JVC GC-A50
Last response: in Digital Camera
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
Anyone tried and/or got samples pictures of the JVC GC-A50 tiny 1.3
megapixels camera?
I wonder if it gives "sharper" pictures than many other fairly cheap and
tiny cameras like this on the market. But the price of this one is higher
with the JVC name. So far that kind of small cameras I tried give blurried
pictures mostly because of bad lenses, not the CMOS sensor. May be that
model has better lenses????.
M.S.
Anyone tried and/or got samples pictures of the JVC GC-A50 tiny 1.3
megapixels camera?
I wonder if it gives "sharper" pictures than many other fairly cheap and
tiny cameras like this on the market. But the price of this one is higher
with the JVC name. So far that kind of small cameras I tried give blurried
pictures mostly because of bad lenses, not the CMOS sensor. May be that
model has better lenses????.
M.S.
More about : jvc a50
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
In general, anything below 3mp is pretty useless anyways for printing.
Anything below 6mp doees not generally use a CMOS sensor. CCD sensors
can get good quality images at 8mp, but have higher noise levels at
high ISO (sometimes low).
The blurring is caused mostly by cheap lenses. Light is only as good as
the lens allows it to be.
I'd go with something like the Canon Powershot A510, not as tiny, but
has a resolution that is actually usable.
Olympus Camedia d-535 is similar but maybe a little cheaper. Both can
be had at a brick-and-mortar for under $200.
In general, anything below 3mp is pretty useless anyways for printing.
Anything below 6mp doees not generally use a CMOS sensor. CCD sensors
can get good quality images at 8mp, but have higher noise levels at
high ISO (sometimes low).
The blurring is caused mostly by cheap lenses. Light is only as good as
the lens allows it to be.
I'd go with something like the Canon Powershot A510, not as tiny, but
has a resolution that is actually usable.
Olympus Camedia d-535 is similar but maybe a little cheaper. Both can
be had at a brick-and-mortar for under $200.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123959226.257522.237050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In general, anything below 3mp is pretty useless anyways for printing.
>
> Anything below 6mp doees not generally use a CMOS sensor. CCD sensors
> can get good quality images at 8mp, but have higher noise levels at
> high ISO (sometimes low).
I don't need to print.
> The blurring is caused mostly by cheap lenses. Light is only as good as
> the lens allows it to be.
> I'd go with something like the Canon Powershot A510, not as tiny, but
> has a resolution that is actually usable.
> Olympus Camedia d-535 is similar but maybe a little cheaper. Both can
> be had at a brick-and-mortar for under $200.
Indeed I can have a better quality with the cameras you stated above.
But I'm curious about that particular JVC camera, that is, if it can give a
fairly good sharpness or if it is as bad as most others of its kind.
"wavelength" <sbrisendine@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123959226.257522.237050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> In general, anything below 3mp is pretty useless anyways for printing.
>
> Anything below 6mp doees not generally use a CMOS sensor. CCD sensors
> can get good quality images at 8mp, but have higher noise levels at
> high ISO (sometimes low).
I don't need to print.
> The blurring is caused mostly by cheap lenses. Light is only as good as
> the lens allows it to be.
> I'd go with something like the Canon Powershot A510, not as tiny, but
> has a resolution that is actually usable.
> Olympus Camedia d-535 is similar but maybe a little cheaper. Both can
> be had at a brick-and-mortar for under $200.
Indeed I can have a better quality with the cameras you stated above.
But I'm curious about that particular JVC camera, that is, if it can give a
fairly good sharpness or if it is as bad as most others of its kind.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
M. Smile wrote:
> Anyone tried and/or got samples pictures of the JVC GC-A50 tiny 1.3
> megapixels camera?
> I wonder if it gives "sharper" pictures than many other fairly cheap and
> tiny cameras like this on the market. But the price of this one is higher
> with the JVC name. So far that kind of small cameras I tried give blurried
> pictures mostly because of bad lenses, not the CMOS sensor. May be that
> model has better lenses????.
Hah, you're in luck. Caught me in an obsessive mood. I couldn't let this
challenge go by. Digging deep into the net, I came up with this
Slovakian personal site. As far as I can tell, *all* the photos are
taken with the JVC GC-A50. Pretty decent quality for a webcam class camera.
http://www.fotoweb.szm.sk/
Now I can finally go do something else.![:)]( ":)")
M. Smile wrote:
> Anyone tried and/or got samples pictures of the JVC GC-A50 tiny 1.3
> megapixels camera?
> I wonder if it gives "sharper" pictures than many other fairly cheap and
> tiny cameras like this on the market. But the price of this one is higher
> with the JVC name. So far that kind of small cameras I tried give blurried
> pictures mostly because of bad lenses, not the CMOS sensor. May be that
> model has better lenses????.
Hah, you're in luck. Caught me in an obsessive mood. I couldn't let this
challenge go by. Digging deep into the net, I came up with this
Slovakian personal site. As far as I can tell, *all* the photos are
taken with the JVC GC-A50. Pretty decent quality for a webcam class camera.
http://www.fotoweb.szm.sk/
Now I can finally go do something else.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"imp" <imp@use.net> wrote in message
news:z8wLe.192427$_I2.102525@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> M. Smile wrote:
>> Anyone tried and/or got samples pictures of the JVC GC-A50 tiny 1.3
>> megapixels camera?
>> I wonder if it gives "sharper" pictures than many other fairly cheap and
>> tiny cameras like this on the market. But the price of this one is higher
>> with the JVC name. So far that kind of small cameras I tried give
>> blurried pictures mostly because of bad lenses, not the CMOS sensor. May
>> be that model has better lenses????.
>
> Hah, you're in luck. Caught me in an obsessive mood. I couldn't let this
> challenge go by. Digging deep into the net, I came up with this Slovakian
> personal site. As far as I can tell, *all* the photos are taken with the
> JVC GC-A50. Pretty decent quality for a webcam class camera.
>
> http://www.fotoweb.szm.sk/
>
> Now I can finally go do something else.![:)]( ":)")
Dear God!
I take your word for it as I don't see any reference to the GC-A50 even if I
don't undertand Slovakian.
But pictures do seem to be taken from a fairly good VGA cam.
"imp" <imp@use.net> wrote in message
news:z8wLe.192427$_I2.102525@fe03.news.easynews.com...
> M. Smile wrote:
>> Anyone tried and/or got samples pictures of the JVC GC-A50 tiny 1.3
>> megapixels camera?
>> I wonder if it gives "sharper" pictures than many other fairly cheap and
>> tiny cameras like this on the market. But the price of this one is higher
>> with the JVC name. So far that kind of small cameras I tried give
>> blurried pictures mostly because of bad lenses, not the CMOS sensor. May
>> be that model has better lenses????.
>
> Hah, you're in luck. Caught me in an obsessive mood. I couldn't let this
> challenge go by. Digging deep into the net, I came up with this Slovakian
> personal site. As far as I can tell, *all* the photos are taken with the
> JVC GC-A50. Pretty decent quality for a webcam class camera.
>
> http://www.fotoweb.szm.sk/
>
> Now I can finally go do something else.
Dear God!
I take your word for it as I don't see any reference to the GC-A50 even if I
don't undertand Slovakian.
But pictures do seem to be taken from a fairly good VGA cam.
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
"M. Smile" <msmile9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iowLe.65633$pX4.846147@weber.videotron.net...
>
> "imp" <imp@use.net> wrote in message
> news:z8wLe.192427$_I2.102525@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>> M. Smile wrote:
>>> Anyone tried and/or got samples pictures of the JVC GC-A50 tiny 1.3
>>> megapixels camera?
>>> I wonder if it gives "sharper" pictures than many other fairly cheap
>>> and tiny cameras like this on the market. But the price of this one is
>>> higher with the JVC name. So far that kind of small cameras I tried give
>>> blurried pictures mostly because of bad lenses, not the CMOS sensor. May
>>> be that model has better lenses????.
>>
>> Hah, you're in luck. Caught me in an obsessive mood. I couldn't let this
>> challenge go by. Digging deep into the net, I came up with this Slovakian
>> personal site. As far as I can tell, *all* the photos are taken with the
>> JVC GC-A50. Pretty decent quality for a webcam class camera.
>>
>> http://www.fotoweb.szm.sk/
>>
>> Now I can finally go do something else.![:)]( ":)")
>
> Dear God!
> I take your word for it as I don't see any reference to the GC-A50 even if
> I don't undertand Slovakian.
> But pictures do seem to be taken from a fairly good VGA cam.
>
Oops! Sorry, I just found the very small print at the bottom of the web
site. Indeed it is the GC-50.
Thanks!
"M. Smile" <msmile9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iowLe.65633$pX4.846147@weber.videotron.net...
>
> "imp" <imp@use.net> wrote in message
> news:z8wLe.192427$_I2.102525@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>> M. Smile wrote:
>>> Anyone tried and/or got samples pictures of the JVC GC-A50 tiny 1.3
>>> megapixels camera?
>>> I wonder if it gives "sharper" pictures than many other fairly cheap
>>> and tiny cameras like this on the market. But the price of this one is
>>> higher with the JVC name. So far that kind of small cameras I tried give
>>> blurried pictures mostly because of bad lenses, not the CMOS sensor. May
>>> be that model has better lenses????.
>>
>> Hah, you're in luck. Caught me in an obsessive mood. I couldn't let this
>> challenge go by. Digging deep into the net, I came up with this Slovakian
>> personal site. As far as I can tell, *all* the photos are taken with the
>> JVC GC-A50. Pretty decent quality for a webcam class camera.
>>
>> http://www.fotoweb.szm.sk/
>>
>> Now I can finally go do something else.
>
> Dear God!
> I take your word for it as I don't see any reference to the GC-A50 even if
> I don't undertand Slovakian.
> But pictures do seem to be taken from a fairly good VGA cam.
>
Oops! Sorry, I just found the very small print at the bottom of the web
site. Indeed it is the GC-50.
Thanks!
Read discussions in other Digital Camera categories
!
