How far have P&S's come?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Robert Coe on 30 May 2010 10:25 On Sat, 29 May 2010 17:42:52 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: : 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. ... But that would require a more powerful battery, which would require a larger camera, which ... Bob
From: John Navas on 30 May 2010 10:29 On Sun, 30 May 2010 04:21:30 -0700 (PDT), ransley <Mark_Ransley(a)Yahoo.com> wrote in <aea21186-da4d-486d-b6ef-a580d76c73f3(a)t14g2000prm.googlegroups.com>: >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. In a word, no. They are as good or better than comparable cameras. Read the reviews. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Robert Coe on 30 May 2010 10:31 On Sat, 29 May 2010 22:33:04 -0500, ROFLMAO! <roflmao(a)roflmao.org> wrote: : 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..." What are you doing in this thread, Turkey? I've known Labrador retrievers who knew more about physics and optics than you do. Bob
From: tony cooper on 30 May 2010 11:15 On Sun, 30 May 2010 06:50:49 -0700, 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. 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. Welcome back, John, but I see you continue to blather. No one buys a dslr and gets worse pictures than they would with a P&S. If they don't know how to compose a photograph, they don't know how to compose a photograph with any type of device. You could legitimately say that buying a dslr will not ensure *better* photographs, but there is no way that a dslr will produce worse photographs than a P&S in the same person's hand. There are some advantages to the P&S. If you are going to shoot photographs from a kayak in high seas, the P&S is the better choice because one can be purchased with a greater zoom range and no change of lenses is necessary, and because the P&S closes when off and the lens is covered automatically. You don't need to fiddle with putting a lens cap on to protect the lens from splashing water. You don't have to know how to use a dslr properly anymore than you have to know how to use a P&S properly. All you have to do with either type of camera is to figure out how to turn it on and set it to Automatic. Your photographs will be *better* if you learn to use the other settings properly, but all modern dslrs can be used exactly as a P&S is used. You remind me of a guy I know who incessantly brags about his 5 year-old child and how smart the child is. He even brags that his child already knows how to use a knife and fork. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on 30 May 2010 11:50
On Sun, 30 May 2010 11:15:35 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in <6cv4061abn00jk73h6tv70qvhh7noujsjp(a)4ax.com>: >Welcome back, John, but I see you continue to blather. ... I see you continue to act like a jerk, so I'm not going to bother with the rest of your reply. -- Best regards, John "Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman |