Author Topic: TEST MY new Ride/Take Pictures Camera - Refurbished NIKON COOLPIX 20.1 MP  (Read 674 times)

Offline PAULRIDES

  • Legendary Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5324
  • I might be old, but can mount without help. HA!
Sending for information in case you are somewhat a Camera Picture Taking NUT (like me).  :banghead
IF NOT -  Don't wast time reading. 
 
First, I will likely never use 20.1MP setting for my picture use (E Mail. Computer screen looking, Web Site Posting , like on ETB Site).
 
CONCLUSION: I like better than the Kodak I put in the water and like better than the Cannon before that. It is nothing fancy, Refurbished ($55) from E Bay Seller Store, but seems OK.
 
TESTS on a short ride today:
I tested usability for MC Ride Pictures  (one hand MC picture taking with out looking at screen, just point and shoot).
I tested two resolutions using two lowest setting: One setting is VGA = 640x480. The other is 2MP = 1600x1200. 
 
Usability is OK so far and better for MC Riding one hand picture taking than my old camera.  I like the fact the Record Button is not between Power On Button and Picture Button. This one has record button in different place than the last camera. I was often hitting record accidentally on the last camera, get recordings with camera hanging down from my next and see dash, gloves, whatever. I don't like the location of ZOOM. ZOOM is similar to a lot of cameras with a ring around the picture button. Makes it too easy when operating with one hand on a MC to accidentally ZOOM.  like cameras with AA Batteries and this is AA. 
 
Resolution seems good in computer with the end file sizes being: VGA 640x480 gave File Sizes per picture in 131 KB range. 2MP 1600x 1200 gave 440KB File Sizes.
 
I will run a test on ETB Site with different sizes to see how that works. THAT IS WHAT I AM DOING NOW.  ;D O)
Looks like quality is OK, picture just shows as larger size with more Pixels and if I get the full size ones, probably be off screen.
 
VGA is not quite as good and is a bit smaller that the 2MP (expected). You have to examine closely to see difference on a computer screen 
 
I sent samples in Text of E Mail. However, AOL optimizes also, so not sure these are true pictures. They are not same as you see in computer. Since my primary use is for E Mail, I am interested in what you see in E Mail and keeping size down. E Mail has some limits on what you can send. Also, some web sites (like ETB) have some limits on what you can send and some pictures are too large to display (get off screen).   

PICTURES for comparison when placed on the ETB Site arwe below:

CONCLUSION for ETB use. I would say all sizes are OK. Likely stick with the old way, take more 2MP 1600x1200 and downsize with FOTOSIZER. Easiest way would be use camera on VGA 640x480 setting.
The 1600x1200 (439KB) is best picture.
The reduced FOTOSIZER 912x684 (177KB) is same size and as good quality.
The 640x480 (131KB) is smaller and quality is satisfactory in my book.
 
Standing still test:

First picture is 2MP 1600x1200  A bit more resolution on tree leaves, grass, flowers house brick.

Second picture is VGA 640x480  I say still OK and easiest to process. 

Test while moving on MC ride:  Scenery while riding at various speeds (25 to 50MPH) using 2MP and VGA. 

First (3 thru 6 pictures) using VGA 640x480 show up smaller size (Quality is OK)

Second (7 thru 10 pictures) using the 2MP 1600x1200 originals downsized using FOTOSIZER to 912x684  (that is about what I usually use for size). Show up larger and maybe a bit better quality. 

Third (11 thru 14 pictures) using the original 2MP 1600x1200 show up same size (not cut off) as the FOTOSIZER reduced pictures (the four above). Quality is about the same.
« Last Edit: April 28, 2016, 09:35:06 pm by PAULRIDES »
Ride Country Roads - a lot. :-)

Online IanC

  • Administrator
  • Legendary Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2126
  • Fast from the Past
Looks good to me.
1978 Suzuki GS1000EC - Completely custom.
2012 Triumph Daytona 675R