Casio 12 meg any good?

I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the
results.
It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera.
I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP,
interpolated to 12 mp.

Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has
a 3 meg file in file manager.

The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not
pixels
And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels.

I have a background in film photography, and would really like a point
and shoot that will take good pictures.

I know this is probably a roaring debate somewhere in this group, but
I couldn't find it.
Anyway my question is: if I buy the new Casio 12 meg camera, I'm
guessing my file size will be about 4 megs. Will the overall look of
the photograph improve or am I looking at the results of 2 different
types of digital cameras? I just assumed size mattered.
Thanks,
Ron

ronnienospamholland@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the
> results.
> It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera.
> I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP,
> interpolated to 12 mp.
>
> Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has
> a 3 meg file in file manager.
>
> The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not
> pixels
> And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels.
>
> I have a background in film photography, and would really like a point
> and shoot that will take good pictures.
>
> I know this is probably a roaring debate somewhere in this group, but
> I couldn't find it.
> Anyway my question is: if I buy the new Casio 12 meg camera, I'm
> guessing my file size will be about 4 megs. Will the overall look of
> the photograph improve or am I looking at the results of 2 different
> types of digital cameras? I just assumed size mattered.
> Thanks,
> Ron
>

8 mp is more than adequate and you are not going to see any improvement
by going to 12 mp. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'true' 6mb file.
I assume you are talking about jpeg so the size of the file will be a
function of pixel count and compression.
Review the settings on your Casio to verify you're shooting to it's best
capability.
Dave Cohen

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:10:45 GMT, Dave Cohen <user@example.net> wrote:

>ronnienospamholland@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>> I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the
>> results.
>> It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera.
>> I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP,
>> interpolated to 12 mp.
>>
>> Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has
>> a 3 meg file in file manager.
>>
>> The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not
>> pixels
>> And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels.
>>
>> I have a background in film photography, and would really like a point
>> and shoot that will take good pictures.
>>
>> I know this is probably a roaring debate somewhere in this group, but
>> I couldn't find it.
>> Anyway my question is: if I buy the new Casio 12 meg camera, I'm
>> guessing my file size will be about 4 megs. Will the overall look of
>> the photograph improve or am I looking at the results of 2 different
>> types of digital cameras? I just assumed size mattered.
>> Thanks,
>> Ron
>>
>
>8 mp is more than adequate and you are not going to see any improvement
>by going to 12 mp. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'true' 6mb file.
>I assume you are talking about jpeg so the size of the file will be a
>function of pixel count and compression.
>Review the settings on your Casio to verify you're shooting to it's best
>capability.
>Dave Cohen

When filing the images on my computer, I select 'detail' and the
size of the file is shown. With the Fuji it's 6+ megs. With the Casio
it's 3 megs.
So, I'm assuming the fuji is packing more info in the picture than the
Casio. The Casio shoots in focus, but the skin tones are hard.
Also, I am recording the highest quality possible on the Casio.
ThanksRon

For someone with "a background in photography" you got lots to learn.
Plain and simple the Fuji is a more capable camera and should deliver better
images regardless of sensor pixel count.
The Casio line you have is made up of very good pocket size cameras. They
all perform about the same regardless of sensor megapixel count. The
physical size of these things and the constraints that places on optics are
significant limiting factors, among others.
You seem confused about in-camera jpeg processing which has two parts: image
processing and file size compression.
Read and learn.
The instruction manual of your Casio is a good starting point . . .

On Tue, 4 Sep 2007 22:15:09 -0700, "flambe" <fac187@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>For someone with "a background in photography" you got lots to learn.
>Plain and simple the Fuji is a more capable camera and should deliver better
>images regardless of sensor pixel count.
>The Casio line you have is made up of very good pocket size cameras. They
>all perform about the same regardless of sensor megapixel count. The
>physical size of these things and the constraints that places on optics are
>significant limiting factors, among others.
>You seem confused about in-camera jpeg processing which has two parts: image
>processing and file size compression.
>Read and learn.
>The instruction manual of your Casio is a good starting point . . .
>
>
I've digested the Casio manual and a Sony manual before my first post.
Buy your reply pretty much explains it all. Thanks.
You are right.. don't know much about the digital revolution that has
almost wiped out the mom and pop professional photography businesses.
My background is strictly in film cameras. I photographed weddings,
portraits and events with medium format camera's , and rarely used
35mm. But when using 35mm, a decent compact camera was just as
capable as a SLR if you stayed withing the parameters that the camera
would allow.
In error, I assumed the same thing about the Fugi and the Casio. But
you say I'm wrong in that assumption.... and I believe you.
I had a Casio 2 meg camera that worked fine.... the Casio 8 meg camera
does a much better job.... and I thought maybe the 12 meg would again,
do an even better job.
I'm not factoring in jpeg compression... just the simple physics that
are obvious to me... an old film guy
Also, my quest for quality in a smaller camera was prompted by my
buying my daughter a 7 meg Sony, that has much smoother and better
skin tones than the 8 meg Casio. Since I'm an old 'manual'
photographer, I like the control the Casio offers that the Sony
doesn't offer.
Again, thanks for your response.

<ronnienospamholland@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:46dda91e.502997687@news.houston.sbcglobal.net ...
>I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the
> results.
> It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera.
> I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP,
> interpolated to 12 mp.
>
> Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has
> a 3 meg file in file manager.
>
> The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not
> pixels
> And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels.

Nothing to do with file size or megapixels. Your problem sounds like the
images have too much sharpening for your tastes and you want a softer look.
If the camera will not let you adjust you could always do some softening in
post-processing.

<ronnienospamholland@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:46ddbddf.508250109@news.houston.sbcglobal.net ...
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:10:45 GMT, Dave Cohen <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>>ronnienospamholland@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>> I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the
>>> results.
>>> It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera.
>>> I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP,
>>> interpolated to 12 mp.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has
>>> a 3 meg file in file manager.
>>>
>>> The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not
>>> pixels
>>> And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels.
>>>
>>> I have a background in film photography, and would really like a point
>>> and shoot that will take good pictures.
>>>
>>> I know this is probably a roaring debate somewhere in this group, but
>>> I couldn't find it.
>>> Anyway my question is: if I buy the new Casio 12 meg camera, I'm
>>> guessing my file size will be about 4 megs. Will the overall look of
>>> the photograph improve or am I looking at the results of 2 different
>>> types of digital cameras? I just assumed size mattered.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ron
>>>
>>
>>8 mp is more than adequate and you are not going to see any improvement
>>by going to 12 mp. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'true' 6mb file.
>>I assume you are talking about jpeg so the size of the file will be a
>>function of pixel count and compression.
>>Review the settings on your Casio to verify you're shooting to it's best
>>capability.
>>Dave Cohen
>
> When filing the images on my computer, I select 'detail' and the
> size of the file is shown. With the Fuji it's 6+ megs. With the Casio
> it's 3 megs.
> So, I'm assuming the fuji is packing more info in the picture than the
> Casio. The Casio shoots in focus, but the skin tones are hard.
> Also, I am recording the highest quality possible on the Casio.
> ThanksRon

If you are just looking at file size, that is not a good thing to do because
both of those cameras have different quality levels for JPEG. One is using
perhaps a much higher compression setting, which may or may not be
adjustable, depending on the camera. For example, on my Canon 8MP DSLR I can
adjust my JPEG quality in the camera menu to produce smaller file sizes. The
lower quality files are the same width and height in pixels, just lower JPEG
quality (higher compression) with possibly more artifacts. The advantage of
the lower quality JPEG is you can fit more images on the same media card.

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:53:58 -0700, "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom>
wrote:

>
><ronnienospamholland@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:46dda91e.502997687@news.houston.sbcglobal.ne t...
>>I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the
>> results.
>> It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera.
>> I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP,
>> interpolated to 12 mp.
>>
>> Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has
>> a 3 meg file in file manager.
>>
>> The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not
>> pixels
>> And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels.
>
>Nothing to do with file size or megapixels. Your problem sounds like the
>images have too much sharpening for your tastes and you want a softer look.
>If the camera will not let you adjust you could always do some softening in
>post-processing.
>
>
Thanks for the advice. Not the answer I wanted, but the answer I'll
have to live with.
Regards,
Ron

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:53:58 -0700, "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom>
wrote:

>
><ronnienospamholland@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:46dda91e.502997687@news.houston.sbcglobal.ne t...
>>I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the
>> results.
>> It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera.
>> I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP,
>> interpolated to 12 mp.
>>
>> Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has
>> a 3 meg file in file manager.
>>
>> The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not
>> pixels
>> And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels.
>
>Nothing to do with file size or megapixels. Your problem sounds like the
>images have too much sharpening for your tastes and you want a softer look.
>If the camera will not let you adjust you could always do some softening in
>post-processing.
>
>
You solved the problem. There is a submenu item that lets you soften
or sharpen the immage. Well, on 0 the portraits and pictures of my
dog were sharp to a fault. I had to go to minus 2 to get a normal
(smooth) looking picture.
Now, I love this camera.
Thanks ALL for the help. I appreciate the honesty and I ain't buying
a camera unless it's a SLR type that has a real appeture range. But
since I have an Olympus E10, and only use it once every 6 months,
I'll probably keep the E10 for more advanced operations.. Even
theough The 2 stop apeture range on the Z850 is limiting, it is
usable, cause of the shutter speed range.
OH yea, this camera without a tripod is a paperweight... a tripod
should be glued to the bottom!
Regards,
Ron
Again,
Thanks

<ronnienospamholland@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:46e38900.327395687@news.houston.sbcglobal.net ...
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:53:58 -0700, "just bob" <kilbyfan@aoldotcom>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><ronnienospamholland@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>news:46dda91e.502997687@news.houston.sbcglobal.n et...
>>>I just bought a Casio EX-Z850 and am really disappointed in the
>>> results.
>>> It's a 8.1 Megapixels camera.
>>> I have a friend that has a Fujifilm FinePix S2 Pro, it's a 6 MP,
>>> interpolated to 12 mp.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is that the Fuji has a true 6 meg file, and the Casio has
>>> a 3 meg file in file manager.
>>>
>>> The Fujifilm portraits almost look like they were made from film, not
>>> pixels
>>> And the Casio is sharp to the point of counting the pixels.
>>
>>Nothing to do with file size or megapixels. Your problem sounds like the
>>images have too much sharpening for your tastes and you want a softer
>>look.
>>If the camera will not let you adjust you could always do some softening
>>in
>>post-processing.
>>
>>
> You solved the problem. There is a submenu item that lets you soften
> or sharpen the immage. Well, on 0 the portraits and pictures of my
> dog were sharp to a fault. I had to go to minus 2 to get a normal
> (smooth) looking picture.
> Now, I love this camera.
> Thanks ALL for the help. I appreciate the honesty and I ain't buying
> a camera unless it's a SLR type that has a real appeture range. But
> since I have an Olympus E10, and only use it once every 6 months,
> I'll probably keep the E10 for more advanced operations.. Even
> theough The 2 stop apeture range on the Z850 is limiting, it is
> usable, cause of the shutter speed range.
> OH yea, this camera without a tripod is a paperweight... a tripod
> should be glued to the bottom!
> Regards,
> Ron
> Again,
> Thanks

Great! It's rare I hit one right on the head but glad I did this time for
you!