Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:13:42 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:

IDIOT ALERT! wrote:

Thanks for revealing your lack of skill as any photographer worth knowing. ANY
photographer worth his craft wouldn't sit there hoping to depend on ANY camera
to auto-focus for them in that scenario. Depending on your camera to focus for
you will only ensure that you miss the important shots more often than not.

Dear Mr. Idiot Alert:

I suggest that you sit down and do some _real_ studying about frame
rates and auto-focus, paying special attention to how D-SLRs auto-focus
and why it is so fast compared to point and shoot cameras. You
demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of how these systems differ.

That would be you -- prosumer bridge cameras actually focus in the same
way as DSLRs, and have much less lens mass to move, giving them a
response edge.

You also apparently don't understand that even professional
photographers almost always use auto-focus nowadays, as it is much
faster and much more accurate than they can usually do on their own.

Wrong again. Many (most?) pros working action events will pre-focus or
depend on hyperfocus rather than relying just on autofocus.

You
should also learn about the difference in continuous frame rates.

That again would be you -- your prior frame rate claim was wildly wrong.

Your insults aside, it is painfully clear from your writings that you
probably have never used a D-SLR in a situation that requires virtually
no shutter lag and/or high frame rates, since if you did, you'd know
that even the latest P&S cameras have shutter lag and frame rates that
are far too low for sports photography.

That's total nonsense.

Next time you watch TV, look for
professional photographers using point and shoot cameras, LOL.

Totally irrelevant.

Spend more time studying, and less time going into tirades. Engage your
brain before you write,

I suggest you take your own advice.

and maybe you won't make such a fool of yourself
in front of those of us who actually are experienced in these matters.

Your own lack of experience is painfully obvious.

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:50:34 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in
:

Bill Tuthill wrote:
SMS wrote:
The shutter lag on even the new point and shoots is way too long for
many users. Sports action shots are not possible. I do a lot of sports
photography. There's great value in being able to get the shot of the
bat hitting the ball, the first baseman making the impossible catch,
etc. You can't do that with even the fastest P&S camera. Also, sometimes
you want to capture a lot of frames per second, also not possible with P&S.

My Canon SD800 has relatively short shutter lag, certainly shorter than
the film Yashica T5 Super (with Zeiss lens) that I used to use.

However the shot confirmation makes it impossible to take 2 quick pictures
in a row, although it is rated 1.7 frames/second.

This is correct. It assumes that there is no need to refocus when in
continuous mode. On a D-SLR it can be similar, except that the frame
rate, including refocusing, is very fast.

That limitation only applies to that particular camera and its
particular settings. Other digital cameras have no such limitations,
and are comparable in speed to DSLRs. My Panasonic DMC-FZ8 has a choice
of fast or continuous autofocus, can shoot bursts at 3 frames per second
(either way), and can shoot indefinitely at 2 frames per second (either
way). Your lack of real knowledge is painfully obvious.

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

Rich wrote:

Meanwhile, some poor fellow standing next to me at that airshow with a
Panasonic superzoom P&S didn't get one shot in focus!! The camera
simply could not work fast enough.

What's too bad about Panasonic and their super zooms is that they look
great in terms of specs but they don't deliver the final result. Look at
the FZ8, with a great lens, image-stabilization, good flash, RAW mode,
support for add-on lenses and filters, Li-Ion battery, and a good movie
mode. It all falls apart when you look at the actual photos, except at
low ISO and good light.

The FZ7 and FZ8, would have been awesome cameras if not for the severe
noise problems at anything but ISO 100, and the slow power zoom. The
auto-focus is actually fairly fast for a P&S but anemic compared to mose
D-SLRs. If you go over ISO 100 or shoot in low light, you get the noise
reduction destroying details. Unfortunately Panasonic is able to suck in
people that look only at specs without understanding that specs don't
tell the whole store. Apparently there are enough of these people to
build a business on.

The S5 IS isn't terrific in the noise department, but at least it's very
usable at ISO 200. The G7 is much better at ISO 200 and still usable at
ISO 400, but of course it's not an ultra-zoom.

You soon see why the premise of the original poster is true, you just
can't have high megapixels, low noise, and small sensors all at the same
time. You can only have two out of three. This is why D-SLR sales are
booming, while P&S sales are stagnant.

The real issue in point and shoots is not that the sensor is too small
it's that the megapixel count is too high. A large sensor, low noise,
high megapixel P&S model would not sell very well. It'd be of a size
where the advantage over a D-SLR would pretty much disappear, so you'd
be better off with a D-SLR and wide range zoom lens. The volumes would
be low, and the camera would benefit from economies of scale in
manufacturing like the D-SLRs. You'd also still have the disadvantages
of slower auto-focus and higher shutter lag.

The marketing people clearly want to sell D-SLRs to anyone that actually
cares about low-light/high ISO photography, and is happy to sell
snapshot cameras to those that are buying on specs alone. Remember, SLRs
were sold to a wide range of users, even casual shooters that recognized
the need for different lenses. The D-SLR pricing is falling to levels
where this will again be the case. You can but the Pentax K110D for well
under $400, with a kit lens. Not the greatest D-SLR, but still an order
of magnitude better than P&S cameras in many ways.

On Nov 8, 3:10 pm, John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:18:03 -0800, Rich wrote in
om:



On Nov 7, 6:26 pm, John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:43:50 -0800, Rich wrote in
. com:
The ultra compact P&S cameras serve a purpose, to be very portable and
still afford some kind of image, better than a camera phone.
The larger P&Ss also serve a purpose, as a practice target for a
strong 7-iron.

The compact Panasonic DMC-FZ8 prosumer super-zoom bridge camera is
objectively better in terms of resolution than comparable DSLRs even
with fixed focal length prime lenses, much less roughly comparable zoom
lenses, and produces even better results in many cases due to big
advantages in terms of size, weight, lens speed, lens quality, handling
and flexibility.
Just to kind of highlight the differences, take this comparison. Now,
the Olympus E-330 is not by DSLR standards low noise, however the P&S
in question is only 4 megapixels on the 1/2.5" sensor. Can you
imagine what kind of noise issues a 8-12 megapixel model would have?
100% crops.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/88615381

With all due respect, you picked an easy target -- the Olympus C480 is a
poor performer in low light. My DMC-FZ8 is 7 MP on a 1/2.5" sensor.
2 sec image at night, full auto JPEG, as it came out of the camera:http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5259/p1030578nx3.jpg

--
Best regards,
John Navas http:/navasgroup.com

Yes, it's better, but I can see the same artifacting as with the C480
and your shot was only at 100 ISO instead of the 250 I used for the
test. Also, if you raise the illumination level a bit, you can see
the huge yellow splotches I used to get on my E-1 at 3200 ISO.

On Nov 8, 6:56 pm, John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:26:23 -0800, Rich wrote in
. com:

... But, give me a DSLR and a 300mm lens and...
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/85053440

Nice, but f/1.0 -- don't think so -- LOL!

No, the camera doesn't read old manual lenses. The lens was set at
f5.6.

Meanwhile, some poor fellow standing next to me at that airshow with a
Panasonic superzoom P&S didn't get one shot in focus!! The camera
simply could not work fast enough.
...

Then he must have had no idea what he was doing, because my FZ8 is
lightning fast as compared to handling any comparable SLR.

If the P&Ss were fast, if they could focus in low light, if they could
produce good images at medium-high ISO speeds, pros would use them
instead of hauling around 3lb pro DSLRs.
The fact is despite post-processing, sensor physics has not changed
much in the last 10 years. Photon well capacity is what it is, and it
determines noise levels and dynamic range and the bigger the pixel,
the better.

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 20:32:32 -0800, Rich wrote:

On Nov 8, 6:56 pm, John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:26:23 -0800, Rich wrote in
. com:

... But, give me a DSLR and a 300mm lens and...
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/85053440

Nice, but f/1.0 -- don't think so -- LOL!

No, the camera doesn't read old manual lenses. The lens was set at
f5.6.

Meanwhile, some poor fellow standing next to me at that airshow with a
Panasonic superzoom P&S didn't get one shot in focus!! The camera
simply could not work fast enough.
...

Then he must have had no idea what he was doing, because my FZ8 is
lightning fast as compared to handling any comparable SLR.

If the P&Ss were fast, if they could focus in low light, if they could
produce good images at medium-high ISO speeds, pros would use them
instead of hauling around 3lb pro DSLRs.

Good grief, is this ignorant moron still using that as his justification on why
he wasted all his money and time on DSLRs, based on last-century technology?
Some people. Sheesh. I bet he drives a Model-T Ford too because only the most
wealthy people owned those at the time and they were much faster and more
dependable than anyone's horses.

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844

"SMS ???• ?" wrote in message ...
Rich wrote:

Meanwhile, some poor fellow standing next to me at that airshow with a
Panasonic superzoom P&S didn't get one shot in focus!! The camera
simply could not work fast enough.

What's too bad about Panasonic and their super zooms is that they look great in terms of specs but they don't deliver the final
result. Look at the FZ8, with a great lens, image-stabilization, good flash, RAW mode, support for add-on lenses and filters,
Li-Ion battery, and a good movie mode. It all falls apart when you look at the actual photos, except at low ISO and good light.

The FZ7 and FZ8, would have been awesome cameras if not for the severe noise problems at anything but ISO 100, and the slow power
zoom. The auto-focus is actually fairly fast for a P&S but anemic compared to mose D-SLRs. If you go over ISO 100 or shoot in low
light, you get the noise reduction destroying details. Unfortunately Panasonic is able to suck in people that look only at specs
without understanding that specs don't tell the whole store. Apparently there are enough of these people to build a business on.

The S5 IS isn't terrific in the noise department, but at least it's very usable at ISO 200. The G7 is much better at ISO 200 and
still usable at ISO 400, but of course it's not an ultra-zoom.

You soon see why the premise of the original poster is true, you just can't have high megapixels, low noise, and small sensors all
at the same time. You can only have two out of three. This is why D-SLR sales are booming, while P&S sales are stagnant.

The real issue in point and shoots is not that the sensor is too small it's that the megapixel count is too high. A large sensor,
low noise, high megapixel P&S model would not sell very well. It'd be of a size where the advantage over a D-SLR would pretty much
disappear, so you'd be better off with a D-SLR and wide range zoom lens. The volumes would be low, and the camera would benefit
from economies of scale in manufacturing like the D-SLRs. You'd also still have the disadvantages of slower auto-focus and higher
shutter lag.

The marketing people clearly want to sell D-SLRs to anyone that actually cares about low-light/high ISO photography, and is happy
to sell snapshot cameras to those that are buying on specs alone. Remember, SLRs were sold to a wide range of users, even casual
shooters that recognized the need for different lenses. The D-SLR pricing is falling to levels where this will again be the case.
You can but the Pentax K110D for well under $400, with a kit lens. Not the greatest D-SLR, but still an order of magnitude better
than P&S cameras in many ways.




Here, read this review concerning noise. This camera delivers useable low noise
shots in raw, up to 1600 ISO. Seriously. This isn't an action camera and the AF
is a little poor but the image quality is great, you could make money with it:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms6000fd/

AAvK

Rich wrote:

If the P&Ss were fast, if they could focus in low light, if they could
produce good images at medium-high ISO speeds, pros would use them
instead of hauling around 3lb pro DSLRs.
The fact is despite post-processing, sensor physics has not changed
much in the last 10 years. Photon well capacity is what it is, and it
determines noise levels and dynamic range and the bigger the pixel,
the better.

The FZ8 is one of the better P&S cameras in terms of auto-focus speed,
but it still is far slower than a D-SLR with a lens that has an internal
focusing motor. Certainly the FZ8 would be inappropriate for an air-show
because you have to have very fast auto-focus and very low shutter lag.

There are some D-SLRs that aren't all that fast to auto-focus, such as
the Pentax models, because the auto-focusing is done with a motor in
the camera.

The bigger problem with the FZ8 is the noise at all settings above ISO
100, though the Panasonic models have always been very noisy, and other
P&S models are not as bad.


D-SLR advantages
----------------
1. Extremely low shutter lag
2. Fast auto-focus
3. High frame rate
4. Low noise at high ISO settings
5. Lens interchangeability
6. Better dynamic range


P&S advantages
--------------
1. Size & Weight
2. Cost
3. Good macro capability without an expensive macro lens

Rich wrote:
[]
My advice? Buy online. People like to "see" everything, but that
isn't possible all the time. I've got lots of decent camera stores
near me. But let me try and buy a Sigma lens off the shelf for an
Olympus DSLR...

... and when you have a problem with your online purchase, please /don't/
expect your local store to sort it out for you!

[]
Meanwhile, some poor fellow standing next to me at that airshow with a
Panasonic superzoom P&S didn't get one shot in focus!! The camera
simply could not work fast enough.
The DSLR (Olympus E-330) cost me $395 for the body, the zoom lens was
an older Olympus 300mm f4.5 that cost $275.00.

In which case, it was either faulty or being used incorrectly. My wife
had no problem getting in-focus shots with her Panasonic FZ20 at a recent
air-show we both attended. Where I found one advantage in the DSLR was
the mechanical zoom - I could dynamically frame a Red Arrows
(multi-aircraft acrobatics) display as they came from a small group on the
horizon to filling a wide-angle frame overhead with their trails.

Cheers,
David

SMS ???. ? wrote:
[]
The bigger problem with the FZ8 is the noise at all settings above ISO
100, though the Panasonic models have always been very noisy, and
other P&S models are not as bad.

... although other models have different image processing, making the
pictures rather less sharp. I think that is at least part of the reason -
Panasonic do less filtering at least at the lower ISO settings.

Cheers,
David