How far have P&S's come?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Rich on 29 May 2010 23:59 On May 29, 11:33 pm, ROFLMAO! <rofl...(a)roflmao.org> wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 20:13:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >On 29/05/10 7:14 PM, George Fillers wrote: > >> "SMS" <scharf.ste...(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!!!!!!!! Why not pick one identity and stick with it? It's not like your going into politics and have to worry about your posts resurfacing at some point.
From: DanP on 30 May 2010 05:00 On May 30, 4:59 am, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Why not pick one identity and stick with it? It's not like your going > into politics and have to worry about your posts resurfacing at some > point. A smart reader will not believe him either way. But he stands a better chance with the gullible readers if lots of sock puppets seem to agree on all that bullshit. DanP
From: ransley on 30 May 2010 07:21 On May 29, 7:13 pm, 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. 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 Isnt Panasonic know to have one of the most noisy sensors.
From: John Navas on 30 May 2010 09:50 On Sat, 29 May 2010 20:13:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in <4c01d7e1$0$1638$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>: >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. Except it's not that simple. If it were, newer dSLR cameras with much smaller pixel sizes than older dSLR cameras would produce much worse images, when in fact they produce much better images. >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. Too many people buy dSLR cameras with cheap kit or independent lenses solely by type, brand name, and price, without understanding anything else, because they wrongly think, like so many here, that a dSLR is better because it's bigger and more expensive, and that a better camera will make them better photographers, only to get worse pictures than they would have gotten with a high-end compact digital camera, both because they don't know how to use a dSLR properly, and because they won't spend enough money on glass. You're demonstrating (again) that you know as little about photography (and people) as you do about cellular. -- Best regards, John "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: nospam on 30 May 2010 10:17
In article <obq4061de9oep996u2m55s24vin5apoopb(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 20:13:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> > wrote in <4c01d7e1$0$1638$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>: > >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. > > Except it's not that simple. actually, it is. > If it were, newer dSLR cameras with much > smaller pixel sizes than older dSLR cameras would produce much worse > images, when in fact they produce much better images. that's because the sensor technology improved more than the impact of smaller pixels. if you compare a more advanced sensor with an older design, you have more than one variable, and claiming smaller pixels are as good or better is misleading. for any given sensor technology, a larger sensor gathers more light and has a better signal/noise ratio. it's basic physics. > >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. > > Too many people buy dSLR cameras with cheap kit or independent lenses > solely by type, brand name, and price, without understanding anything > else, because they wrongly think, like so many here, that a dSLR is > better because it's bigger and more expensive, and that a better camera > will make them better photographers, only to get worse pictures than > they would have gotten with a high-end compact digital camera, both > because they don't know how to use a dSLR properly, and because they > won't spend enough money on glass. plenty of people get lousy photos with compact digicams too and there's no evidence that they'd have fared better if they bought something else. > You're demonstrating (again) that you know as little about photography > (and people) as you do about cellular. you can dish it out but you can't take it. one of your favourite quotes: > 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, > whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.' |