Interesting Panasonic TZ1 feature

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ~~NoMad~~, Jun 29, 2007.

  1. ~~NoMad~~

    ~~NoMad~~ Guest

    After owning a TZ1 for over a year now, I just noticed an interesting
    feature.

    The TZ1 has only two aperture settings F2.8 and F5 at wide angle. Zoom it
    out 10x and the two settings become F4.2 and F7.1. No wonder they don't have
    a manual mode in this camera with only two aperture settings. I haven't
    noticed any abnormal loss in Depth of Field with this camera and I consider
    the pictures it produces excellent.

    I wonder if other P&S cameras have the same limited aperture settings?

    NM
     
    ~~NoMad~~, Jun 29, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ~~NoMad~~ wrote:
    > After owning a TZ1 for over a year now, I just noticed an interesting
    > feature.
    >
    > The TZ1 has only two aperture settings F2.8 and F5 at wide angle.
    > Zoom it out 10x and the two settings become F4.2 and F7.1. No wonder
    > they don't have a manual mode in this camera with only two aperture
    > settings. I haven't noticed any abnormal loss in Depth of Field with
    > this camera and I consider the pictures it produces excellent.
    >
    > I wonder if other P&S cameras have the same limited aperture settings?
    >
    > NM


    All small-sensor cameras are limited in the smaller physical apertures
    (higher f/numbers) because of the onset of diffraction effects at the
    smaller apertures restricting image sharpness. At f/16, the pictures
    would be noticeably worse. If they don't have a big maximum aperture,
    then the f/number range may indeed by quite restricted.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 29, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ~~NoMad~~

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Jun 29, 3:58 pm, "David J Taylor" <-this-
    part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > ~~NoMad~~ wrote:
    > > After owning a TZ1 for over a year now, I just noticed an interesting
    > > feature.

    >
    > > The TZ1 has only two aperture settings F2.8 and F5 at wide angle.
    > > Zoom it out 10x and the two settings become F4.2 and F7.1. No wonder
    > > they don't have a manual mode in this camera with only two aperture
    > > settings. I haven't noticed any abnormal loss in Depth of Field with
    > > this camera and I consider the pictures it produces excellent.

    >
    > > I wonder if other P&S cameras have the same limited aperture settings?

    >
    > > NM

    >
    > All small-sensor cameras are limited in the smaller physical apertures
    > (higher f/numbers) because of the onset of diffraction effects at the
    > smaller apertures restricting image sharpness. At f/16, the pictures
    > would be noticeably worse. If they don't have a big maximum aperture,
    > then the f/number range may indeed by quite restricted.
    >
    > David


    That raises an interesting question: Have any *empirical* studies
    been done regarding small-sensor cameras (or, rather, very short focal-
    length lenses), WRT at what point the lenses become diffraction-
    limited? I am relatively new to digital photography, and initially
    found it difficult to remember that you just plain cannot stop a lens
    down on a digital camera as much as you might unthinkingly do with a
    larger format camera.

    --
    YOP...
     
    Nervous Nick, Jun 30, 2007
    #3
  4. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    ~~NoMad~~
    <>], who wrote in article <f63qqd$6ti$>:
    > After owning a TZ1 for over a year now, I just noticed an interesting
    > feature.
    >
    > The TZ1 has only two aperture settings F2.8 and F5 at wide angle. Zoom it
    > out 10x and the two settings become F4.2 and F7.1.


    Remember the scaling law w.r.t. the sensor size. One can get
    identical pictures from sensors of different sizes, PROVIDED (quote
    from my older post):

    The physical laws of scaling are the following: to produce the same
    image from N times smaller sensor (linearly) one needs to:

    a) have the same count of pixels;

    b) have the same QE;

    c) have the same readout noise;

    d) have the same full well;

    e) have the same exposure time;

    f) use N times higher aperture (measured as an F-number, e.g., 1/45);

    g) have the same "quality" of the lens (e.g, measured as quotient
    of actual MTF of the lens to MTF of diffraction-limited lens)

    So, e.g., comparing 1/2.5"-sensor with full-frame (which is 8/3"), the
    aperture is translated to 2.8*N, 5*N, 4.2*N, and 7.1*N, with N being
    8/3/(1/2.5)=6.6. This makes your apertures equivalent to f/19, f/33,
    f/28 and f/47 (when comparing to full-frame).

    I do not know the sensor size of TZ1, so you may need to recalculate.
    Anyway, did you ever used apertures much smaller than f/47 with
    full-frame? 1/4 ;-)

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Jun 30, 2007
    #4
  5. Nervous Nick wrote:
    []
    > That raises an interesting question: Have any *empirical* studies
    > been done regarding small-sensor cameras (or, rather, very short
    > focal- length lenses), WRT at what point the lenses become
    > diffraction- limited? I am relatively new to digital photography,
    > and initially found it difficult to remember that you just plain
    > cannot stop a lens down on a digital camera as much as you might
    > unthinkingly do with a larger format camera.


    I do hope someone can answer your question, but knowing the way in which
    marketing /can/ drive engineering, I suspect that cameras are already at
    or beyond that limit! However, as people's expectations may be less with
    small-sensor cameras, perhaps it doesn't matter as much if some
    diffraction shows. I think it would just be a lack of sharpness rather
    than anything unpleasant. To keep noise down, you may stick with ISO 100,
    so not having a smaller aperture may not matter as much. In any case, you
    already have greater depth-of-field.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 30, 2007
    #5
  6. ~~NoMad~~

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Jun 29, 10:56 pm, "David J Taylor" <-
    this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
    > Nervous Nickwrote:
    >
    > []
    >
    > > That raises an interesting question: Have any *empirical* studies
    > > been done regarding small-sensor cameras (or, rather, very short
    > > focal- length lenses), WRT at what point the lenses become
    > > diffraction- limited? I am relatively new to digital photography,
    > > and initially found it difficult to remember that you just plain
    > > cannot stop a lens down on a digital camera as much as you might
    > > unthinkingly do with a larger format camera.

    >
    > I do hope someone can answer your question, but knowing the way in which
    > marketing /can/ drive engineering, I suspect that cameras are already at
    > or beyond that limit!


    So you seem to be saying that most of these lenses would be
    diffraction limited when *wide open.* Which makes sense considering
    the much smaller scale we are talking about.*

    However, as people's expectations may be less with
    > small-sensor cameras, perhaps it doesn't matter as much if some
    > diffraction shows. I think it would just be a lack of sharpness rather
    > than anything unpleasant. To keep noise down, you may stick with ISO 100,
    > so not having a smaller aperture may not matter as much. In any case, you
    > already have greater depth-of-field.


    See, there is where I got messed up initially; in thinking that you
    would get greater depth of field by stopping down, when you already
    *have* that greater depth of field inherent to the smaller scales.

    Cheers!

    --
    YOP...

    *By "a point where a lens becomes diffraction limited* I mean, the f-
    stop past, where if you stop down any further, you get no net gain in
    sharpness, and indeed begin to experience loss in sharpness. You can
    actually view this phenomenon under an enlarger, for example, if you
    carefully look at film grain through your enlarging magnifier while
    stopping down the lens. As you stop down, the grain will appear to
    become sharper, up to a certain f-stop, past which the sharpness
    degenerates. It is at that crucial f-stop that the lens is said to be
    "diffraction-limited," as in, for example, "diffraction-limited at f/
    11".
     
    Nervous Nick, Jun 30, 2007
    #6
  7. ~~NoMad~~

    Eddie Guest

    ~~NoMad~~ presented the following explanation :
    > After owning a TZ1 for over a year now, I just noticed an interesting
    > feature.
    >
    > The TZ1 has only two aperture settings F2.8 and F5 at wide angle. Zoom it out
    > 10x and the two settings become F4.2 and F7.1. No wonder they don't have a
    > manual mode in this camera with only two aperture settings. I haven't noticed
    > any abnormal loss in Depth of Field with this camera and I consider the
    > pictures it produces excellent.
    >
    > I wonder if other P&S cameras have the same limited aperture settings?
    >
    > NM


    Yes, my Casio EX-Z850 has the same feature. 2 f-stop settings per
    zoom.
     
    Eddie, Jun 30, 2007
    #7
  8. Nervous Nick wrote:
    []
    > So you seem to be saying that most of these lenses would be
    > diffraction limited when *wide open.* Which makes sense considering
    > the much smaller scale we are talking about.*


    I haven't done the sums, but, yes, that is possible.

    >> However, as people's expectations may be less with
    >> small-sensor cameras, perhaps it doesn't matter as much if some
    >> diffraction shows. I think it would just be a lack of sharpness
    >> rather than anything unpleasant. To keep noise down, you may stick
    >> with ISO 100, so not having a smaller aperture may not matter as
    >> much. In any case, you already have greater depth-of-field.

    >
    > See, there is where I got messed up initially; in thinking that you
    > would get greater depth of field by stopping down, when you already
    > *have* that greater depth of field inherent to the smaller scales.
    >
    > Cheers!


    Yes, it's one of the prime differences between small-sensor cameras and
    DSLRs. On the small sensor camera there is less need to stop down to
    increase DoF. Of course, sometimes you want a large DoF to have
    everything sharp, and sometimes a small DoF to isolate the main subject.
    In practice, I find that with the longer end of the zoom (say 200mm+) on a
    Panasonic FZ5, you can isolate the subject quite well, but you could do so
    at a shorter focal length (say 50mm) on a DSLR with an f/1.8 lens.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 30, 2007
    #8
  9. ~~NoMad~~

    Alex Monro Guest

    Nervous Nick wrote:

    >
    > That raises an interesting question: Have any *empirical* studies
    > been done regarding small-sensor cameras (or, rather, very short
    > focal- length lenses), WRT at what point the lenses become
    > diffraction-
    > limited? I am relatively new to digital photography, and initially
    > found it difficult to remember that you just plain cannot stop a lens
    > down on a digital camera as much as you might unthinkingly do with a
    > larger format camera.
    >

    You might find this web page of interest:

    http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
     
    Alex Monro, Jun 30, 2007
    #9
  10. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Nervous Nick
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > So you seem to be saying that most of these lenses would be
    > diffraction limited when *wide open.*


    This would not make any sense. The lenses are so tiny, that making
    them 1.5 as large would not add more than a few cents to the cost.

    If they were diffraction-limited at f/1.5N, they would be of quite good
    quality at f/N. You gain a full f-stop with very minor change in price.

    But what I *have* seen is that some of the best P&S cameras give the
    *best resolution* when wide open. This means that they are not
    diffraction-limited when wide open, but not-very-far-away-from
    diffraction-limited when wide open.

    (E.g., IIRC, G5 has its best resolution at f/2.8.)

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya
     
    Ilya Zakharevich, Jul 1, 2007
    #10
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Karen Selwyn

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1

    Karen Selwyn, Feb 19, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    404
    Kinon O'Cann
    Feb 19, 2006
  2. Beach Runner

    Panasonic DMC TZ1

    Beach Runner, Mar 5, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    265
    Daniel Silevitch
    Mar 5, 2006
  3. KT

    Review of Panasonic TZ1 ?

    KT, Mar 22, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    318
    Gene F. Rhodes
    Mar 31, 2006
  4. ~~NoMad~~

    Panasonic DMC-TZ1 at Wal-Mart

    ~~NoMad~~, Apr 26, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    274
    ~~NoMad~~
    Apr 27, 2006
  5. Panno Zhai

    Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ1 vs. LX-1

    Panno Zhai, May 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    738
    Panno Zhai
    May 20, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page