Prev: Optical Viewfinders availability almost extinct
Next: Flower macros
From: Rich on 29 May 2010 20:13
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. The
Panasonic has the superior lens, 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
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.

Coolpix:

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/125036002

Panasonic:

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/125036009

From: SMS on 29 May 2010 20:42
On 29/05/10 5:13 PM, 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. The
> Panasonic has the superior lens, but the images are about 0.7 stop
> dimmer than from the Nikon indicating perhaps the pixel size has
> effected over sensitivity.

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.
From: Ray Fischer on 29 May 2010 21:19
Rich <rander3127(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
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Andrew Reilly on 29 May 2010 21:57
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.

> 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.

Cheers,

--
Andrew
From: George Fillers on 29 May 2010 22:14
"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?



 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Prev: Optical Viewfinders availability almost extinct
Next: Flower macros