low end digital / low light and macro ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by stu7seven@gmail.com, Jun 27, 2008.

  1. Guest

    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.
     
    , Jun 27, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    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.
     
    , Jun 27, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Jun 28, 6:10 am, 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.
     
    , Jun 28, 2008
    #3
  4. 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
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 28, 2008
    #4
  5. wrote in news:4c292bfe-0780-41e8-8b2a-
    :

    > 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
     
    John P Sheehy, Jun 28, 2008
    #5
  6. ASAAR Guest

    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. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jun 29, 2008
    #6
  7. John Sheehy Guest

    ASAAR <> 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/89156547/original.jpg

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Jun 30, 2008
    #7
  8. John Sheehy Guest

    John Sheehy <> 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 <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Jun 30, 2008
    #8
  9. Mark Thomas Guest

    John Sheehy wrote:
    > John Sheehy <> 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/FujifilmF30/page4ca.shtml
    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ50/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?
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 30, 2008
    #9
  10. ASAAR Guest

    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/FujifilmS6000fd/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/PanasonicFZ50/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/compactcamerahighiso/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.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 30, 2008
    #10
  11. Mark Thomas wrote:
    > John Sheehy wrote:
    >> John Sheehy <> 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/FujifilmF30/page4ca.shtml
    > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/PanasonicFZ50/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?



    As an addendum to this, there are some very distinct differences between
    early FZ50s and those with current firmware. I initially used a friend's
    FZ50 and was really impressed but I bought one I was immediately
    unimpressed. The performance both in noise levels and focusing was not as
    good as the one I borrowed. I subsequently learned, through Google, that
    there had been a firmware update and my new camera did not have the current
    firmware. I found a thread on the issue and looked at some sample photos
    with the new firmware (see: http://tinyurl.com/5kevnv) and immediately
    returned the camera. They offered me another - brand new stock with the
    new firmware - which I accepted. It was and is quite brilliant. The
    difference really was from mediocre to brilliant. The new firmware makes it
    faster and gives it better battery life as well less noise and more precise
    focusing.

    I still find it to be more versatile at low ISO settings than my DSLRs. No
    bulky lenses to carry and I can instantly shoot anything from a macro to
    430mm zoom with that lovely Leica lens (or with the telephoto conversion at
    more than 850mm).

    If only it had decent low light capability I would want no other camera.
    That is why I was posting about TTL flash units the other day. I have
    solved that problem now, at huge cost unfortunately.

    Secret Squirrel

    --

    Ingrid Rose

    clandestin.ecureuil(insert missing symbol here)gmail.com
     
    clandestin_écureuil, Jun 30, 2008
    #11
  12. Mark Thomas Guest

    clandestin_écureuil wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    >> 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.


    And I can answer that request myself, having just browsed over the links
    asaar provided. At the bottom of this page:
    http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/page4.asp
    there is a direct comparison of the F30, the FZ50 and a DSLR at ISO3200.
    Oh dear. Perhaps that is a little unfair, as the Pana is in a reduced
    res mode and they didn't include the FZ50 in the lower ISO comparisons.
    But it is very clear throughout that test that the F30 is simply in a
    class all by itself when it comes to compact high ISO.. Of course the
    camera itself wasn't so outstanding in some other aspects but in that
    respect, ie low-light sensor performance, it was unchallenged.

    Sadly, it's been downhill since then due to the suicidal desire of
    camera companies (inc. Fuji) to simply pack more pixels onto sensors, so
    finding one of these little gems may be difficult. It does make one
    wonder what sort of cameras we *should* be seeing now if the improvement
    in sensor/processing quality had continued. Or even if they just stuck
    a similar sensor into a design like the FZ50 so it could benefit from
    that lovely piece of glass.. Oh well.

    > As an addendum to this, there are some very distinct differences between
    > early FZ50s and those with current firmware.


    That's interesting to know, especially for anyone considering one
    secondhand... I wasn't aware of a firmware release addressing noise.

    > The difference really was from mediocre to brilliant. The new
    > firmware makes it faster and gives it better battery life as well less
    > noise and more precise focusing.


    I would imagine the 'less noise' is only relevant up to about 2-400 ISO,
    judging by your comments. The images I've seen above that from the FZ50
    were clearly beyond any sort of NR, or firmware fix.. (O:

    > I still find it to be more versatile at low ISO settings than my DSLRs.
    > No bulky lenses to carry and I can instantly shoot anything from a macro
    > to 430mm zoom with that lovely Leica lens (or with the telephoto
    > conversion at more than 850mm).


    No argument with that - I use a similar camera and love the
    'one-thing-to-carry' convenience. I borrow a DSLR every now and then,
    and one day I might win the lottery and get one of those I think are
    'worthy' (which at the moment would probably only be the D3...(O:)

    > If only it had decent low light capability I would want no other camera.
    > That is why I was posting about TTL flash units the other day. I have
    > solved that problem now, at huge cost unfortunately.


    I saw the thread but missed that posting - I'll go check it again..
    Metz? (no need to answer, I'm just being lazy..)
     
    Mark Thomas, Jun 30, 2008
    #12
  13. Mark Thomas wrote:
    []
    > And I can answer that request myself, having just browsed over the
    > links asaar provided. At the bottom of this page:
    > http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/page4.asp
    > there is a direct comparison of the F30, the FZ50 and a DSLR at
    > ISO3200. Oh dear.

    []

    Not necessarily. To me, there is more graduation in the reflected
    highlights on the Casio and Panasonic than on the Fuji, and it might be
    that the 2.5MP image would be more than good enough for smaller prints
    (say up to 7 x 5 inches). (I've seen good A4-size prints [297 x 210mm)
    from a 3.3MP camera.)

    So in low-light conditions, reducing the spatial bandwidth by binning may
    well be a better comprise then having a sharp, but noisier image. It may
    also depend on the image, and the viewer. It is one case where
    pixel-peeping at 1:1 zoom just doesn't tell the whole story.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 30, 2008
    #13
  14. ransley Guest

    On Jun 27, 3:10 pm, 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.


    I have a cheap digital, i just use a tripod, actualy many fujis have
    had better low light performance then others by a stop or 2. P&S are
    most all a bit slow. but it depends on your model. Dont expect
    anything without sun or a tripod but blur.
     
    ransley, Jun 30, 2008
    #14
  15. ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:30:20 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    >> there is a direct comparison of the F30, the FZ50 and a DSLR at
    >> ISO3200. Oh dear.

    > []
    >
    > Not necessarily. To me, there is more graduation in the reflected
    > highlights on the Casio and Panasonic than on the Fuji, and it might be
    > that the 2.5MP image would be more than good enough for smaller prints
    > (say up to 7 x 5 inches). (I've seen good A4-size prints [297 x 210mm)
    > from a 3.3MP camera.)
    >
    > So in low-light conditions, reducing the spatial bandwidth by binning may
    > well be a better comprise then having a sharp, but noisier image. It may
    > also depend on the image, and the viewer. It is one case where
    > pixel-peeping at 1:1 zoom just doesn't tell the whole story.


    Someone here has eyes but cannot see. :) Really, anyone only
    needs a quick look at the ISO 3200 and they'll easily see detail
    produced by the F30 that would show up in a print. But that same
    detail is completely absent from the Casio and Panasonic images, so
    it wouldn't be visible in prints of any size. See all of the dots
    (rivets?) in the robot's face? They're very clear in the EOS 30D
    and F30 images, but completely absent from the Casio and Panasonic
    images. It's impossible to compare the text seen in the 30D and F30
    images because it's cropped out of the Casio and Panasonic images.
    But if you examine the full images, you'll see that the "Tin Light"
    that appears on the robot's chest is produced very legibly by the
    30D, is a bit noisy but legible (F30),

    Now if you're trying to make an A4 print from the FZ50's full
    image, the result may be satisfying, but that satisfaction would
    quickly turn to dismay if an A4 print from the F30 was placed next
    to the one from the FZ50. From uncropped (other than to match the
    print aspect ratio), where *no* pixel peeping is involved, the
    FZ50's ISO 3200 image just doesn't compare. You may need good
    eyesight or a loupe to read the "Tin Light" in the smaller of the
    F30's prints. But the same detail from FZ50's image, whether
    printed at 4"x6", 5"x7", 8"x10" or A4, is an illegible smudge. You
    may be able to make out that it's text, and that's a shame,
    considering the detail that the FZ50's Leica lens can produce.

    Speaking of "Leica", look at the camera in the test shot. The
    F30's image clearly shows Leitz Elmar 1:3.5 F=50mm, as well as the
    aperture and other markings. The FZ50 only shows smudges.

    One other point - the color produced by the FZ50 may be pleasing,
    but it isn't accurate, at least on my monitor. The F30's image of
    the "Kodak Gray Scale" is gray, and the supposedly white background
    appears quite white. The FZ50's image on the other hand has a
    pronounced greenish cast. Since DPReview said about the FZ50 "Vivid
    but realistic color", maybe the color balance wasn't closely
    monitored during the test. In any case, that's a non-issue for FZ50
    RAW shooters. Or for FZ50 owners that wear rose colored glasses. :)
     
    ASAAR, Jun 30, 2008
    #15
  16. ASAAR wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:30:20 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
    >> []
    >> So in low-light conditions, reducing the spatial bandwidth by
    >> binning may well be a better comprise then having a sharp, but
    >> noisier image. It may also depend on the image, and the viewer. It
    >> is one case where pixel-peeping at 1:1 zoom just doesn't tell the
    >> whole story.

    >
    > Someone here has eyes but cannot see. :)

    []

    I'm not pixel peeping, simply suggesting that for smaller prints, have a
    smaller number (2.5MP) of binned pixels may be preferable to a larger
    number (10MP) of poorer quality ones. I don't have the time to try this
    test for myself right now, but it would be interesting to know what actual
    prints - and not pixel peeping - shows. And I mean viewing the prints at
    a normal distance, not with a magnifying glass. It's a test for anyone to
    try - I am not pre-judging the result.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 30, 2008
    #16
  17. ASAAR Guest

    On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:36:56 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

    >> Someone here has eyes but cannot see. :)

    > []
    >
    > I'm not pixel peeping, simply suggesting that for smaller prints, have a
    > smaller number (2.5MP) of binned pixels may be preferable to a larger
    > number (10MP) of poorer quality ones. I don't have the time to try this
    > test for myself right now, but it would be interesting to know what actual
    > prints - and not pixel peeping - shows. And I mean viewing the prints at
    > a normal distance, not with a magnifying glass. It's a test for anyone to
    > try - I am not pre-judging the result.


    I completely understood that you weren't pixel peeping and in some
    cases binning might be preferable. From what I could see, though,
    the binning might be more of an advantage for the pixel peepers,
    since it seems to really be good at hiding, or smoothing out noise -
    unfortunately losing a tremendous amount of detail in the process.

    Did you actually look at the images? The one from the FZ50 at ISO
    3200 that I described (at the link provided by Mark Thomas) *was*
    binned. At least it didn't turn out as bad as the really atrocious,
    similarly binned photo from the Casio EX-Z1000. If you want to try
    your test, almost everything is supplied. Save the ISO 3200 images
    for the FZ50 and F30, add some spice from your favorite editor if
    you wish, bake until done and print. As I indicated, if you print
    the full sized image the difference may be slight. But if it's a
    cropped portion that you print, the difference should be obvious.
    Loupe not needed!
     
    ASAAR, Jun 30, 2008
    #17
  18. ASAAR wrote:
    []
    > I completely understood that you weren't pixel peeping and in some
    > cases binning might be preferable. From what I could see, though,
    > the binning might be more of an advantage for the pixel peepers,
    > since it seems to really be good at hiding, or smoothing out noise -
    > unfortunately losing a tremendous amount of detail in the process.


    That I don't agree with - it seemed to me that there was more colour
    detail in the binned images, and that operating the small sensor at such
    ISOs with noise cleaning lost too much.

    > Did you actually look at the images? The one from the FZ50 at ISO
    > 3200 that I described (at the link provided by Mark Thomas) *was*
    > binned. At least it didn't turn out as bad as the really atrocious,
    > similarly binned photo from the Casio EX-Z1000. If you want to try
    > your test, almost everything is supplied. Save the ISO 3200 images
    > for the FZ50 and F30, add some spice from your favorite editor if
    > you wish, bake until done and print. As I indicated, if you print
    > the full sized image the difference may be slight. But if it's a
    > cropped portion that you print, the difference should be obvious.
    > Loupe not needed!


    Yes, it was inspection of the images which made me wonder what a full-size
    print mught be like. I was thinking of full-size images, not cropped,
    i.e. 2.5MP for a 6x4-inch or 7x5-inch print. I don't the time at the
    moment to check this myself. Yes, the Casio looked to be binning too many
    pixels!

    Of course, no matter how you try to fix-up the small-sensor images, they
    will not be anything like as good as those from a full-frame or crop-frame
    35mm camera (DSLR or otherwise), so as soon as someone says "low-light",
    the DSLR would spring to mind as the obvious solution.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 1, 2008
    #18
  19. John Sheehy Guest

    ASAAR <> wrote in
    news::

    > 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.


    Something like that must be going on. The sensor in the 6500 saturates
    at about 3200 photons at ISO 100. 4800 for the FZ50.

    >> 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.


    I never said that the Fuji NR didn't leave a lot of edge detail. That's
    exactly what it *does* do; maintains high-contrast edges, while smoothing
    away fine detail and low-contrast detail. I can do the same for any
    camera with a sigma filter. The edges that are maintained can be quite
    wrong and jagged, of course, at high ISOs.

    > 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) :


    How in the world would DPReview be able to tell this? No one on the
    DPReview staff knows anything about RAW data; how to look at it or
    analyze it. They are JPEG and converter people.

    > 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! :)


    No, I wouldn't; I despise that look. It's for optically naive people who
    think that anything they don't see colored speckles in is good.

    > For those that never saw DPReview's Compact Camera/High ISO test
    > (and possibly for you, who apparently wants to forget it),


    It's not a matter of forgetting; it's a matter of not accepting anyone in
    the DPReview Staff as an authority on RAW imaging.

    > 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.


    My mind is wide open, and very elastic, and that's why my understanding
    goes a lot deeper, and I don't by into the myths that the DPR staff do.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    John Sheehy, Jul 11, 2008
    #19
  20. John Sheehy <> wrote:
    > ASAAR <> wrote in
    > news::


    >> 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) :


    > How in the world would DPReview be able to tell this? No one on the
    > DPReview staff knows anything about RAW data; how to look at it or
    > analyze it. They are JPEG and converter people.


    Really? If so, that explains something I've been struggling with in
    their reviws for some time. They sometimes make detailed comments
    about camera sensors and lens performance without making at all clear
    how they avoided having those judgments polluted by well-known
    differences in camera or editor jpeg conversions. I've sometimes spent
    a long time scanning their reviews for clues as to how they avoided
    those problems without finding any clear statements.

    I can see there is a specific utility in comparing how one package
    combination of camera body, lens, and in-camera jpeg conversion stack
    up against another, but if that's all that dpreview are doing then
    they really should make that clearer in their reviews.

    --
    Chris Malcolm DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 11, 2008
    #20
    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. ishtarbgl
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    583
    ishtarbgl
    Apr 1, 2004
  2. Scott Speck

    best low-light macro/zoom versatile digital camera?

    Scott Speck, Mar 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    539
  3. High end P&S or Low end D-SLR

    , Mar 29, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,438
    J. Clarke
    Apr 6, 2006
  4. Brian
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,171
    Bob Larter
    Jun 14, 2009
  5. Mel
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    1,160
    ransley
    Nov 23, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page