It's still seems a bit silly to be shooting
8
megapixel shots out of such a compact camera, but we're not going to stand in your way, and neither will HP with
their flagship compact offering, the
Photosmart
R927. Besides the 8 megapixel CCD, the camera has a 3-inch LCD, along with HP specific software enhancements to
help you get the most out of those 8 million pixels. The reviewer found the image quality solid, with "controlled
noise" at ISO 400, good low light focusing, and HP's adaptive lighting functionality, though there were purple
fringing problems that are evident when making large prints. The interface is easy enough for a grandparent to use,
along with being easy to see on the 3-inch LCD. HP's image undelete, in-camera panorama stitching, and automatic red
eye reduction software enhancements were all easy to use and fairly functional. After a brisk startup, the camera is a
bit sluggish shot to shot, which is worsened by the red eye processing, but if you can deal with that, and the lack of
an optical viewfinder or optical image stabilization, you might find this to be a pretty good cam for the roughly $400
price.
posted Apr 18th 2006 8:30PM
FIRST POST SUCKAZ
Second Post!!
3rd post!
I don't think it's THAT silly to have 8mp from a compact camera...it probably helps with the "controlled noise" and creating large prints...although I don't know much about the purple fringing, unless you mean in relation to banding?
There is no such thing as "too much", even when talking about megapixels in compact cameras. The more u have, the more u can do with your photos. Cropping in digital photos is only possible thanx to the spare megapixels!!!
I think "too much" refers to more pixels on the CCD than the little optics on this camera can deliver a sharp image to. At some point with any given lens (not to mention camera stabilization and shutter speed), extra pixels stop making a difference.
"Today in Engadget:" serves no purpose.
I'm posting here because "Today in Engadget" summaries don't allow comments.
Other blogs recapping the day's post-- it makes no sense, since readers can (and do) just scroll down.
#7 you're wrong. HPs take pretty damned good pictures. They may not be the best cameras but they're out of camera quality is good for the money and everyday use.
You can argue that other cameras take better pictures but that's a very different statement.
This has been mentioned before, but more megapixels on easy to use cameras like this is a good thing. Not all of us are pros, and with more megapixels comes more give if you're a novice. With something like this you can take a bad shot and crop it into something useable and still get a nice clear print out of it. My 2 cents...
Plantronics 645, I have an HP cam (R707) and it takes really nice pics. Check out reviews of other HP cams too. Maybe you're thinking of some of the really old low end ones. They also give you a lot of 'bang for your buck' as Americans would say.
" I'm sorry to say that HP cameras historically do not take very good digital pictures."
I do not know what does it mean? But many people around the world are using HP cameras and if they are not satisfied with their pictures then HP cameras should have gone out of business long time ago and would become a historical matter.
Someone please kill the post whores.
I think the concept of "too many" megapixels is relative; too many for whom? For Uncle Joe who takes pics of the kids on the weekends, or who simply shoots some pics of an item to put on Ebay, yeah, 8 megapixels is just too many; those images will have to be sized down anyway for the web. I've shot gorgeous images of my kids with a 2.5 megapixel Olympus and made 8 x 10 prints on an Epson photo printer, and they look better than anything I ever shot on a 35mm. For a more demanding shooter, 8 megapixels is far more useful when image quality is demanded. However, this camera is NOT for a demanding shooter. As for file size, I shoot weddings on a 6 megapixel SLR, and I can tell you that I'm feeling the crunch of larger and larger file sizes, and I'm not even shooting in RAW format. Having to have more and more 1 and 2 gig memory cards to hold all my wedding shots, having to have more and more hard drive space to hold my client's images, and more and more computer processing speed to crunch all that data really starts to eat into your profits, but gosh, you gotta have the quality. And, all that processing eats into your personal time as well.
Now, as for the purple fringing, this is something that happens with cheap optics. There are no Carl Zeiss or Leica lens elements in this camera. You get what you pay for.
So, a novice buys this thing, and winds up with huge images to download, and doesn't understand the first thing about sizing the image for printing or e-mailing. Do little point and shoots like this need 8 megapixels? No. Does a semi-pro or pro SLR need 8 megapixels? Definitely. 8 megapixels in a camera like this is like having an Escort with 18" rims and low profile tires. Unnecessary.
I totally agree with #14. I consider myself a little bit above novice and have an older Sony Cyber-Shot 5mp and hardly ever use the 5mp setting unless I'm doing a design project, like a poster, that requres large, print quality shots. Otherwise I'm shooting at 1.2 MP, and still resizing (VGA is a little too small) shots to post on the web and 3.1 MP shots for printing 4x6 pics. All too often we get tricked into thinking bigger is better, and I betcha the people who will be drawn to buying this haven't even thought about the cost of the 1 and 2GB memory cards they are going to have to buy to ensure the camera's functionality. Also, this article says nothing about the camera's efficiency on battery power and it's optical and digital zoom, two serious considerations for me when I am digicam hunting. At $400, which is no flash in the pan, you're just paying for an 8mp setting that you'll probably never have a reason to use. You can find a lovely 5MP model and still have some change left over for the memory cards and batteries at that price.
I think some of you miss that the lens optics limit detail! For the sake of argument, mediocre optics don't deliver enough detail to make ANY difference between 6 and 8 megapixel CCD images. Without a good lens, you might as while just upsample a 6 megapixel image in Photoshop. I'm not saying the HP optics are mediocre, but the idea that more pixels will ALWAYS deliver more detail (allow for more cropping) is not correct. The lens limits detail delivered to the CCD!
All I can say is "slimming" feature!! Take pictures of your fat friends and they look skinny-- that's technology!!
This is that same camera that's supposed to make you look 10 pounds thinner. Does anyone know if it works?
Just picked this camera up last Friday from BB, to replace my Canon S500 that's been pissing me off. I've taken about 50 shots so far, and this camera is a dream. Really.
The interface looks like it's based on Flash Lite, or something equivalent. May not have all the bells and whistles, but the big resolution, really big display coupled with easy to use and engaging UI, and nice brushed alum frame are a compelling package for $400.
The reviews mention the 'light fill' feature that lightens dark areas in shots. I found this to add too much digital noise to shots. Other than that, this is a very usable package. Beats the pants off the Canon digicams I've been using for 5+ years.
j
HP's new "slimming" feature is in the new design gallery that is in this camera and a few others. It works by slightly slimming the picture. I've seen it work and it does a good job. You can adjust how much you want the slimming to take affect too.