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

Rich wrote:
> Terrible, terrible. You see where ultrazooms have taken formerly
> acceptable flagship P&Ss? Old 3-5x zoomed P&S's with 2/3" sensors
> were 10x better than this horror. Imagine if they had stuck with
> them, and kept improving the processing?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ18/page14.asp
>

Yikes! The sad thing is, that isn't a shirt-pocket camera either, but a
rather bulky, dare I say dSLR-inspired, "compact" camera.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

"Rich" <rander3127 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194294502.912802.15150@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Terrible, terrible. You see where ultrazooms have taken formerly
> acceptable flagship P&Ss? Old 3-5x zoomed P&S's with 2/3" sensors
> were 10x better than this horror. Imagine if they had stuck with
> them, and kept improving the processing?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ18/page14.asp
>


It's impossible not to agree with you - those images are simply awful. I
used to have an E20, which compared to those was a Leica.

I still can't understand why cameras like the Olympus 8080 (which was
supposed to have excellent image quality) were dropped in favour of these
new cams..How can it be 'consumer demand'? - those who are knowledgeable
would urge against small sensors crammed with more pixels, and those who
don't know/don't care are hardly likely to have expressed any sort of
preference one way or the other.

So the decision to market these things must be squarely down to the camera
companies themselves - one can perhaps understand why gadget makers like
Casio would produce 'feature packed' (but ultimately useless) novelty
cameras, but why did the 'real' camera manufacturing companies join in this
foolishness? How can optical specialists like Olympus and Pentax churn
these things out and not be ashamed?
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

Rich wrote:
> Terrible, terrible. You see where ultrazooms have taken formerly
> acceptable flagship P&Ss? Old 3-5x zoomed P&S's with 2/3" sensors
> were 10x better than this horror. Imagine if they had stuck with
> them, and kept improving the processing?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ18/page14.asp
>
P&S cameras have improved greatly, even though sensor sizes remain
small. I don't think we are near the limit for what technology can do
with the small sensors, even when they continue to make each element
smaller. Yes, a larger sensor, at whatever technology level, would make
a better image, but would increase cost. I am sure a lot of thought
goes into the decision-making at the camera manufacturer's design facility.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Nov 5, 11:12 pm, "Henry" <he....DeleteThis@home.com> wrote:
> ...
> I still can't understand why cameras like the Olympus 8080 (which was
> supposed to have excellent image quality) were dropped in favour of these
> new cams..How can it be 'consumer demand'? - those who are knowledgeable
> would urge against small sensors crammed with more pixels, and those who
> don't know/don't care are hardly likely to have expressed any sort of
> preference one way or the other.
>
> So the decision to market these things must be squarely down to the camera
> companies themselves ...

I would guess that the average consumer only knows a few quantitative
measures about cameras:

Number of megapixels
Size of zoom range
Size of the LCD display on the back
Price.

Those are what the camera companies seem to have to compete on.

So my guess is that the companies grit their teeth, hold their noses,
and come out with cameras that compromise quality to get big numbers
on the first three for a small number on the fourth.

Alan
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, Scott W <biph....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> I would think there would be a market for a P&S camera with a sensor
> size in the range of 10-15mm, clearly the camera makers don't believe
> that this would be a very large market.

Remember, as the sensor size increases, so must the lens size
and cost to get the same f/stop and zoom range. If you're trying
to make a small and low priced camera, it's a problem.

Alan
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

Alan Meyer wrote:
> On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, Scott W <biph... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> I would think there would be a market for a P&S camera with a sensor
>> size in the range of 10-15mm, clearly the camera makers don't believe
>> that this would be a very large market.
>
> Remember, as the sensor size increases, so must the lens size
> and cost to get the same f/stop and zoom range. If you're trying
> to make a small and low priced camera, it's a problem.

But the pixels are getting so small that if you try to shoot even at f/8
you get a soft image from diffraction. trying to get really go
resolution from such small sensors is not easy, in many ways it is
easier to get it from a larger lens.

I am not saying that every point and shoot camera should have a sensor
in the 10-15mm range, but it sure would be nice if a few of them did.
What the world really does not need right now is yet another 1/2.5 inch
based camera.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Nov 6, 11:22 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <4730af73$0$19582$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Scott W says...
>
> > If they can sell a DSLR with a sensor that has a 28mm diagonal sensor
> > for just over $500 the cost of using a sensor with a 14mm diagonal
> > should be be high at all.
>
> Aren't DSLRs subsidised by lens sales? Or at least the margins on body +
> kit lens should be quite narrow.

Yes, accessories are the cash-cows. But plenty of add-on lenses were
sold for 3-5x zoomed P&Ss.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Nov 6, 5:56 pm, John Navas <spamfilt....TakeThisOut@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:48:27 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphun....TakeThisOut@charter.net>
> wrote in <tOGdnW9vitLGt63anZ2dnUVZ_jSdn....TakeThisOut@giganews.com>:
>
> >Rich wrote:
> >> Terrible, terrible. You see where ultrazooms have taken formerly
> >> acceptable flagship P&Ss? Old 3-5x zoomed P&S's with 2/3" sensors
> >> were 10x better than this horror. Imagine if they had stuck with
> >> them, and kept improving the processing?
>
> >>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ18/page14.asp
>
> >P&S cameras have improved greatly, even though sensor sizes remain
> >small. I don't think we are near the limit for what technology can do
> >with the small sensors, even when they continue to make each element
> >smaller.
>
> Technology has already greatly improved what can be done with a small
> sensor, but there's still clearly room for further improvement, witness
> the amazing noise reduction possible with Neat Image and Noise Ninja.
>
> What's largely being missed is the incredible job being done by these
> low power camera processors -- they have only a fraction of a second to
> completely process the image coming off the sensor and store it, in
> addition to running the camera, and they do an incredible job under the
> circumstances. Sure Neat Image can do better, but it takes about 13 secs
> per image to do so on my relatively power hungry 1.8 GHz Pentium M.
>
> From the excellent overall performance of the FZ8 and FZ18, it's quite
> clear the Panasonic Venus III is a remarkably powerful processor in its
> own right, as well as in comparison to the processors used in
> competitive products. What it lacks in quality of noise reduction is
> probably just a function of algorithms, as evidenced by the improvement
> seen in the FZ18, even though more improvement would be desirable.
>
> What might be nice down the road is a more sophisticated architecture
> where the camera processor could do more elaborate post processing after
> the shot has been taken and first stored, multitasking when the camera
> is otherwise idle.
>
> >Yes, a larger sensor, at whatever technology level, would make
> >a better image, but would increase cost.
>
> Would also greatly increase physical size and weight, a big issue for
> most consumers. Compare sales of the FZ30 to the FZ7 and FZ8.
>
> >I am sure a lot of thought
> >goes into the decision-making at the camera manufacturer's design facility.
>
> Unquestionably, and they can succeed only by giving the market what it
> really wants, not what we may think it wants/needs.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

I had a look at the output (at 80 ISO) of a Fuji 9000 super zoom. It
looked like it had been filtered through textured glass, so inferior
to a decent DSLR output it wasn't funny.
I'm only guessing, but I would wager that if some company (whatever
happened to the Sigma??) put out a fixed lens, or 2-3x zoom P&S with a
relatively compact body and at least a 4/3rds sensor, for $800 it
would sell to the DSLR crowd anyway. Olympus produced a 35mm macro
lens with an f3.5 focal length. If that lens weren't in a macro body,
it would only occupy about 1/2" x 1/2" of space and would allow for a
body that would be easily pocketable.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

Rich wrote:
> Terrible, terrible. You see where ultrazooms have taken formerly
> acceptable flagship P&Ss? Old 3-5x zoomed P&S's with 2/3" sensors
> were 10x better than this horror. Imagine if they had stuck with
> them, and kept improving the processing?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ18/page14.asp

Well I wouldn't extrapolate the issues with Panasonic cameras onto all
other P&S cameras. If not for image quality, Panasonic cameras would be
the best of the best, in terms of features.

Of course the FZ18 still earned a "Recommended" from dpreview, LOL.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

Ron Hunter wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>> Terrible, terrible. You see where ultrazooms have taken formerly
>> acceptable flagship P&Ss? Old 3-5x zoomed P&S's with 2/3" sensors
>> were 10x better than this horror. Imagine if they had stuck with
>> them, and kept improving the processing?
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ18/page14.asp
>>
> P&S cameras have improved greatly, even though sensor sizes remain
> small. I don't think we are near the limit for what technology can do
> with the small sensors, even when they continue to make each element
> smaller. Yes, a larger sensor, at whatever technology level, would make
> a better image, but would increase cost. I am sure a lot of thought
> goes into the decision-making at the camera manufacturer's design facility.

But obviously not as much thought as goes into the decision making at
the sales and marketing facility!
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

Rich wrote:

> Marketing whores killed the quality P&S. They convinced people there
> was some value in superlong zooms and idiotic megapixel counts which
> cannot be made to support decent sized sensors without high cost. For
> instance, a 2/3" sensor camera with integrated 10x zoom would likely
> cost $1000 today, even if cheaply made, while a Nikon D40 and 18-200mm
> zoom can be had for about $800.00...

Could be that the decline in P&S quality was entirely intentional by the
marketing people. Now if you want quality photos as opposed to
quantities of megapixels, you have no choice but to ante up for a D-SLR
and lenses. Meanwhile, the masses buy P&S cameras based on a)
megapixels, b) telephoto zoom range (ignoring wide angle), c) how big
the LCD is (ignoring the benefits of an optical viewfinder or at least
an EVF), and of course price.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

In article <4730af73$0$19582$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Scott W says...

> If they can sell a DSLR with a sensor that has a 28mm diagonal sensor
> for just over $500 the cost of using a sensor with a 14mm diagonal
> should be be high at all.

Aren't DSLRs subsidised by lens sales? Or at least the margins on body +
kit lens should be quite narrow.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 02:48:27 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net>
wrote in <tOGdnW9vitLGt63anZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d RemoveThis @giganews.com>:

>Rich wrote:
>> Terrible, terrible. You see where ultrazooms have taken formerly
>> acceptable flagship P&Ss? Old 3-5x zoomed P&S's with 2/3" sensors
>> were 10x better than this horror. Imagine if they had stuck with
>> them, and kept improving the processing?
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ18/page14.asp
>>
>P&S cameras have improved greatly, even though sensor sizes remain
>small. I don't think we are near the limit for what technology can do
>with the small sensors, even when they continue to make each element
>smaller.

Technology has already greatly improved what can be done with a small
sensor, but there's still clearly room for further improvement, witness
the amazing noise reduction possible with Neat Image and Noise Ninja.

What's largely being missed is the incredible job being done by these
low power camera processors -- they have only a fraction of a second to
completely process the image coming off the sensor and store it, in
addition to running the camera, and they do an incredible job under the
circumstances. Sure Neat Image can do better, but it takes about 13 secs
per image to do so on my relatively power hungry 1.8 GHz Pentium M.

From the excellent overall performance of the FZ8 and FZ18, it's quite
clear the Panasonic Venus III is a remarkably powerful processor in its
own right, as well as in comparison to the processors used in
competitive products. What it lacks in quality of noise reduction is
probably just a function of algorithms, as evidenced by the improvement
seen in the FZ18, even though more improvement would be desirable.

What might be nice down the road is a more sophisticated architecture
where the camera processor could do more elaborate post processing after
the shot has been taken and first stored, multitasking when the camera
is otherwise idle.

>Yes, a larger sensor, at whatever technology level, would make
>a better image, but would increase cost.

Would also greatly increase physical size and weight, a big issue for
most consumers. Compare sales of the FZ30 to the FZ7 and FZ8.

>I am sure a lot of thought
>goes into the decision-making at the camera manufacturer's design facility.

Unquestionably, and they can succeed only by giving the market what it
really wants, not what we may think it wants/needs.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL