Can you set/reduce/disable digital zoom?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com writes:
> Is digital zoom a static feature of any given camera, or is it
> something that can be changed or disabled?

You can turn it on and off. Usually it's not worth bothering with,
since you can achieve the same effect in a computer afterwards.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> Is digital zoom a static feature of any given camera, or is it
> something that can be changed or disabled?
>
> Ben
>
Some allow you to disable it entirely, others allow you to add a step to
use it. In most, the LCD must be on to use digital zoom. This adds
another disadvantage since holding the camera in front of you without
support makes a zoom picture even less likely to produce a good picture.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim wrote:
> <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1115267466.789855.252580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Is digital zoom a static feature of any given camera, or is it
> > something that can be changed or disabled?
>
> It should always be disabled.
> Jim

Jim - This was my initial suspicion, however can you expand a bit as to
why it should _always_ be disabled? So there is no condition under
which the DZ should be used? I am becomming vaguely familiar with the
mechanics of digi photography, and that is why I posted the question to
begin with. I understand that the digi zoom is an "artificial" way to
increase the pixels by filling in - seems to me like a glorified smudge
tool - can you elaborate?

Thanks,

Ben

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115267466.789855.252580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is digital zoom a static feature of any given camera, or is it
> something that can be changed or disabled?
It should always be disabled.
Jim

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> Jim wrote:
>
>><kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1115267466.789855.252580@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>Is digital zoom a static feature of any given camera, or is it
>>>something that can be changed or disabled?
>>
>>It should always be disabled.
>>Jim
>
>
> Jim - This was my initial suspicion, however can you expand a bit as to
> why it should _always_ be disabled? So there is no condition under
> which the DZ should be used? I am becomming vaguely familiar with the
> mechanics of digi photography, and that is why I posted the question to
> begin with. I understand that the digi zoom is an "artificial" way to
> increase the pixels by filling in - seems to me like a glorified smudge
> tool - can you elaborate?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
Since pictures taken with a digital camera are essentially free, I
sometimes use the digital zoom to zoom in on things I see in the
distance to identify them. Usually this works well enough to identify
the object. So, in that sense, it isn't quite useless, but the quality
of the picture inevitably suffers when using digital zoom. Some digital
zoom cameras have these 'enhanced' modes, others don't. It can be
useful to the overall appearance of the picture, but it is no substitute
for a good optical zoom, and can often be done better by computer software.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Since pictures taken with a digital camera are essentially free, I
> sometimes use the digital zoom to zoom in on things I see in the
> distance to identify them. Usually this works well enough to
identify
> the object. So, in that sense, it isn't quite useless, but the
quality
> of the picture inevitably suffers when using digital zoom. Some
digital
> zoom cameras have these 'enhanced' modes, others don't. It can be
> useful to the overall appearance of the picture, but it is no
substitute
> for a good optical zoom, and can often be done better by computer
software.

Thanks, Ron. Typically, I end touching up ~80% of all my digi photos
in Photoshop in one way or another anyhow, so this makes sense. So I
will probably look for a midrange digicam with a strong optical zoom
and reasonably high MP - probably 8/4 or so.

Ben

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:

> > Thanks, Ron. Typically, I end touching up ~80% of all my digi
photos
> > in Photoshop in one way or another anyhow, so this makes sense. So
I
> > will probably look for a midrange digicam with a strong optical
zoom
> > and reasonably high MP - probably 8/4 or so.
> >
> > Ben
> >
> Something in the range of the Kodak DX7590 would probably suit you.
> Unless you are willing to spend in the neighborhood of %1000, you
should
> stay below the 8mp range to avoid really bad noise problems with low
light.

I meant 8x optical zoom w/ 4 megapixels...

Ben

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

kombi45@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>Since pictures taken with a digital camera are essentially free, I
>>sometimes use the digital zoom to zoom in on things I see in the
>>distance to identify them. Usually this works well enough to
>
> identify
>
>>the object. So, in that sense, it isn't quite useless, but the
>
> quality
>
>>of the picture inevitably suffers when using digital zoom. Some
>
> digital
>
>>zoom cameras have these 'enhanced' modes, others don't. It can be
>>useful to the overall appearance of the picture, but it is no
>
> substitute
>
>>for a good optical zoom, and can often be done better by computer
>
> software.
>
> Thanks, Ron. Typically, I end touching up ~80% of all my digi photos
> in Photoshop in one way or another anyhow, so this makes sense. So I
> will probably look for a midrange digicam with a strong optical zoom
> and reasonably high MP - probably 8/4 or so.
>
> Ben
>
Something in the range of the Kodak DX7590 would probably suit you.
Unless you are willing to spend in the neighborhood of %1000, you should
stay below the 8mp range to avoid really bad noise problems with low light.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115330610.134758.80940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Jim - This was my initial suspicion, however can you expand a bit as to
> why it should _always_ be disabled? So there is no condition under
> which the DZ should be used?

I use it when photographine for direct upload to my web site, as my digital
zoom creates 640x480, in camera, without the need for me to downsample in
editing software.

Other than that, it's only possible use would be as a substitute for
cropping for those few photogs that inend to print right from the camera,
without the assistance of a computer (I've seen some camera/printer combos
that advertise that as a feature, but it has very limited application).

Most photographers could probably do without it and never miss it. Optical
zoom--yes. Digital zoom--who the heck cares?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:
> <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1115330610.134758.80940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>>Jim - This was my initial suspicion, however can you expand a bit as to
>>why it should _always_ be disabled? So there is no condition under
>>which the DZ should be used?
>
>
> I use it when photographine for direct upload to my web site, as my digital
> zoom creates 640x480, in camera, without the need for me to downsample in
> editing software.
>
> Other than that, it's only possible use would be as a substitute for
> cropping for those few photogs that inend to print right from the camera,
> without the assistance of a computer (I've seen some camera/printer combos
> that advertise that as a feature, but it has very limited application).
>
> Most photographers could probably do without it and never miss it. Optical
> zoom--yes. Digital zoom--who the heck cares?
>
>
I have used the digital zoom on my camera for magnifying a portion of
the picture so that I can identify an object at a greater distance.
However, the quality of the photograph suffers dramatically.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net