topgazza
Distinguished Member
One thing I have observed in my never ending quest for a bl**dy compact camera has been the better and better LCD screens that some have gone for. In particular the Samsung WB850 has the an OLED screen that puts most TVs to shame. The more common 461k screens seem pedestrian compared to the 921k and 1.1meg screen appearing...let alone that OLED Samsung. problem is as I see it is that pictures look absolutely stunning on the LCD...as they always will do at 3 inches anyway.
But I wonder is users are then disappointed when they put them on their computer screens ? Even with the little TZ10 often i am really happy with the shot on the LCD but less so on my excellent 22" Samsung LCD. PS nearly always comes to the rescue even with jpegs but whilst welcoming any improvements in our little compacts especially high end ones how important is that ultra sharp LCD ? I suppose in bright light the better the resolution and contrast the better it is. But is it giving a false sense of secuirty on IQ ?
But I wonder is users are then disappointed when they put them on their computer screens ? Even with the little TZ10 often i am really happy with the shot on the LCD but less so on my excellent 22" Samsung LCD. PS nearly always comes to the rescue even with jpegs but whilst welcoming any improvements in our little compacts especially high end ones how important is that ultra sharp LCD ? I suppose in bright light the better the resolution and contrast the better it is. But is it giving a false sense of secuirty on IQ ?