TSCC: lumix fx10 $129 and more cameras

not hot IMO, 6MP...i don't think anyone would buy a 6MP these days.. probably aim for at least 8MP (a decent brand).

significantly over priced compared to what is available elsewhere..


The Sony DSC-W80 should not even be near $189.99.. in fact it should be below $100.

considering the DSC-W150 8.1 mp can be had for $158 (staples with $20 coupon) and soon to be even less..

Once Sony fully puts in their 09' line up of cameras in stores

OOS based on the internet stock data base for the fx10

deeplove wrote: ↑not hot IMO, 6MP...i don't think anyone would buy a 6MP these days.. probably aim for at least 8MP (a decent brand).

The FX10 is actually an excellent compact camera. Solid, metal body; Leica lens; normal and widescreen photo and video modes, optical image stabilization, etc. 6MP gives you excellent photos without taking up excessive storage space like larger MP files do. More than enough resolution for 8x10 prints or HDTV viewing, that's for sure. I took this picture at its lowest 640x480 (0.3MP) resolution setting:

[IMG]http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/pict ... ctureid=54[/IMG]

That said, I got mine brand new for around $100. Less than TSCC are asking for a demo.

Tornado F2 wrote: ↑The FX10 is actually an excellent compact camera. Solid, metal body; Leica lens; normal and widescreen photo and video modes, optical image stabilization, etc. 6MP gives you excellent photos without taking up excessive storage space like larger MP files do. More than enough resolution for 8x10 prints or HDTV viewing, that's for sure. I took this picture at its lowest 640x480 (0.3MP) resolution setting:

[IMG]http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/pict ... ctureid=54[/IMG]

That said, I got mine brand new for around $100. Less than TSCC are asking for a demo.

would u mind showing us a picture in high quality, much appreciated

deeplove wrote: ↑not hot IMO, 6MP...i don't think anyone would buy a 6MP these days.. probably aim for at least 8MP (a decent brand).

It's funny how everyone is into the numbers game. I can't say for certain for all point-and-shoot cameras, but the general rule is more MP is more digital noise. Yup, you get more snow the higher your MP's go - so it begs the question, exactly how much better resolution are you getting for those couple of MP's?

I say go with the solid hardware. Find a camera with a great optical image stabilization - that means less blurriness and spoiled shots. Don't forget that Panasonic's take SD cards which are much cheaper than Memory Sticks.

yipyip wrote: ↑would u mind showing us a picture in high quality, much appreciated

check these out

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=fx10&w=all

deal_addict wrote: ↑but the general rule is more MP is more digital noise.

You can't be serious. Should we go back to the, eh, 0.3MP age?

The general rule is more MP means more details.

mtlRobot wrote: ↑You can't be serious. Should we go back to the, eh, 0.3MP age?

The general rule is more MP means more details.

He is right to a point. Many companies are falling for the numbers game because consumers frankly don't know better. Sensor sizes on some cameras remain the same, yet are crammed with more MP. Take the Canon S3 IS for example. It was a 6.x MP and the images were pretty nice and clean. The S5 came out and they upped the MP and the images were noisy as hell.

I was easily able to do 11x14 prints from my S3 and they looked beautiful.

NewsyL wrote: ↑check these out

http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=fx10&w=all

Those are some beautiful pictures. Thanks.

mtlRobot wrote: ↑ You can't be serious. Should we go back to the, eh, 0.3MP age?

The general rule is more MP means more details.

umm...no....actually....generally, the more MP the more digital noise. well, it would be more precise to say, the higher the pixel density, the greather the noise, but who is increasing sensor size anyway? (we always switch between the same 1/2.5" or 1/1.8" etc). There is no trend towards larger sensors, only higher densities. So, yes, much more digital noise.

That's not to say that a 1/2.5" 12MP will ALWAYS look worse than a 1/2.5" 6MP. I mean, if there is a difference of 3 years between the two sensors, then you could have some real technological improvements.....but if they are using the same technology, then a lower MP sensor would produce significantly higher quality photos. Without a doubt.

But I wouldn't go below 5MP, because then you could be losing a lot of detail you could get with a newer camera.

mtlRobot wrote: ↑You can't be serious. Should we go back to the, eh, 0.3MP age?

The general rule is more MP means more details.

Actually you are both correct.
In general, with good lighting, the digital noise would be at a minimum so higher the MP the better.
Thus, with good lighting the Canon G10 is amazing.

But once the light goes down digital noise increases and with more MP, that noise increases even more. The amount of noise depends on the size of the sensor and in compacts, that sensor is tiny compared to say DSLR's. And those tiny sensors in compacts can only handle up to about 7-8 MP before noise gets away from them.
Now this isn't to say camera's with high MP's such as the Canon G10 are bad as the G10 is a good camera. But once MP does go up that high, it has to rely on the engine behind it to reduce the noise with processing. Some of those engines are good (such as Canon's) while others are not so good. Panasonic has excellent engines for all cameras that came out in 2008ish. Before that, it's a hit and miss. Should read the reviews before deciding.

Hard to explain but high MP > noise does have merit as well as high MP > detail. It's just a game of compromise. And no...0.3MP is way too small...no digital noise but no detail as well

hightech wrote: ↑He is right to a point. Many companies are falling for the numbers game because consumers frankly don't know better. Sensor sizes on some cameras remain the same, yet are crammed with more MP. Take the Canon S3 IS for example. It was a 6.x MP and the images were pretty nice and clean. The S5 came out and they upped the MP and the images were noisy as hell.

I was easily able to do 11x14 prints from my S3 and they looked beautiful.

I understand him well, but he can't say that's the general rule. His claim is just as misleading or false as the "numbers game".

The blue one is only $99.98.

http://www.thesource.ca/estore/Product. ... ct=2514647

[IMG]http://www.thesource.ca/images/Online/25/2514647s.gif[/IMG]

pepperMonkey wrote: ↑And no...0.3MP is way too small...no digital noise but no detail as well

lol

mtlRobot wrote: ↑You can't be serious. Should we go back to the, eh, 0.3MP age?

The general rule is more MP means more details.

No, we should go back to 8Mp with at least 1/1.8" sensors.

Compare cameras at anything less than the base ISO. You'll soon see that MP is not a reliable predictor of the ACTUAL details from a scene that it can capture. Unless you are capturing real details instead of snow, having more MPs is just an exercise in large file storage with no payoff.

jh1 wrote: ↑Unless you are capturing real details instead of snow, having more MPs is just an exercise in large file storage with no payoff.

Lucky now we can buy 8gig SD cards for less than $20 =p

I have the Panasonic FX30 myself, and I'm pretty impressed. I think Panasonic haven't quite matched Canon's IQ, but the wide-angle lens is great.

Back on topic, this sounds like a ho-hum deal..

Faeton wrote: ↑Lucky now we can buy 8gig SD cards for less than $20 =p

I have the Panasonic FX30 myself, and I'm pretty impressed. I think Panasonic haven't quite matched Canon's IQ, but the wide-angle lens is great.

Back on topic, this sounds like a ho-hum deal..

My sister has the FX-10, bought from London Drugs last year (or 2??) ago, and I was impressed with the picture quality as she is not a photo expert at all, just point-and-shoot.

So, during XMAS, I shopped for the FX-30, and while comparing these side-by-side (just thru the display, which is maybe not a sound way to compare), I personally felt the Panasonic was better at taking low-light pics inside the store, than the others brands in the same price range (Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Canon). Again, this is just via comparing with what I saw in the camera's display, and the actual photo files on a computer may display differently. And yes, probably with more lighting any camera would do better, but be realistic, I won't have a separate flash to mount on these cameras to improve the lighting (and as someone also mentioned, better lighting means less noise for the higher MP models)

Anyway, $99 FX-10 is warm deal, so if I can find one, I'll probably pick one up for the kids (teens) to toss around during their travels.

hightech wrote: ↑Those are some beautiful pictures. Thanks.

With the possible exception of macro capabilities, those photos can be made by pretty much any camera. They also look to be post-processed.