low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

I have a Fuji P&S... nice zoom... and, it does great daytime
pictures... but I have two problems with it.
This camera will not function once the Sun goes down... without
flash, it chokes even on a heavilly overcast day.

So_ next, I'll be looking for a digital with two capabilities...
it needs in reduced lighting situations... and... it needs to
work totally without autofocus, or, maybe I should say, have
a manual focus mode.

What kind of digital... inexpensive please... will have these
capabilities ? Or... has digital completely forgotten about
manual focus and low light ??

thanks for any suggestions. Im sure these same problems
are perplexing a lot of other 35mm/slr people too.

Re: low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

oops... typo: I meant
> it needs [ to work ] in reduced lighting situations... and... it
needs to
> work totally without autofocus, or, maybe I should say, have
> a manual focus mode.

Re: low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

On Jun 28, 6:10*am, stu7se...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a Fuji P&S... nice zoom... and, it does great daytime
> pictures... but I have two problems with it.
> This camera will not function once the Sun goes down... without
> flash, it chokes even on a heavilly overcast day.
>
> So_ next, I'll be looking for a digital with two capabilities...
> it needs in reduced lighting situations... and... it needs to
> work totally without autofocus, or, maybe I should say, have
> a manual focus mode.
>
> What kind of digital... inexpensive please... will have these
> capabilities ? *Or... has digital completely forgotten about
> manual focus and low light ??
>
> thanks for any suggestions. *Im sure these same problems
> are perplexing a lot of other 35mm/slr people too.

Low end, low light and manual focus are three mutually exclusive
things.

The Fuji F20/30 series were the best of the compacts for low-light -
no recent cameras have done any better. But usable manual focus?
Nup.
On small sensor cameras you just won't get significantly better
results. I'd suggest you forget looking at compacts - if you are
after low cost, about your only option might be a secondhand dslr with
a 50/1.8 lens or similar. The older canon digitals are probably the
best low-light performers.

Re: low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

stu7seven@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a Fuji P&S... nice zoom... and, it does great daytime
> pictures... but I have two problems with it.
> This camera will not function once the Sun goes down... without
> flash, it chokes even on a heavilly overcast day.
>
> So_ next, I'll be looking for a digital with two capabilities...
> it needs in reduced lighting situations... and... it needs to
> work totally without autofocus, or, maybe I should say, have
> a manual focus mode.
>
> What kind of digital... inexpensive please... will have these
> capabilities ? Or... has digital completely forgotten about
> manual focus and low light ??
>
> thanks for any suggestions. Im sure these same problems
> are perplexing a lot of other 35mm/slr people too.

The inexpensive DSLRs now available work well a much wider range of
conditions than the small-sensor compact cameras, the auto-focus is
significantly faster, and they aren't that heavy either. Worth a look,
at least.

Cheers,
David

Re: low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

mark.thomas.7@gmail.com wrote in news:4c292bfe-0780-41e8-8b2a-
abb2794441da@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> The Fuji F20/30 series were the best of the compacts for low-light -
> no recent cameras have done any better.

Fuji P&S cameras have sensors that under-perfrom those by many other
companies, hence the need for their cartoon-like noise reduction which
removes all fine detail at high ISOs and in shadows.



--
John Sheehy

Re: low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:18:54 GMT, John P Sheehy wrote:

>> The Fuji F20/30 series were the best of the compacts for low-light -
>> no recent cameras have done any better.
>
> Fuji P&S cameras have sensors that under-perfrom those by many other
> companies, hence the need for their cartoon-like noise reduction which
> removes all fine detail at high ISOs and in shadows.

You've said that before, but it's still complete BS, at least as a
generalization, and this has been demonstrated in the past. It may
be true for *some* of Fuji's P&S cameras, but definitely not for all
of them, a few of which (such as those mentioned by Mark, above) are
better at high ISOs than any other P&S cameras, much more closely
approaching the detail of DSLRs at high ISOs than any other P&S
cameras. You either ignore facts that you don't like or forget
very easily. It must be distressing that what appears to be one of
your favorite P&S cameras has such poor high ISO, low noise
performance, despite its ultra low read noise, that you so often
tell us about. :)

Re: low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote in news:7agd64l0umcn4g4leilgoa8g2skktcdn1a@
4ax.com:

> On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:18:54 GMT, John P Sheehy wrote:
>
>>> The Fuji F20/30 series were the best of the compacts for low-light -
>>> no recent cameras have done any better.
>>
>> Fuji P&S cameras have sensors that under-perfrom those by many other
>> companies, hence the need for their cartoon-like noise reduction which
>> removes all fine detail at high ISOs and in shadows.
>
> You've said that before, but it's still complete BS, at least as a
> generalization, and this has been demonstrated in the past. It may
> be true for *some* of Fuji's P&S cameras, but definitely not for all
> of them, a few of which (such as those mentioned by Mark, above) are
> better at high ISOs than any other P&S cameras, much more closely
> approaching the detail of DSLRs at high ISOs than any other P&S
> cameras. You either ignore facts that you don't like or forget
> very easily. It must be distressing that what appears to be one of
> your favorite P&S cameras has such poor high ISO, low noise
> performance, despite its ultra low read noise, that you so often
> tell us about. :)

The day I bought the FZ50, I almost bought the 6MP Fuji (6500, I believe)
which had RAW (I went with the FZ50 because of the legendary lens). It
turns out they both have similar pixel read noise, but the FZ50 collects
more photons in each of its 10M pixels than the 6500 does in each of its
6M. This is the same 6MP sensor in the "legendary" F31.

I'm just stating the facts as I find them. Here's what the 6MP Fuji sensor
looks like at ISO 3200 without any noise reduction:

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image...7/original.jpg

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Re: low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

John Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> wrote in
news:Xns9ACCD188A5FA0jpsnokomm@130.81.64.196:

> I'm just stating the facts as I find them. Here's what the 6MP Fuji
> sensor looks like at ISO 3200 without any noise reduction:

Sorry, I meant to link to the page, not the image itself:

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/89156547/original

The page mentions that it is a 100% crop; if that were the entire image
properly downsampled, that would be *really* bad.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Re: low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

John Sheehy wrote:
> John Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> wrote in
> news:Xns9ACCD188A5FA0jpsnokomm@130.81.64.196:
>
>> I'm just stating the facts as I find them.

Indeed. Like asaar, forgive me if I defer to other sources. Just for a
change from the usual dpreview pages, here are two Cameralabs pages, one
for the F30 and one for the FZ50. Look carefully at the ISO 1600 shots,
taken in controlled, but real-life conditions:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Fu.../page4ca.shtml
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pa.../page4ca.shtml

Neither are brilliant, but imo there is more usable detail in the Fuji
images. The pure noise tests on the previous pages are even more
damning, but less 'real'. Similarly, every review I can find for the
FZ50 is critical of its low-light/noise performance, and its
over-zealous NR. Nice camera otherwise, don't get me wrong.

Eg, here are some reviewers comments:
(IR) - Fuji has been wise to emphasize the F30's range of excellent
low-light options...
(CL) - (The F30's) low light capabilities still lead the market
(DPR) - F30 is far and away the best low light compact camera on the
market today... F30's sensor gives you at least a two-stop advantage

(IR) - Panasonic FZ50 really struggles when shooting at higher ISO
levels, producing images that are marred by excessive chroma noise...
(CL) - FZ50 sadly runs into trouble at 200 ISO... detail is smeared-out
by aggressive noise reduction... with its compromised image quality
above 100 ISO is arguably a step-backwards
(DPR) - fantastic camera with a less than stellar sensor... smearing of
detail.. limits the FZ50 to low ISO settings.. only for those users who
can live without anything over ISO 200...

And there are numerous other examples - are all these people on the Fuji
payroll? It seems you may be justifying your own purchase decision,
rather than doing controlled tests. If you wish to show two identically
lit and exposed images, and a similarly lit and (under)exposed
unprocessed shot at 3200 from the FZ50... feel free to come back and
continue the discussion.

I'm intrigued by your claim that FZ50 'collects more photons' - do you
have a source?

Anyway, this is rather offtopic as no *compact* camera is highly suited
to low-light photography, and the FZ50 is neither compact or worthy of
any consideration for someone who is focussed on low-light imaging...

Do you have alternative suggestions for the best *compact* camera, and
supporting links?

Re: low end digital / low light and macro ?
 

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:35:47 GMT, John Sheehy wrote:

> The day I bought the FZ50, I almost bought the 6MP Fuji (6500, I believe)
> which had RAW (I went with the FZ50 because of the legendary lens).

OK so far.

> It turns out they both have similar pixel read noise, but the FZ50
> collects more photons in each of its 10M pixels than the 6500 does
> in each of its 6M.

How so? The FZ50 has a 1/1.8" sensor and the S6000/S6500 has a
larger 1/1.7" sensor. If the larger sensor has fewer pixels, then
those pixels/sensels must be much larger than those in the FZ50's
sensor. Unless each of the Fuji's sensels is really tiny, and each
one is surrounded by a lot of unused, wasted space.


> This is the same 6MP sensor in the "legendary" F31.

Legendary it may be, but it's not the camera that DPReview
compared in its "legendary" high ISO/low noise comparison. That one
was the F30, but close enough. At least for the moment you've
abandoned your familiar "cartoon-like noise reduction" rant, which
you've used before when you didn't want to admit that the F30 could
possibly have low noise at high ISO as well as more detail than all
but the DSLR in DPReview's test. Now if you're really on to
something with your claim that the FZ50's pixels/sensels capture
more photons than the Fuji's, it should outperform the Fuji. Let's
see if DPReview found this to be true (selected quote snippets) :

Fuji S6000 :
> Conclusion - Pros
> # Excellent resolution & sharpness
> # Very good results up to ISO 400, ISO 800 perfectly usable
> # Class-leading high ISO performance; might not be fantastic, but it's the
> best you'll get
>
> Conclusion - Cons
> # ISO 1600 / 3200 JPEGS not as good as F30 (can be solved by shooting raw)
>
> Overall conclusion
> And in many ways the S6000fd doesn't disappoint; the resolution is
> excellent, and at lower ISO settings it puts many of the more popular
> 'super zoom' models to shame. At ISO 400 and 800 it is quite literally
> in a class of its own. The high ISO output might not worry the SLR
> manufacturers (the sheer scale of the difference in sensor sizes puts
> paid to that), but it is better than most competitors by a fairly wide margin.
> . . .
> I was surprised to see that the high ISO output isn't as good as the F30
> unless you shoot raw - this must be the fault of the new Real Photo Processor II.
> . . .
> Put simply, whether the S6000fd is a better choice than, say the Canon, Sony
> or Panasonic super zoom models depends on the type of photography you do
> and the conditions you shoot in. If you tend to stick to the wide end of the zoom,
> do a lot of hand-held low-light work in situations where image stabilization
> doesn't help (basically if the subject you're shooting is moving) and don't need
> a really long zoom, the Fuji is ideal. If you want to do a lot of long telephoto
> work - especially in good light - I'd go for one of the alternatives. Do not,
> however, be seduced into thinking that the 6.3MP pixel count puts the S6000fd
> at a disadvantage compared to its 7,8 or 10MP competitors; the resolution is
> one of the best of any 'super zoom' camera, and at ISO 200-800 the S6000fd
> retains far more detail.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Fuji...0fd/page14.asp


Panasonic FZ50 :
> Conclusion - Pros
> Excellent resolution and corner-to-corner detail at lower ISO settings
>
> Conclusion - Cons
> # Extra 2 million pixels offer little visible advantage
> # Extra 2 million pixels offer little visible advantage
> # Noise reduction produces visible artefacts and loss of low contrast
> detail even at low ISO (and noise if you don't use NR) if viewed at
> 100% (actual pixels)
> # ISO 400 and above very soft and smeary due to excessive NR
> # Bleeding of colors (particularly reds) at high ISOs (excessive chroma
> sub sampling)
>
> Overall conclusion
> If you look at the list of pros and cons above you'll notice that the pros
> are mostly concerned with the camera and the cons are mostly concerned
> with the image, or more specifically the effect of noise and Venus III noise
> reduction. This sums up the FZ50 perfectly; a fantastic camera with a less
> than stellar sensor / processor, and way too many pixels.
> . . .
> And so what we have is a camera that stretches its sensor to almost breaking
> point and compensates for the lack of sensitivity in anything but the brightest
> conditions by using excessive noise reduction. The FZ50 is an excellent 5 or
> 6MP camera, but a rather less impressive 10MP camera.
> Is this a problem? Probably not - by the time the huge files have been shrunk
> down for printing or viewing on-screen they look fantastic, and the handling
> and features are quite simply peerless. But do not, for a minute, think that
> the 10 million pixels you're getting with the FZ50 bear anything but a passing
> resemblance to the 10 million pixel images you'll get from a good SLR once
> you get above ISO 100, or once light levels start to drop.
>
> . . . offers a compact 'all-in-one' solution to anyone wanting a huge zoom
> range without all that lens changing and all that bulk. Inevitably this involves
> a certain amount of compromise; the smearing of fine, low contrast detail
> that is the hallmark of the Venus III engine limits the FZ50 to low ISO settings
> for any serious photography unless you're happy to accept that you'll never
> be able to produce big enlargements.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Pana...Z50/page19.asp


Oh well, at least your FZ50 has low read noise. Unfortunately,
when it comes to high ISO/low noise with high detail, it doesn't
come close to the performance of the S6000/S6500, which in turn is
bested by the palm-sized F30. If your FZ50 could produce the same
"cartoon-like noise reduction" you'd be ecstatic! :)


For those that never saw DPReview's Compact Camera/High ISO test
(and possibly for you, who apparently wants to forget it), it's
still online. Cameras evaluated were Fuji's F30, Canon's Powershot
S3 IS, the Panasonic FX01, Sony DSC-H5, Samsung NV7 OPS, Ricoh
GR-Digital, Olympus Mju 800, Casio EX-Z850, Canon Powershot G7,
Panasonic LX2, Olympus Mju 750, Casio EX-Z1000, and finally, your
Panasonic FZ50. Canon's EOS 30D was also included in the test, and
DPReview's reason was that it "is simply here as a benchmark to
compare the compacts to".

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/com...hiso/page3.asp


On second thought, it'll probably be a waste of your time unless
you've changed (become more open minded) since you posted this
comment about DPReview's comparison article nearly a year ago :

> "I read it a few weeks ago when you first linked to it, and didn't
> learn anything."


"A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste." -- anon.