How far have P&S's come?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Rich on 29 May 2010 22:35 On May 29, 9:19 pm, rfisc...(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Not as far as you might think. They are much faster when it comes to > >processing, hugely faster. On the order of 5-10x in some cases. > >Resolution is also much higher than years ago. But for image quality, > >not as far. Below are images taken with a 2004 Nikon Coolpix 5400 > >with 5 megapixels and a Panasonic LX3 (2009) with 10 megapixels. > > And because an idiot wants to justify his prejudices, those two > cameras must be used to represent ALL compact cameras. > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...(a)sonic.net Still waiting for that picture, dunce cap.
From: Rich on 29 May 2010 22:36 On May 29, 9:57 pm, Andrew Reilly <areilly...(a)bigpond.net.au> wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 17:13:48 -0700, Rich wrote: > > Not as far as you might think. They are much faster when it comes to > > processing, hugely faster. On the order of 5-10x in some cases. > > Resolution is also much higher than years ago. But for image quality, > > not as far. Below are images taken with a 2004 Nikon Coolpix 5400 with > > 5 megapixels and a Panasonic LX3 (2009) with 10 megapixels. > > Both of these cameras have the same size large-ish (1/1.7) sensors. Most > compacts have 1/2.3 or so. So it's a reasonably fair comparison. The > 5400 is an interesting beast, in that it is one (the only?) camera that > has a four-colour CCD, rather than the usual RGB Beyer pattern. I have a > 5400, and it's given me great service (except for the CCD dying once, but > that was replaced for free.) > > > The > > Panasonic has the superior lens > > How superior? The 5400 goes to 1/2.8 but zooms longer. Horses for > courses. > > >, but the images are about 0.7 stop > > dimmer than from the Nikon indicating perhaps the pixel size has > > effected over sensitivity. I equalized the images (except for WB) in- > > terms of brightness. Both are at 400 ISO with the same aperture (0.1 > > Why force them to 400 ISO, and then require a 1/2000 shutter speed, for a > landscape? My 5400 spent most of its life on Auto, and only ever > selected 400 ISO when I was shooting in the pre-dawn dark. I agree, I was just illustrating the difference at a higher ISO. Both cameras produce relatively clean images at 100 ISO or lower. > > > stop diff) and exposure time. Both are from raw files and the slowness > > of the Nikon when it comes to processing is in-part due to the fact it > > was never intended to handle raws, that capability was added later in a > > firmware upgrade. > > The Nikon's fine JPEGs are pretty nice. I'm sure the LX3's are too. > > You can't change the laws of physics, though. You might be able to > improve the sense amplifiers a bit, but you can't catch more photons than > the geometry allows. True.
From: LOL! on 29 May 2010 23:00 On Sun, 30 May 2010 03:14:22 +0100, "George Fillers" <gf(a)gf.hotmail> wrote: >"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >news:4c01b48f$0$1585$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> What the camera makers should be doing is putting more powerful flashes on >> cameras as the pixel size decreases. I was behind someone at Costco who >> was complaining to the photo person about how dim her indoor pictures >> were, and that when she was using film she got much better results. The >> clerk was trying to explain the reasons for this (and I was impressed that >> the clerk knew enough about digital photography and sensors to properly >> explain it) but the explanation clearly went over the customer's head. >> >> They should have some sort of visual aid with the different sensor sizes >> for different camera models, along with a 35mm film frame size so people >> can understand why the P&S digital cameras with tiny sensors do so poorly >> in low light. It's especially a problem with ZLRs where people buy them >> and think that they're going to get SLR-like performance in low light, >> without realizing that they're going to have the same problems they did >> with pocket size P&S models, or they'll have to spring for a expensive >> flash attachment. > > > >You've got me intrigued as your posts are usually pretty good. > >Are you talking about noise or exposure/inverse square law? > > LOL! You're being trolled by a role-playing photographer that's never even held a camera in his life. Maybe I'm wrong about SMS. Every time he manages to dupe one of you fools it's actually priceless entertainment! LOL!
From: SMS on 29 May 2010 23:13 On 29/05/10 7:14 PM, George Fillers wrote: > "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message > news:4c01b48f$0$1585$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >> What the camera makers should be doing is putting more powerful >> flashes on cameras as the pixel size decreases. I was behind someone >> at Costco who was complaining to the photo person about how dim her >> indoor pictures were, and that when she was using film she got much >> better results. The clerk was trying to explain the reasons for this >> (and I was impressed that the clerk knew enough about digital >> photography and sensors to properly explain it) but the explanation >> clearly went over the customer's head. >> >> They should have some sort of visual aid with the different sensor >> sizes for different camera models, along with a 35mm film frame size >> so people can understand why the P&S digital cameras with tiny sensors >> do so poorly in low light. It's especially a problem with ZLRs where >> people buy them and think that they're going to get SLR-like >> performance in low light, without realizing that they're going to have >> the same problems they did with pocket size P&S models, or they'll >> have to spring for a expensive flash attachment. > > > > You've got me intrigued as your posts are usually pretty good. > > Are you talking about noise or exposure/inverse square law? Noise would be pretty hard to explain to non-techies, but showing how pixel size (the same number of pixels in different size sensors) affects light gathering capability should be pretty intuitive. Actually there are already video tutorials that explain this, but putting it on a handout might be helpful not only in the photo processing departments of stores but in the camera departments. Too many people buy P&S cameras solely by megapixels, LCD size, and zoom lens range without understanding anything else.
From: ROFLMAO! on 29 May 2010 23:33
On Sat, 29 May 2010 20:13:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 29/05/10 7:14 PM, George Fillers wrote: >> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4c01b48f$0$1585$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> What the camera makers should be doing is putting more powerful >>> flashes on cameras as the pixel size decreases. I was behind someone >>> at Costco who was complaining to the photo person about how dim her >>> indoor pictures were, and that when she was using film she got much >>> better results. The clerk was trying to explain the reasons for this >>> (and I was impressed that the clerk knew enough about digital >>> photography and sensors to properly explain it) but the explanation >>> clearly went over the customer's head. >>> >>> They should have some sort of visual aid with the different sensor >>> sizes for different camera models, along with a 35mm film frame size >>> so people can understand why the P&S digital cameras with tiny sensors >>> do so poorly in low light. It's especially a problem with ZLRs where >>> people buy them and think that they're going to get SLR-like >>> performance in low light, without realizing that they're going to have >>> the same problems they did with pocket size P&S models, or they'll >>> have to spring for a expensive flash attachment. >> >> >> >> You've got me intrigued as your posts are usually pretty good. >> >> Are you talking about noise or exposure/inverse square law? > >Noise would be pretty hard to explain to non-techies, Translation: "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but let's see if he'll buy this BS I read on the net somewhere once..." > but showing how >pixel size (the same number of pixels in different size sensors) affects >light gathering capability should be pretty intuitive. > >Actually there are already video tutorials that explain this, Translation: "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but let's see if he'll buy this BS I read on the net somewhere once..." > but >putting it on a handout might be helpful not only in the photo >processing departments of stores but in the camera departments. Too many >people buy P&S cameras solely by megapixels, LCD size, and zoom lens >range without understanding anything else. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!! |