Best Camera for NIght Shots?

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:11:39 -0400, Bill <carver-rem-33 DeleteThis @bellsouth.net>
wrote:


>
>So you don't care about low light shots that require faster shutter
>speeds, like moving people, etc. Others might, so I wouldn't
>recommend a camera for low light situations to someone based only on
>long exposure tripod shots.
>
>Bill


However, after re-reading the OP and given the poster's budget, you
might be right.

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:11:39 -0400, Bill <carver-rem-33.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net>
wrote in <9tvoi3po200i087huftoir4e6dedu30jqf.RemoveThis@4ax.com>:

>On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:14:41 GMT, John Navas
><spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:57:30 -0400, Bill <carver-rem-33.RemoveThis@bellsouth.net>
>>wrote in <010ni3dbf15mud80cdktbr4kcit561rqcg.RemoveThis@4ax.com>:

>>>I looked at the photo, and while I concede that it looks pretty good,
>>>it was shot at ISO 100. In this case, there was plenty of light on
>>>the fountain for images at low ISO's.
>>
>>Not really -- the exposure was a full 2 secs.
>
>Still, photo was shot at ISO 100

ISO alone says nothing about the amount of light. What matters is the
total exposure, shutter speed and f/stop for a given ISO. Even at ISO
800, the exposure was still have been a relatively long 1/4 sec. There
wasn't much light.

>>>I doubt that you will get an image without a LOT of
>>>noise.
>>
>>I rarely have a need for more than ISO400, which is quite good when
>>post-processed with Neat Image.
>>
>>Even ISO800 is reasonably good when post-processed with Neat Image.
>
>Depends on what you mean by reasonably good.

True, but my standards are pretty high.

>You are correct. Neat
>Image will clean a lot of noise, but you lose detail in relation to
>the noise you lose.

Not very much -- the beauty of Neat Image is that you lose very little
detail.

>>The max for the camera is ISO1250, but that gives too little advantage
>>over ISO800 for me to bother with it.
>
>So you don't care about low light shots that require faster shutter
>speeds, like moving people, etc.

I didn't say that. What I said is that I have relatively little *need*
for faster shutter speeds

>Others might, so I wouldn't
>recommend a camera for low light situations to someone based only on
>long exposure tripod shots.

Fair enough. "Different strokes for different folks."

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:11:39 -0400, Bill <carver-rem-33.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net>
> wrote in <9tvoi3po200i087huftoir4e6dedu30jqf.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:14:41 GMT, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1.TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:57:30 -0400, Bill <carver-rem-33.TakeThisOut@bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote in <010ni3dbf15mud80cdktbr4kcit561rqcg.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>:
>
>>>> I looked at the photo, and while I concede that it looks pretty good,
>>>> it was shot at ISO 100. In this case, there was plenty of light on
>>>> the fountain for images at low ISO's.
>>> Not really -- the exposure was a full 2 secs.
>> Still, photo was shot at ISO 100
>
> ISO alone says nothing about the amount of light. What matters is the
> total exposure, shutter speed and f/stop for a given ISO. Even at ISO
> 800, the exposure was still have been a relatively long 1/4 sec. There
> wasn't much light.

Add pixel active area. Larger area collects more light
for the same shutter speed and f/ratio.
And ISO doesn't change the amount of light collected,
only how much the collected light is amplified.

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:33:55 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote in <472E3AC3.6060704 RemoveThis @qwest.net>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:11:39 -0400, Bill <carver-rem-33 RemoveThis @bellsouth.net>
>> wrote in <9tvoi3po200i087huftoir4e6dedu30jqf RemoveThis @4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:14:41 GMT, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:57:30 -0400, Bill <carver-rem-33 RemoveThis @bellsouth.net>
>>>> wrote in <010ni3dbf15mud80cdktbr4kcit561rqcg RemoveThis @4ax.com>:
>>
>>>>> I looked at the photo, and while I concede that it looks pretty good,
>>>>> it was shot at ISO 100. In this case, there was plenty of light on
>>>>> the fountain for images at low ISO's.
>>>> Not really -- the exposure was a full 2 secs.
>>> Still, photo was shot at ISO 100
>>
>> ISO alone says nothing about the amount of light. What matters is the
>> total exposure, shutter speed and f/stop for a given ISO. Even at ISO
>> 800, the exposure was still have been a relatively long 1/4 sec. There
>> wasn't much light.
>
>Add pixel active area. Larger area collects more light
>for the same shutter speed and f/ratio.
>And ISO doesn't change the amount of light collected,
>only how much the collected light is amplified.

Sure, but that wasn't what we were discussing.

To photosite size you might as well add microlens efficiency, in-camera
noise reduction, etc, etc.

Bottom line was still a very good photo in low light from a small
sensor.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

Nelson Chancellor <mailf....TakeThisOut@spamfree.org> wrote:
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to
>
> >Add pixel active area. Larger area collects more light
> >for the same shutter speed and f/ratio.
> >And ISO doesn't change the amount of light collected,
> >only how much the collected light is amplified.
>
> While thinking about that, don't forget to compare available zoom lens ranges
> with available f/stops for those lenses.

Assuming that one wants/needs to zoom, as opposed to moving the tripod
a city block closer.

> You'll find out that on P&S cameras
> with smaller sensors they can make much longer zoom lenses with larger apertures
> than they can for DSLR's with larger sensors.

Can you please explain? I'm confused because every P&S I've ever had
or seen has had small aperture diamaters, and every SLR/dSLR a large
one. For example, on my current P&S, its a 15mm diameter. I recall
that on my old 35mm Pentax K-1000, my zoom len's diameter was 58mm,
which is roughly four times larger, and which


> The larger sensor making the same
> focal-lengths and wider apertures impossible, or so ungainly huge, heavy, and
> expensive that using one isn't even worth the effort.

Not necessarily: I can recall having a 2x teleconverter for my
ancient system, which gave me a nice small, light 400mm equivalent -
all out of a 58mm lens diameter. Unfortunately, the image quality was
garbage, so I never used it. I've found the same to be true with my
modern digital P&S: too much zoom never returns quality, so it
results in a waste of time.


> The advantages of the
> smaller sensor being matched to wider-apertures negates any need for the higher
> ISO with a larger sensor. The light-gathering is in the lens instead of the sensor.

It sounds to me like you're suggesting that we're somehow able to defy
the laws of physics. Light gathering is always defined - - and
limited - - by the cross-sectional area of the lens and the defined
angle of the receiving optics: there is no such thing as a free
lunch.


> They always fail to mention this important bit of advice. Not only that, but the
> P&S lenses are often figured to higher quality than DSLR lenses because they
> have to work at diffraction limited specifications. Whereas for a larger sensor
> with larger pixels, the manufacturer only needs to make the lens sharp enough to
> define one large pixel, lots of room for optical slop. Slop for which the lens
> grinder and manufacturer is very grateful. They don't have to be so precise or
> do that much work to get it correct. On a P&S camera they have to have much more
> precision than that.

Care to provide some manufacturing specifications so that we can see
the difference?


> It's also much more difficult to obtain the same clarity
> and precision on larger lenses.

Since the advent of mass production for computer chips, purity
capabilities have gotten amazingly high. Again, I'd like to see some
industry specifications that quantitatively delineate the claimed
differences.


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

-hh wrote:
> Nelson Chancellor <mailf... DeleteThis @spamfree.org> wrote:
>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to
>>
>>> Add pixel active area. Larger area collects more light
>>> for the same shutter speed and f/ratio.
>>> And ISO doesn't change the amount of light collected,
>>> only how much the collected light is amplified.
>> While thinking about that, don't forget to compare available zoom lens ranges
>> with available f/stops for those lenses.
>
> Assuming that one wants/needs to zoom, as opposed to moving the tripod
> a city block closer.
>
>> You'll find out that on P&S cameras
>> with smaller sensors they can make much longer zoom lenses with larger apertures
>> than they can for DSLR's with larger sensors.
>
> Can you please explain? I'm confused because every P&S I've ever had
> or seen has had small aperture diamaters, and every SLR/dSLR a large
> one. For example, on my current P&S, its a 15mm diameter. I recall
> that on my old 35mm Pentax K-1000, my zoom len's diameter was 58mm,
> which is roughly four times larger, and which
>
>
>> The larger sensor making the same
>> focal-lengths and wider apertures impossible, or so ungainly huge, heavy, and
>> expensive that using one isn't even worth the effort.
>
> Not necessarily: I can recall having a 2x teleconverter for my
> ancient system, which gave me a nice small, light 400mm equivalent -
> all out of a 58mm lens diameter. Unfortunately, the image quality was
> garbage, so I never used it. I've found the same to be true with my
> modern digital P&S: too much zoom never returns quality, so it
> results in a waste of time.
>
>
>> The advantages of the
>> smaller sensor being matched to wider-apertures negates any need for the higher
>> ISO with a larger sensor. The light-gathering is in the lens instead of the sensor.
>
> It sounds to me like you're suggesting that we're somehow able to defy
> the laws of physics. Light gathering is always defined - - and
> limited - - by the cross-sectional area of the lens and the defined
> angle of the receiving optics: there is no such thing as a free
> lunch.
>
>
>> They always fail to mention this important bit of advice. Not only that, but the
>> P&S lenses are often figured to higher quality than DSLR lenses because they
>> have to work at diffraction limited specifications. Whereas for a larger sensor
>> with larger pixels, the manufacturer only needs to make the lens sharp enough to
>> define one large pixel, lots of room for optical slop. Slop for which the lens
>> grinder and manufacturer is very grateful. They don't have to be so precise or
>> do that much work to get it correct. On a P&S camera they have to have much more
>> precision than that.
>
> Care to provide some manufacturing specifications so that we can see
> the difference?
>
>
>> It's also much more difficult to obtain the same clarity
>> and precision on larger lenses.
>
> Since the advent of mass production for computer chips, purity
> capabilities have gotten amazingly high. Again, I'd like to see some
> industry specifications that quantitatively delineate the claimed
> differences.
>
>
> -hh
>
HH,
This is the infamous P&S troll who ignores the laws of physics,
and the fact that he has been corrected numerous times.
Ignore it, as it has a foul mouth and will only spew hate,
not knowledge,

ISO is defined differently on different sized sensors:
for a standard exposure, the pixel well is filled to fill
a certain percentage. Thus changing pixel size changes
total light collected for the same f/ratio, same exposure
time, same ISO. To look at it from a physics viewpoint: a
lens of a given f/ratio delivers the same photon density to the
focal plane, e.g. in photons/square micron. Put a larger
pixel in the focal plane (more square microns) and
each pixel collects more photons.

The small pixel cameras have pixel spacing less than
2 microns and the larger pixel cameras more than 8-microns.
The ratio in active areas is on the order of 12 to around
30. So, for example, lets say it is 16x, then the large
pixel camera with an f/4 lens is equivalent to the small
pixel camera with an f/1 lens in terms of photons delivered
per second to the focal plane. But the small pixel camera
will saturate at 16x lower number of photons, so there
is really no equivalent small pixel camera performance.

More on pixels and sensor performance:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary

Roger
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:33:55 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 10:11:39 -0400, Bill <carver-rem-33 DeleteThis @bellsouth.net>
>> wrote in <9tvoi3po200i087huftoir4e6dedu30jqf DeleteThis @4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:14:41 GMT, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:57:30 -0400, Bill <carver-rem-33 DeleteThis @bellsouth.net>
>>>> wrote in <010ni3dbf15mud80cdktbr4kcit561rqcg DeleteThis @4ax.com>:
>>
>>>>> I looked at the photo, and while I concede that it looks pretty good,
>>>>> it was shot at ISO 100. In this case, there was plenty of light on
>>>>> the fountain for images at low ISO's.
>>>> Not really -- the exposure was a full 2 secs.
>>> Still, photo was shot at ISO 100
>>
>> ISO alone says nothing about the amount of light. What matters is the
>> total exposure, shutter speed and f/stop for a given ISO. Even at ISO
>> 800, the exposure was still have been a relatively long 1/4 sec. There
>> wasn't much light.
>
>Add pixel active area. Larger area collects more light
>for the same shutter speed and f/ratio.
>And ISO doesn't change the amount of light collected,
>only how much the collected light is amplified.
>
>Roger

While thinking about that, don't forget to compare available zoom lens ranges
with available f/stops for those lenses. You'll find out that on P&S cameras
with smaller sensors they can make much longer zoom lenses with larger apertures
than they can for DSLR's with larger sensors. The larger sensor making the same
focal-lengths and wider apertures impossible, or so ungainly huge, heavy, and
expensive that using one isn't even worth the effort. The advantages of the
smaller sensor being matched to wider-apertures negates any need for the higher
ISO with a larger sensor. The light-gathering is in the lens instead of the
sensor.

They always fail to mention this important bit of advice. Not only that, but the
P&S lenses are often figured to higher quality than DSLR lenses because they
have to work at diffraction limited specifications. Whereas for a larger sensor
with larger pixels, the manufacturer only needs to make the lens sharp enough to
define one large pixel, lots of room for optical slop. Slop for which the lens
grinder and manufacturer is very grateful. They don't have to be so precise or
do that much work to get it correct. On a P&S camera they have to have much more
precision than that. It's also much more difficult to obtain the same clarity
and precision on larger lenses. Again the larger DSLR lenses often providing
less resolution when used wide-open. Not true on a P&S camera's lens which work
equally well wide open as when stopped down. Drastic change in image quality due
to f/stop chosen is wholly the domain of DSLR optic-slop.

I do wish the DSLR idiots and fools would get their heads out of their
collective asses. But they have their heads so firmly planted up their cracks
that they'll never see the light of day.
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <usern... RemoveThis @qwest.net>
wrote:
> HH,
> This is the infamous P&S troll who ignores the laws of physics,
> and the fact that he has been corrected numerous times.

Since his "Nelson" account had no history, I figured as much.


> ... The small pixel cameras have pixel spacing less than
> 2 microns and the larger pixel cameras more than 8-microns.

To state the understood assumption, this is while assuming a nominally
equal total megapixel count between the two systems. The alternative
is to keep the pixel 'size' the same, but the smaller sensor ends up
with a lower total count...simplistically, if the P&S sensor is 1/10th
the area of a generic 8 MP APS-sized sensor, then the "same pixel
size" P&S will have enough real estate to provide a 0.8 MP image.

It all comes down to the question of what trade-offs you're willing to
make in your system design. Generally, what has happened is that P&S
are good when the application is in zones where the S/N ratio
differences don't result in any glaring shortcomings. The fallacy is
in those who assume that acceptable performance for a part of the zone
can be used to predict the acceptability of performance over the
entire envelope, which is the classical error of extrapolation instead
of interprolation.


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:33:52 GMT, Daniel Silevitch <dmsilev.TakeThisOut@uchicago.edu> wrote:

>And to save you the trouble of pasting in yet another of your pre-fab
>rants, I own both a superzoom P&S and an APS DSLR. They both have their
>strengths and weakneses, and understanding which is the proper tool for
>the job is a useful skill to have. One of the strengths of the DSLR is
>the big pixel pitch. When I bolt a 50/1.8 lens on and crank the ISO to
>1600, I can take natural-light pictures in light levels that the
>f/2.8-3.3 zoom on the P&S can't even hope to deal with. Even with the
>stablizer on the latter.

What a shame that you might own both but not realize all their true strengths
and weaknesses. I surmise its because you didn't put enough research into
finding the better P&S cameras available over the years.

I'll gladly put any small sensor P&S camera up against your f/1.8 or even an
f/1.2 lens when doing hand-held macro photography in available light. Though I
do prefer my f/2.0 zoom/macro lens on one of my P&S cameras for some situations.
What? You didn't know that P&S cameras can have f/2.0-2.4 36-190mm zoom lenses?
(or f/2.4 323mm lens with a good quality 1.7 tele-converter) Have you found any
decent zoom lenses that go from 36mm to 323 mm at f/2.0 to f/2.4 lately for your
DSLR? I didn't think so, because they can't be made. No matter. Even if you
could you'd still lose when it comes to macro-photography. Every time. No doubt
about it. That's why I sold my DSLR gear after I realized how limiting it was
and after researching all the better P&S camera makes and models out there. The
DSLR equipment and lenses available just weren't and aren't adaptable enough nor
high-quality enough for my required extremes in subjects and shooting
situations. You'll never believe that though, you still have to find a way to
justify your DSLR purchases in spite of proof to the contrary.

I still have over $10,000 worth of SLRs and lens gear that I keep for
nostalgia's sake. You couldn't force me to go back to using that clunky,
environment sensitive, noisy, time consuming lens-changing, last century
mechanically limited, waste of space and weight nonsense. Even under the threat
of torture you couldn't force me. The threatened torture would have to be
greater than the torture of putting up with all that again. I guess there's just
some people that are willing to pay a high price for torture. People get a kick
out of doing the strangest things.
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:19:13 -0800, -hh <recscuba_google.DeleteThis@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <1194265153.983862.192260.DeleteThis@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>:

>Nelson Chancellor <mailf....DeleteThis@spamfree.org> wrote:
>> "Roger N. Clark (change username to
>>
>> >Add pixel active area. Larger area collects more light
>> >for the same shutter speed and f/ratio.
>> >And ISO doesn't change the amount of light collected,
>> >only how much the collected light is amplified.
>>
>> While thinking about that, don't forget to compare available zoom lens ranges
>> with available f/stops for those lenses.
>
>Assuming that one wants/needs to zoom, as opposed to moving the tripod
>a city block closer.

Often not possible to get closer, which is the whole point of long
lenses, and a tripod can be impractical (e.g., moving shooting platform
and/or subjects). When I shot a fountain a few evenings ago the only
way I could have gotten closer would have been to get seriously wet.
When I shot a sailing regatta a few weeks ago the only way I could have
gotten closer would have been to interfere with the event, and my boat
was bouncing around so much I would have had to screw a tripod to the
deck.

>> You'll find out that on P&S cameras
>> with smaller sensors they can make much longer zoom lenses with larger apertures
>> than they can for DSLR's with larger sensors.
>
>Can you please explain? I'm confused because every P&S I've ever had
>or seen has had small aperture diamaters, and every SLR/dSLR a large
>one. For example, on my current P&S, its a 15mm diameter. I recall
>that on my old 35mm Pentax K-1000, my zoom len's diameter was 58mm,
>which is roughly four times larger, and which

His points are that a lens with a given speed (maximum aperture) for a
smaller sensor is both physically smaller and easier to design. My
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 has a small, affordable, and excellent
optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens with a maximum aperture of
f/3.1 at a maximum zoom of 432mm (35mm equiv). To duplicate that with a
DSLR with comparable optical quality would be far more difficult, far
more expensive, far larger, and at best impractical if not impossible.

>> The larger sensor making the same
>> focal-lengths and wider apertures impossible, or so ungainly huge, heavy, and
>> expensive that using one isn't even worth the effort.
>
>Not necessarily: I can recall having a 2x teleconverter for my
>ancient system, which gave me a nice small, light 400mm equivalent -
>all out of a 58mm lens diameter. Unfortunately, the image quality was
>garbage, so I never used it.

And that's the point.

>I've found the same to be true with my
>modern digital P&S: too much zoom never returns quality, so it
>results in a waste of time.

Leica lenses on Panasonic cameras are superb, and optically stabilized
to boot.

>> The advantages of the
>> smaller sensor being matched to wider-apertures negates any need for the higher
>> ISO with a larger sensor. The light-gathering is in the lens instead of the sensor.
>
>It sounds to me like you're suggesting that we're somehow able to defy
>the laws of physics. Light gathering is always defined - - and
>limited - - by the cross-sectional area of the lens and the defined
>angle of the receiving optics:

Aperture is measured by f/stop, not lens diameter. Yes, a larger
diameter lens can collect more light, but then it has to spread it over
a larger sensor. And even though the larger photosites can gather more
photons, the much slower lens speed (e.g., f/5.6 versus f/3.1) tends to
offset that advantage, not to mention the fact that the smaller faster
lens performs better at maximum aperture than the larger slower lens.

>there is no such thing as a free
>lunch.

True, but the lunch in this case is quite inexpensive: My Panasonic
DMC-FZ8 (above) cost me less than $200 (used). A DLSR with comparable
optical quality, maximum focal length, and maximum aperture would have
cost me thousands of dollars (even used), as noted below.

>> They always fail to mention this important bit of advice. Not only that, but the
>> P&S lenses are often figured to higher quality than DSLR lenses because they
>> have to work at diffraction limited specifications. Whereas for a larger sensor
>> with larger pixels, the manufacturer only needs to make the lens sharp enough to
>> define one large pixel, lots of room for optical slop. Slop for which the lens
>> grinder and manufacturer is very grateful. They don't have to be so precise or
>> do that much work to get it correct. On a P&S camera they have to have much more
>> precision than that.
>
>Care to provide some manufacturing specifications so that we can see
>the difference?

Compare Leica lenses on Panasonic cameras to DSLR lenses, which have
lower optical specs and quality and/or breathtaking prices; e.g., for
Canon DSLR, Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS
USM Autofocus Lens, which costs about $2,200 (B&H, new lens only), and
is nonetheless much slower (nearly 2 stops) at the long end.

>> It's also much more difficult to obtain the same clarity
>> and precision on larger lenses.
>
>Since the advent of mass production for computer chips, purity
>capabilities have gotten amazingly high. Again, I'd like to see some
>industry specifications that quantitatively delineate the claimed
>differences.

Surely you're not contesting the fact that cost and difficulty of
manufacture increase rapidly with increasing element size?

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

In article <5gjui3hjc0idatvc4iu00eipti0vahetl9 RemoveThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

> Compare Leica lenses on Panasonic cameras to DSLR lenses, which have
> lower optical specs and quality and/or breathtaking prices; e.g., for
> Canon DSLR, Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS
> USM Autofocus Lens, which costs about $2,200 (B&H, new lens only), and
> is nonetheless much slower (nearly 2 stops) at the long end.

the lens on the panasonic compares more with the new tamron 28-300vc
lens which sells for $600 than it does with a $2000 canon l lens.
also, the slower f/stop is offset by the bigger pixels on a dslr
camera.
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 10:04:42 -0800, nospam <nospam.DeleteThis@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <051120071004427252%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <5gjui3hjc0idatvc4iu00eipti0vahetl9.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> Compare Leica lenses on Panasonic cameras to DSLR lenses, which have
>> lower optical specs and quality and/or breathtaking prices; e.g., for
>> Canon DSLR, Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS
>> USM Autofocus Lens, which costs about $2,200 (B&H, new lens only), and
>> is nonetheless much slower (nearly 2 stops) at the long end.
>
>the lens on the panasonic compares more with the new tamron 28-300vc
>lens which sells for $600 than it does with a $2000 canon l lens.

I've got Canon 35 mm lenses (FD mount) and Leica lenses on Panasonic
digital cameras, and I beg to differ -- the Leica lenses are as good or
better than L-series Canon lenses, not to mention non-L Canon lenses,
much less Tamron (ugh) lenses of any grade.

>also, the slower f/stop is offset by the bigger pixels on a dslr
>camera.

Again, based on real experience, I beg to differ -- at 430 mm focal
length (35 mm equiv) I can shoot handheld with my Panasonic DMC-FZ8 down
to about 1/125 sec at f/3.1 at ISO 100. Under the same conditions a
Canon EOS 350D (Digital Rebel XT) with Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus Lens would be shooting at ISO
400 wide open. Stop the big Canon lens down for more comparable
sharpness, and the 350D ISO goes up to at least 800.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots? 

John Navas <spamfilt....RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo....RemoveThis@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >John Navas <spamfilt....RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >> -hh <recscuba_goo....RemoveThis@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> >> >Can you please explain? ...
>
> >> His points are that a lens with a given speed (maximum aperture) for a
> >> smaller sensor is both physically smaller and easier to design.
>
> >Certain degrees of it are, but it also comes with trade-offs, such as
> >the smaller pixel 'size' (for a given resolution density) from that
> >smaller sensor.
>
> Sure, but that has nothing to do with lens size and design.

To a degree: a system can only be as good as its weakest component.



> >> My Panasonic DMC-FZ8 has a small, affordable, and excellent
> >> optically-stabilized Leica super-zoom lens with a maximum aperture of
> >> f/3.1 at a maximum zoom of 432mm (35mm equiv). To duplicate that
> >> with a DSLR with comparable optical quality would be far more difficult,
> >> far more expensive, far larger, and at best impractical if not impossible.
>
> >My system is ~450mm (35mm equiv) at f/4, which I'd say is a "close
> >enough" comparative match.
>
> Apples and oranges? Really? What system? How big? What zoom range?
> What cost? What optical quality?

Size? I don't care.
Cost? I don't care.
Zoom Range? I don't care.
Optical Quality? I do care.


> >Since my personal priorities are different than yours, my figure of
> >merit is the system's S/N ratio, which is approximately 100:1. How
> >does this S/N ratio compare to the S/N ratio performance of your DMC-
> >FZ8?
>
> Sorry, but I don't consider that a terribly meaningful figure of merit.

YMMV.

You're concerned with cost, size, etc, which I don't consider that to
be a terribly meaningful figure of merit.



> >> >It sounds to me like you're suggesting that we're somehow able to defy
> >> >the laws of physics. Light gathering is always defined - - and
> >> >limited - - by the cross-sectional area of the lens and the defined
> >> >angle of the receiving optics:
>
> >> Aperture is measured by f/stop, not lens diameter.
>
> >Aperture is also used to define f/stop. If you prefer to use some
> >other term, then just change the nomenclature, but the bottom line
> >remains the same: if you double the diameter, you quadruple the area
> >and thus, the light-gathering capability of the optical system.
>
> Lens diameter and aperture are two different things.

Fine; I'll call it "Lens Diameter" to match your lexicon.



> >For example, dSLRs are built with "full
> >frame" as well as "crop" sized sensors (1.0, 1.3, 1.5/1.6), with
> >resulting adjustments in the effective field of view. Technologically,
> >there's nothing stopping us from putting a P&S sized sensor behind an
> >SLR 500mm lens, if one were inclined to go through this exercise.
>
> But then the aperture would be different.
> Again, lens diameter and aperture are two different things.

And I'm talking about lens diameter.


> >> And even though the larger photosites can gather more photons,
> >> the much slower lens speed (e.g., f/5.6 versus f/3.1) tends to
> >> offset that advantage, not to mention the fact that the smaller faster
> >> lens performs better at maximum aperture than the larger slower lens.
>
> >If "all other factors were equal", I'd agree.
>
> It's quite simply true.

Except that all other factors aren't equal.


> >However, a P&S such as the Canon S70 has a S/N of ~30, which is around
> >65 points lower and in effect "worth" around 20 photographic stops.
>
> Sorry, but that's not terribly meaningful.

To you it isn't; YMMV.



> >> > ... Again, I'd like to see some industry specifications
> >> > that quantitatively delineate the claimed differences.
>
> >> Surely you're not contesting the fact that cost and difficulty of
> >> manufacture increase rapidly with increasing element size?
>
> >Surely you're not contesting the fact that cost and difficulty of
> >manufacture increases rapidly with increasingly tighter tolerances?
>
> Actually I am -- smaller lenses are much easier to build even with
> tighter tolerances than larger lenses.

To the *same* tolerance, sure, but that's not what is being said. The
trade-off proposition is small lens made to very high tolerances
versus big lens made to 'merely' tight tolerances. The manufacturing
expenses these days is more in the equipment than the material, so the
relative cost of the blanks is negligible.

And this is the issue that's being dodged.


-hh
 >> Stay informed about: Best Camera for NIght Shots?