it's at the wide-angle end of the lens' range!

Relative to the other comments in this thread, FWIW, we do try to hit all the various aspects of a camera's use. I certainly don't think that we've been guilty of "megapixelitis" (my term), in that we've consistently covered a wide range of camera resolutions, and even went to the extent that we published a piece on the site suggesting that people really look at what difference the camera resolution *really* makes for the pictures they'll be taking. (See http://www.imaging- resource.com/ARTS/HOWBIG/HOWBIG.HTM)

The reviews have evolved a LOT from the first ones we did, in response to reader input. We're grateful for everyone who's taken time to write with suggestions, and implement as many as are feasible!

-- Dave Etchells (web@imaging-resource.com), August 22, 1999.

I think this is a good idea and would be a valuable addition to the camera evaluations..

-- Chip Harding (buflerchip@sisna.com), August 15, 1999.

Dan,

That is a darned good idea, but we may have a long time to see it happen because it gores to many favorite oxen. Virtually all reviewers place the most emphasis on the number of pixels a digicam has almost to the exclusion of everything else. With most of these guys, plus a great many digicam owners, if the camera doesnt have a lot of pixels, its other features, no matter how technologically advanced and useful, are of little concern. Moreover, they never want to talk about pixels in the final image when the camera zoom is utilized over its useful range. That is, they will go on at great length about one cameras superiority over another at full wide angle, but never mention how they compare when the subject is a significant distance from the camera and thus requires use of a zoom. A good example is the reviews of the Nikon 950 versus a digicam such as the Sony FD91. The FD91 has only about 850K of pixels versus the Nikons 2-megapixel-image sensor (made by Sony, by the way). For portraits or close-up photos, the Nikon has the definite advantage in providing a sharper image (although not as much visible difference as its adherents would have you believe). However, as you go into zoom mode, this advantage rapidly disappears. If the subject is rather far way, such as a bird high in a tree, and a photo is taken with the FD91 at 14X and the Nikon at 3X, and the Nikon image is enlarged digitally in the computer so as to equal the size of the FD91 image, the FD91 image will have more than 8 times as many pixels as the final Nikon image! For many photographers, the day-to-day magnification advantage of the FD91 will be far more important than the wide-angle pixel advantage of the Nikonbut you would never guess this by reading the reviews of the various self-appointed experts. Further, FD91 features such as image stabilization which allows sharp, hand-held photos at full 14X (the Nikon at 3X requires a tripod); video and sound capability; use of floppies; long-life lithium video-cam battery; and many other useful features are glossed over as being of no importance when compared to the megapixels of such-and-such digicam.

With such an unrealistic and biased view among reviewers, it is unlikely that they will want to adopt a whole-camera evaluation process which places proper weight on all useful digicam features. Such an evaluation would result in high ratings for non-politically correct digicams that are currently looked down upon by digicam dilettantes and would thus burst their superior to thou baloon and tumble them from their Mount Olympus perchessomething they dearly wish to avoid.

Rodger

-- Rodger Carter (rodger.carter@wpafb.af.mil), August 16, 1999.

Clear there are some good points here. I too believe the "average" pixel power of the FD-91 is not what the camera should be judged on. The features and the zoom are clearly a very significant capability that the put the camera in my bag - even though I have always bought Nikon gear for my 35mm. Now - that being said - imagine if Sony put a 2 megapixel CCD in the FD-91, and put their 120 megabyte disk on it instead of the lame 1.4 meg floppy (the size difference is negligable when you look at the shear bulk of the FD-91 anyway). For heavens sake - I can't imagine this (Imaginary) new camera not dominating the market so much that other companies would be driven to their knees - oh yeah - THAT's the reason - Sony want's to sell CHIPS, not cameras! Darn...
Des

-- Dan Desjardins (dan.desjardins@avstarnews.com), August 17, 1999.