Canon IXUS 240 HS
Canon PowerShot SX240 HS
Nikon D800
Samsung DV300F
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Nikon Coolpix P510
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ30
Nikon Coolpix S9300
Nikon Coolpix 5600 Review at DigitalCameraInfo
DigitalCameraInfo have reviewed the 5 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 5600 that was announced at PMA in February.
“The Nikon Coolpix 5600 boasts 5.1 effective megapixels on its 1/2.5-inch CCD. When tested, we determined the camera utilizes just 2.72 megapixels for imaging. This is 54% of its advertised count and a dismal resolution score. These results are not altogether surprising as many of the compact Coolpix models we have tested thus far seem to fall short in this department. This does not mean small (4x6-inch) prints made from the 5600 will display compromised quality, it just limits the potential print size considerably. Users who attempt to make 8x10 prints from the 5600 will likely be disappointed, particularly after realizing much of the camera’s $249.99 retail price stems from the 5 megapixel CCD included. Consumers might be better off looking for a more affordable 4 megapixel camera with additional shooting flexibility and control. “
Website: DigitalCameraInfo - Nikon Coolpix 5600 Review
Website: Read my Nikon Coolpix 5600 Review
Check the Latest Prices for the Nikon Coolpix 5600
Write a Review of the Nikon Coolpix 5600
Canon IXUS 240 HS Review
Canon PowerShot SX240 HS Review
Nikon D800 Review
Samsung DV300F Review
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review
Nikon Coolpix P510
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ30
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS
Fujifilm X-Pro1
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V
#1 GARY POGODA
Mark, I read your announcement of this review a few days ago, but did not read the full review because I really was not interested in that model camera (for my wife). However, I could not get out of my mind your quote about the number of effective megapixels measured, namely 2.72, compared with Nikon's claim of 5.0 effective megapixels.
Now I know that you are not responsible for any statements made in reviews from other websites, but doesn't this statement strike you as odd? Wouldn't it be true that all images from the camera would have the claimed 5.0 effective megapixels of the image sensor, unless (1) you select an image size less than the maximum, or (2) you use the camera's "digital" zoom?
Are they actually measuring the camera's JPEG image size, as determined by the compression algorithm used, which has nothing to do with the number of effective megapixels of the image sensor? Could you please shed some light on this?
7:34 pm - Tuesday, June 21, 2005
#2 Mark Goldstein
I have no idea Gary! Maybe you could ask DigitalCameraInfo and let us know what they say
3:13 pm - Thursday, June 23, 2005
#3 GARY POGODA
Thanks, Mark. I am unfamiliar with the DigitalCameraInfo website, but I will certainly give them a try and get back to you. I was hoping there would be an easy answer to my question, but the fact that you did not know, and that none of your other readers have responded, indicates to me that the answer is probably not obvious. This may take awhile, as I expect they are not as responsive to their readers as you are.
5:35 pm - Thursday, June 23, 2005
#4 GARY POGODA
Well, I posted my question at the DigitalCameraInfo website. It was not as painless as you might think. They were not as trusting as you are. First I had to register and take an oath. I am not sure what I agreed to because there was an immovable advertisement blocking half the screen. It must be my browser. The same thing happened when I tried to preview my posting, so I had to do a blind submission. Luckily, there were no major errors. We'll see what happens.
7:14 pm - Thursday, June 23, 2005
#5 GARY POGODA
Apparently my question to DigitalCameraInfo was far more difficult than anticipated. I posted the question on no less than five of their most recent camera reviews, and not a single response. Not from a reviewer, and not from a reader.
Maybe their site does not have your volume of readers. Or maybe their reviewers are not as responsive as you. While they do have an Ethics page for their website, maybe one of the ethics should be concerning responsiveness to their readers. Or maybe I was just expecting too much, having been spoiled by my experiences with PhotographyBLOG.
If anyone is interested, here are the relevant links to the reviews. The Nikon Coolpix 5600 review was the first to which I posted a comment, and also the one where the reviewer had chastised the camera manufacturer most severely for failing to live up to their effective megapixel claims. The Canon PowerShot A520 review has my best version of the question, as by then, I had formulated an opinion as to what they were doing wrong. The Pentax Optio S55 review appends a few additional facts, and then references the A520 review. These questions were posted over a time span of more than one month.
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-Coolpix-5600-Digital-Camera-Review-.htm
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Canon-PowerShot-A520-Digital-Camera-Review-.htm
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-S55-Digital-Camera-Review.htm
6:38 pm - Wednesday, August 10, 2005
#6 GARY POGODA
Finally, an answer to my question, from Vincent Bockaert (via email), photographer and author (see VincentBockaert.com), and the one responsible for writing much of the "Learn" information offered at DPReview.com.
He states that JPEG compression, at a camera's highest JPEG quality level, "should have virtually no effect" on the measured resolution obtained from the test charts (as utilized by DigitalCameraInfo.com). He also suggests that I ask Phil Askey, owner of DPReview, and the one who shoots the test charts, to verify this using a camera with simultaneous RAW+JPEG, and to try this, not only at the highest quality level, but at the lower JPEG quality levels, as well, where he hypothesizes, "there may of course be resolution differences."
More on this later. Oh Phil ...
7:29 pm - Wednesday, September 14, 2005
#7 GARY POGODA
In case I was unclear, after having posted my question to DigitalCameraInfo several months, I never received an answer, so last night I emailed Vincent Bockaert with my question, and received his reply early this morning. Thank you so much, Vincent, for your consideration.
8:44 pm - Wednesday, September 14, 2005