Optio M20 Poor Image Quality
Posted 19/01/2007 - 14:54
Link
I purchased an Optio M20 for my daughter as a Christmas present, and I have to say that I concur with what Accreditor has said. When I put the first few shots she had taken onto our PC, I was surprised that every shot was a bit blurry. I thought it must be 'camera shake' on her part and confiscated the M20 for some tests and must report that I am a bit dissatisfied with the M20's performance, my Fuji A500 produces much sharper, better 'suturated' photos.
In response to George Lazarette's posts, my testing was comprehensive and yes, I (I'm sure like others) do not expect the world from a camera costing just over £100. However, my Fuji A500 takes good quality outdoor shots in most daytime lighting situations without any manual tinkering with settings - the Optio M20 does not.
Clearly one cannot expect a digital compact to produce great indoor shots. But I would in terms of shots taken outdoors with reasonable natural light expect the M20 to at least equal the qaulity of shots my Fuji A500 produces - it does not
Accreditor is correct, his link does point to the only comprehensive review of the M20 that I've seen (George, if you follow the link and look below the picture of the Sony 100, you will see a link to the next page of the review), in terms of resoultion the review states:
'It shows serious barrel distortion, especially noticeable by the black lines on the top and bottom of the chart. Those lines run straight horizontally on the actual ISO resolution chart we used, but the lines show up bowed into the frame of the Pentax M20’s images. The sharpness of the edges suffers significantly too. Although, it looks the worst on the right side; it is apparent on both edges.
This image was analyzed by Imatest software, and its resolution was quantified in units of line widths per picture height (lw/ph). This tells how many theoretical alternating black and white lines the camera could clearly discern before the lines began to blur together. The Pentax Optio M20 resolved 1682 lw/ph horizontally with 11 percent oversharpening, and 1670 lw/ph vertically with 10.1 percent oversharpening. These numbers aren’t impressive since compact digital cameras with the same advertised resolution produced much better results. The 7.1-megapixel Canon PowerShot A620 read 1708 lw/ph horizontally and 1787 lw/ph vertically. The lack of detail garnered a 3.77 overall resolution score, but the barrel distortion that will visibly warp pictures when printed is most disturbing.
Here are the links to the subsequent pages of the review:
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
In response to George Lazarette's posts, my testing was comprehensive and yes, I (I'm sure like others) do not expect the world from a camera costing just over £100. However, my Fuji A500 takes good quality outdoor shots in most daytime lighting situations without any manual tinkering with settings - the Optio M20 does not.
Clearly one cannot expect a digital compact to produce great indoor shots. But I would in terms of shots taken outdoors with reasonable natural light expect the M20 to at least equal the qaulity of shots my Fuji A500 produces - it does not
Accreditor is correct, his link does point to the only comprehensive review of the M20 that I've seen (George, if you follow the link and look below the picture of the Sony 100, you will see a link to the next page of the review), in terms of resoultion the review states:
'It shows serious barrel distortion, especially noticeable by the black lines on the top and bottom of the chart. Those lines run straight horizontally on the actual ISO resolution chart we used, but the lines show up bowed into the frame of the Pentax M20’s images. The sharpness of the edges suffers significantly too. Although, it looks the worst on the right side; it is apparent on both edges.
This image was analyzed by Imatest software, and its resolution was quantified in units of line widths per picture height (lw/ph). This tells how many theoretical alternating black and white lines the camera could clearly discern before the lines began to blur together. The Pentax Optio M20 resolved 1682 lw/ph horizontally with 11 percent oversharpening, and 1670 lw/ph vertically with 10.1 percent oversharpening. These numbers aren’t impressive since compact digital cameras with the same advertised resolution produced much better results. The 7.1-megapixel Canon PowerShot A620 read 1708 lw/ph horizontally and 1787 lw/ph vertically. The lack of detail garnered a 3.77 overall resolution score, but the barrel distortion that will visibly warp pictures when printed is most disturbing.
Here are the links to the subsequent pages of the review:
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Pentax-Optio-M20-Digital-Camera-Review/...
Posted 19/01/2007 - 15:33
Link
George Lazarette wrote:
<snip>
You have done just about everything you could to make this picture come out badly.
But of course, it's the camera's fault, not the photographer's.
I don't know why people buy the cheapest camera they can find, and expect, with no effort on their part, to produce pictures like Cartier-Bresson (look him up).
The computer in the human brain is much more powerful than the one in a cheap point and shoot camera (in most cases!). So harness the power of the big computer, and see what it can do.
Sorry to be rude, but people who blame their equipment annoy me. It's the workman that counts, not the tool.
George
<snip>
You have done just about everything you could to make this picture come out badly.
But of course, it's the camera's fault, not the photographer's.
I don't know why people buy the cheapest camera they can find, and expect, with no effort on their part, to produce pictures like Cartier-Bresson (look him up).
The computer in the human brain is much more powerful than the one in a cheap point and shoot camera (in most cases!). So harness the power of the big computer, and see what it can do.
Sorry to be rude, but people who blame their equipment annoy me. It's the workman that counts, not the tool.
George
lol, you won't get any argument from me and no apologies necessary. (I suppose I could say that the photo wasn't taken by me as I'm the archer, but I would probably have used the same set-up so it makes no odds )
I am now embarking on the journey of how to use the camera sensibly (with the help of the numerous pointers supplied here) and hopefuly produce much better works out of it as a result.
Cheers
Posted 19/01/2007 - 15:55
Link
Ammonyte wrote:
JimN,
Because the CCD in a camera like the M20 is much smaller than that in an DSLR, noise becomes much more of a problem, so on the M20 ISO200 is far noiser than ISO200 on the K10D, therefore when you carry out your tests for the best possible image, try to keep the ISO set to the minimum that the camera allows (ISO64), then use a tripod or other support if necessary.
JimN,
Because the CCD in a camera like the M20 is much smaller than that in an DSLR, noise becomes much more of a problem, so on the M20 ISO200 is far noiser than ISO200 on the K10D, therefore when you carry out your tests for the best possible image, try to keep the ISO set to the minimum that the camera allows (ISO64), then use a tripod or other support if necessary.
Cheers, I've now got my green button set to change the ISO so I'll play with that. This is the same photo from my test with ISO 64.
Posted 19/01/2007 - 17:22
Link
To be honest, the lighting in this photo is very dull and flat, hardly conducive to producing bright, contrasty and sharp photos.
I would suggest you try outdoors on a reasonable day (if you can find one) and, preferably on a tripod, take a richly detailed colourful scene. I suspect the pictures will then be sharp.
If longer range pictures are a problem focus-wise, then try the Infinity setting if there is one.
But in any event, light makes the picture and in the test you'e done there really isn't much light at all.
I would suggest you try outdoors on a reasonable day (if you can find one) and, preferably on a tripod, take a richly detailed colourful scene. I suspect the pictures will then be sharp.
If longer range pictures are a problem focus-wise, then try the Infinity setting if there is one.
But in any event, light makes the picture and in the test you'e done there really isn't much light at all.
Best regards, John
Posted 19/01/2007 - 18:48
Link
Hi Jim,
Hope you don't mind, but I had a little play with one of your images, and I don't think it's worked out too badly. I've de-saturated, added contrast, sharpened it a little and added a little noise to it, to simulate grain.

I did try and get the colour version enhanced, but I couldn't get it just right.. that's more down to my lack of skill than anything else. I guess one of the experts here could easily do it.
I think it works, mainly because B&W is normally looked as an image more than a technical exercise.. and it gets rid of CA.. very easily.
If it's any good, I'll send you the full sized version back of course, as it's your photo.
Cheers
Liam
Hope you don't mind, but I had a little play with one of your images, and I don't think it's worked out too badly. I've de-saturated, added contrast, sharpened it a little and added a little noise to it, to simulate grain.

I did try and get the colour version enhanced, but I couldn't get it just right.. that's more down to my lack of skill than anything else. I guess one of the experts here could easily do it.
I think it works, mainly because B&W is normally looked as an image more than a technical exercise.. and it gets rid of CA.. very easily.
If it's any good, I'll send you the full sized version back of course, as it's your photo.
Cheers
Liam
Liam
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
Posted 19/01/2007 - 19:14
Link
Joel wrote:
Accreditor is correct, his link does point to the only comprehensive review of the M20 that I've seen (George, if you follow the link and look below the picture of the Sony 100, you will see a link to the next page of the review), in terms of resoultion the review states:
Accreditor is correct, his link does point to the only comprehensive review of the M20 that I've seen (George, if you follow the link and look below the picture of the Sony 100, you will see a link to the next page of the review), in terms of resoultion the review states:
Quite right. I thought the bit on the first page was the whole review.
But I take issue with this:
Joel wrote:
However, my Fuji A500 takes good quality outdoor shots in most daytime lighting situations without any manual tinkering with settings - the Optio M20 does not.
However, my Fuji A500 takes good quality outdoor shots in most daytime lighting situations without any manual tinkering with settings - the Optio M20 does not.
If you really expect the camera to do everything for you, then you are bound to be diappointed, because it simply can't. The archer shot posted by Jimn had camera settings for normal contrast, etc. Such settings would have been appropriate in some cases, but not in this one.
I think you were lucky with your Fuji in that the default settings were correct for most of the pictures you shot. I suspect Jimn would get better results with different settings, not to mention an awareness of how the light can change the appearance of a picture, and what he could do to make the best of a particular lighting situation.
Look at Liam's cat shot. You can see from the reflection in its eyes that although the picture was taken indoors, Liam had placed the cat near the window to maximise the available light. The light was behind the camera, and although he used a slow shutter speed, he managed to hold the camera steady. As a result, there's plenty of contrast and the centre of the picture is sharp. The wide aperture, necessary given the low light, means that much of the picture is out of focus, but that helps the composition.
It may well be that the lens on this camera is not especially good. But Liam has shown that in the right hands, it can still take acceptable pictures.
Basically, there's no substitute for acquiring a bit of knowledge about the basic principles of photography, and a bit of knowledge about how to tweak your pictures after you have taken them in order to get the best results.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 19/01/2007 - 19:23
Link
Hi George..
I'm flattered George, but they are Accreditors shots. He didn't have a facility for uploading them to the board, so I offered to host them from my website.. all credit goes to Accreditor, and well deserved.
Cheers
Liam
Quote:
Look at Liam's cat shot...
But Liam has shown that in the right hands, it can still take acceptable pictures.
Look at Liam's cat shot...
But Liam has shown that in the right hands, it can still take acceptable pictures.
I'm flattered George, but they are Accreditors shots. He didn't have a facility for uploading them to the board, so I offered to host them from my website.. all credit goes to Accreditor, and well deserved.
Cheers
Liam
Liam
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
Posted 19/01/2007 - 19:33
Link
LiamD wrote:
Hi Jim,
Hope you don't mind, but I had a little play with one of your images, and I don't think it's worked out too badly. I've de-saturated, added contrast, sharpened it a little and added a little noise to it, to simulate grain.

I did try and get the colour version enhanced, but I couldn't get it just right.. that's more down to my lack of skill than anything else. I guess one of the experts here could easily do it.
I think it works, mainly because B&W is normally looked as an image more than a technical exercise.. and it gets rid of CA.. very easily.
If it's any good, I'll send you the full sized version back of course, as it's your photo.
Cheers
Liam
Hi Jim,
Hope you don't mind, but I had a little play with one of your images, and I don't think it's worked out too badly. I've de-saturated, added contrast, sharpened it a little and added a little noise to it, to simulate grain.

I did try and get the colour version enhanced, but I couldn't get it just right.. that's more down to my lack of skill than anything else. I guess one of the experts here could easily do it.
I think it works, mainly because B&W is normally looked as an image more than a technical exercise.. and it gets rid of CA.. very easily.
If it's any good, I'll send you the full sized version back of course, as it's your photo.
Cheers
Liam
No, that can't be my shot, you must have gone to the same place (Osmaston Park, Derbyshire) and stood in the exact same place and taken a new photo Nicely done :thumbs up:
Jim
Posted 19/01/2007 - 19:46
Link
LiamD wrote:
Hi George..
I'm flattered George, but they are Accreditors shots. He didn't have a facility for uploading them to the board, so I offered to host them from my website.. all credit goes to Accreditor, and well deserved.
Cheers
Liam
Hi George..
Quote:
Look at Liam's cat shot...
But Liam has shown that in the right hands, it can still take acceptable pictures.
Look at Liam's cat shot...
But Liam has shown that in the right hands, it can still take acceptable pictures.
I'm flattered George, but they are Accreditors shots. He didn't have a facility for uploading them to the board, so I offered to host them from my website.. all credit goes to Accreditor, and well deserved.
Cheers
Liam
Whoops!
Well, I'm glad Accreditor can produce a reasonable pic when he tries!
The focus is OK in this shot, bearing in mind that it was nearly wide open. Stopped down (assuming there had been more light), the contrast would have been greater, and the picture sharper at the point of focus, and sharper elsewhere too because of the greater depth of field.
A tiny bit of tweaking in Irfanview (let alone anything more sophisticated) would have improved both contrast and focus.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 19/01/2007 - 19:50
Link
JimN wrote:
No, that can't be my shot, you must have gone to the same place (Osmaston Park, Derbyshire) and stood in the exact same place and taken a new photo Nicely done :thumbs up:
Jim
No, that can't be my shot, you must have gone to the same place (Osmaston Park, Derbyshire) and stood in the exact same place and taken a new photo Nicely done :thumbs up:
Jim
Why thankyou..
Liam
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
Posted 19/01/2007 - 20:00
Link
Hi George,
I do everything in GIMP, or GIMPshop.. both free and easy to use, once you know where the tools are. I keep on promising several friends of mine to write a tutorial on it for enhancing photos, as they all have P&Ss, and you're right; it doesn't take much to make a good photo really good, with a bit of knowhow. If I get round to it, I'll post it up here somewhere.
Many won't want to spend money on PS etc, if they've only got a relatively cheap camera. Different matter when you've got a couple of grands worth of gear, you want to get the best out of the photos.. saying that, GIMP does work well with jpegs, but being only capable of working with 8bit images, it's of little use to people who generate tiffs from RAW files. I've seen a few of my jpeg images printed at A4, and I can definitely say that GIMP works..
Cheers
Liam
George Lazarette wrote:
[A tiny bit of tweaking in Irfanview (let alone anything more sophisticated) would have improved both contrast and focus.
G
[A tiny bit of tweaking in Irfanview (let alone anything more sophisticated) would have improved both contrast and focus.
G
I do everything in GIMP, or GIMPshop.. both free and easy to use, once you know where the tools are. I keep on promising several friends of mine to write a tutorial on it for enhancing photos, as they all have P&Ss, and you're right; it doesn't take much to make a good photo really good, with a bit of knowhow. If I get round to it, I'll post it up here somewhere.
Many won't want to spend money on PS etc, if they've only got a relatively cheap camera. Different matter when you've got a couple of grands worth of gear, you want to get the best out of the photos.. saying that, GIMP does work well with jpegs, but being only capable of working with 8bit images, it's of little use to people who generate tiffs from RAW files. I've seen a few of my jpeg images printed at A4, and I can definitely say that GIMP works..
Cheers
Liam
Liam
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
Posted 19/01/2007 - 20:06
Link
JimN wrote:
I am now embarking on the journey of how to use the camera sensibly (with the help of the numerous pointers supplied here) and hopefuly produce much better works out of it as a result.
Cheers
I am now embarking on the journey of how to use the camera sensibly (with the help of the numerous pointers supplied here) and hopefuly produce much better works out of it as a result.
Cheers
Jim, Here is the GL short guide to better pictures.
1 Buy a camera that allows you to change the four basic settings - focus, aperture, shutter speed and sensitivity. Then set the camera yourself whenever possible until you understand it.
2 Remember that lower ISO means higher quality
3 The best aperture is around 1:8
4 Higher shutter speeds mean sharper pictures
5 Shoot away from the sun.
6 Shoot in the early morning or late afternoon.
7 Always shoot the largest and best quality pictures that the camera will permit. You can always make them smaller or nastier later.
8 In low light, use a tripod or a wall or other support to hold the camera steady.
9 If you want the whole picture to be in focus, use a small aperture (1:16, etc)
10 If you want to isolate the subject, use a large aperture (1:4, or more)
11 Don't expect the pictures to be perfect straight out of the camera. Good photographers spend time tweaking their pictures.
12 If you know nothing about digital image manipulation, download Irfanview (free), and use it's image enhancement tools to improve contrast, saturation, colours, etc.
13 Use the screen to review your pictures, and reshoot if they don't look good. Try a larger and smaller aperture with the same shutter speed (or vice-versa) to try to find the best exposure.
That's it. For anything more complicated, ask Matt.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 19/01/2007 - 20:12
Link
LiamD wrote:
Hi George,
I do everything in GIMP, or GIMPshop.. both free and easy to use, once you know where the tools are. I keep on promising several friends of mine to write a tutorial on it for enhancing photos, as they all have P&Ss, and you're right; it doesn't take much to make a good photo really good, with a bit of knowhow. If I get round to it, I'll post it up here somewhere.
Many won't want to spend money on PS etc, if they've only got a relatively cheap camera. Different matter when you've got a couple of grands worth of gear, you want to get the best out of the photos.. saying that, GIMP does work well with jpegs, but being only capable of working with 8bit images, it's of little use to people who generate tiffs from RAW files. I've seen a few of my jpeg images printed at A4, and I can definitely say that GIMP works..
Cheers
Liam
Hi George,
George Lazarette wrote:
[A tiny bit of tweaking in Irfanview (let alone anything more sophisticated) would have improved both contrast and focus.
G
[A tiny bit of tweaking in Irfanview (let alone anything more sophisticated) would have improved both contrast and focus.
G
I do everything in GIMP, or GIMPshop.. both free and easy to use, once you know where the tools are. I keep on promising several friends of mine to write a tutorial on it for enhancing photos, as they all have P&Ss, and you're right; it doesn't take much to make a good photo really good, with a bit of knowhow. If I get round to it, I'll post it up here somewhere.
Many won't want to spend money on PS etc, if they've only got a relatively cheap camera. Different matter when you've got a couple of grands worth of gear, you want to get the best out of the photos.. saying that, GIMP does work well with jpegs, but being only capable of working with 8bit images, it's of little use to people who generate tiffs from RAW files. I've seen a few of my jpeg images printed at A4, and I can definitely say that GIMP works..
Cheers
Liam
Hi Liam,
My remarks re Irfanview were directed at Accreditor and Jim.
Personally, I do very little image manipulation after processing the RAW files. I find Silkypix does almost everything I need to do.
For Jpeg shooters, the GIMP is a good option, and it's available in a Windows version as well as Linux.
G
Keywords: Charming, polite, and generally agreeable.
Posted 19/01/2007 - 20:26
Link
Quote:
My remarks re Irfanview were directed at Accreditor and Jim.
My remarks re Irfanview were directed at Accreditor and Jim.
Oh I knew that..
Quote:
Personally, I do very little image manipulation after processing the RAW files. I find Silkypix does almost everything I need to do.
Personally, I do very little image manipulation after processing the RAW files. I find Silkypix does almost everything I need to do.
Admitedly I've only used it on one set of photos, the sunset ones from last weekend, but 1, I didn't see how I could get the colour saturation that I liked, whereas GIMP gives me much more freedom, and 2, I didn't like the outcome with SPs sharpness controls. I get very good results with GIMPs unsharp mask, and use it on the same setting almost exclusively..
Saying that, I'm definitely not going to give up with SP.. if everyone else gets results, then my guess would be that I'm probably doing it wrong..
I use GIMP with Windows.. and the GIMPshop option is basically a reworked version, that (in theory, as I haven't really used PS) has moved the tool controls around so they should be familiar to PS users.
Cheers
Liam
Liam
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
"Make your hands respond to what your mind demands." Jesse James
Best wide-angle lens? Two steps backward. Look for the 'ah-ha'. Ernst Haas
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
1221 posts
19 years
Buckinghamshire
Because the CCD in a camera like the M20 is much smaller than that in an DSLR, noise becomes much more of a problem, so on the M20 ISO200 is far noiser than ISO200 on the K10D, therefore when you carry out your tests for the best possible image, try to keep the ISO set to the minimum that the camera allows (ISO64), then use a tripod or other support if necessary.
--------------
K10D & sundry toys
http://www.ammonyte.com/photos.html