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

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:15:19 -0800, SMS ???• ?
<scharf.steven.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote in
<4735d8af$0$79880$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Rich wrote:
>
>> Sure, because the useless camera companies in many cases were too
>> CHEAP to use an inexpensive bayonette system and relied on screw
>> mounting, which is insane.
>
>The camera companies didn't expect so many users to buy the add-on
>lenses so they didn't bother to do anything that would require a lot of
>engineering.
>
>They were taken by surprise by how many users actually bought the add-on
>lenses. ...

Total nonsense.

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

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:19:42 -0800, nospam <nospam DeleteThis @nospam.invalid> wrote
in <091120071619422515%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <tf19j3tcdltrcqql392j29c0d3t94rce5c DeleteThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> And if that isn't fast enough,
>> there are continuous auto focus and manual focus modes. In short, auto
>> focus speed just ISN'T AN ISSUE, as anyone knows that's ACTUALLY USED
>> THE CAMERA, instead of just relying on what they can find on the
>> Internet.
>
>ironic that you say that, since you own *manual focus* canon equipment.

Sorry for your tirade, but that's not all I own.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:37:25 -0800, Rich <rander3127 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in
<1194709045.498244.299610 DeleteThis @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:

>On Nov 9, 4:21 pm, John Navas <spamfilt... DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:22:22 -0800, Rich <rander3... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in
>> <1194639742.595418.160... DeleteThis @o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >I fired a D40 at a car travelling 40kph and it only travelled about
>> >10" between the time the camera button was pressed, focus was achieved
>> >and shutter fired. Most P&Ss can't begin to match that. The lens was
>> >a 18-70mm (higher end) kit lens.
>> >400 ISO images are virtually noise free.
>>
>> 40 kph is 437 in/sec, so you're claiming 10/437 = 0.02 sec total time
>> for reaction, shutter press, and exposure. Color me VERY skeptical.

>Fair enough, there is no way I can prove it and my actuation of the
>shutter is hard to measure, but when the car first appeared at the
>frame edge is when I fired the shutter and the result was the car
>protruding 10" into the frame image.

Human reaction time is on the order of 0.2 sec, an order of magnitude
greater than what you are claiming.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:48:43 -0800, JosephKK
<joseph_barrett.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<SuFZi.19751$Pv2.16479@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>:

>SMS scharf.steven.DeleteThis@geemail.com posted to rec.photo.digital:

>> In sports photography there's another component as well, and that's
>> the frame rate. You often want to shoot multiple frames as fast as
>> possible, and this is an area where the limitations of a point and
>> shoot are even more apparent (look at the five photo times on the
>> web site above). With a D-SLR you can shoot multiple frames per
>> second, with a P&S it's multiple seconds per frame.
>
>It seems that you have heard of burst mode (available on better P&S
>and DSLRs) but have not fully come to grips with it.

Steven hasn't come to grips with it because he hasn't any real
experience -- his pontificating comes from recollections of things he's
heard about and pure guesswork.

>The biggest
>problem i have with it is the reduced resolution. ...

Panasonic FZ-series bridge cameras can shoot burst mode at full
resolution.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

John Navas spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com posted to rec.photo.digital:

> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:48:43 -0800, JosephKK
> <joseph_barrett.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> <SuFZi.19751$Pv2.16479@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>:
>
>>SMS scharf.steven.DeleteThis@geemail.com posted to rec.photo.digital:
>
>>> In sports photography there's another component as well, and
>>> that's the frame rate. You often want to shoot multiple frames as
>>> fast as possible, and this is an area where the limitations of a
>>> point and shoot are even more apparent (look at the five photo
>>> times on the web site above). With a D-SLR you can shoot multiple
>>> frames per second, with a P&S it's multiple seconds per frame.
>>
>>It seems that you have heard of burst mode (available on better P&S
>>and DSLRs) but have not fully come to grips with it.
>
> Steven hasn't come to grips with it because he hasn't any real
> experience -- his pontificating comes from recollections of things
> he's heard about and pure guesswork.
>
>>The biggest
>>problem i have with it is the reduced resolution. ...
>
> Panasonic FZ-series bridge cameras can shoot burst mode at full
> resolution.
>

Some can and some cannot do full resolution, the ones that can are
driving out the ones that cannot. Burst length matters to some
people as well.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 19:05:43 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote in <47366377.6080600.TakeThisOut@qwest.net>:

>Daniel Silevitch wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:47:29 -0700, Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote:
>>> FZ8 is 2.07-frames/sec is at only 640x480 pixels (0.3 MPix) highly
>>> compressed jpeg recording 0.63 megapixels/second of information).
>>> Raw mode takes 3.9 seconds/frame (about 0.25 frame/sec),
>>> or 2.86 frames per second for only 5 frames in large fine jpeg.
>>
>> According to http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp
>> the continuous mode on the FZ8 is 2.8 fps for a 5 shot burst, or 2.1 fps
>> for no-end burst. Both figures for 7 MP/fine JPGs. Drop down to the
>> second level of JPG, and the no-end burst rate goes up to 2.3 fps. RAW
>> takes about 2 seconds to save on a fast card.
>>
>> Still not as good as even a mid-range DSLR, but not as bad as what you
>> are presenting.

>I was looking at another review site. Even the dpreview site
>is confusing. For example, while they say in the "Continuous Mode"
>section is 2.1 frames/sec in continuous infinity mode for a 5MP/7MP JPEG fine,
>if you go down to the "File Write / Display and Sizes" section,
>it says it takes 1.1 seconds to write a 5MP JPEG fine image.
>Another review says the rate was determined "Time per shot, averaged
>over buffer length or 20 shots, whichever came first" (imaging-resource.com)
>so it's hard to know the true long term rate with vague statements
>like this.

In short, you were dead wrong.

>But since the FZ8 is a 2007 camera, how about we compare to 2007 DSLRs.
>...

How about we just stop the meaningless and childish mine-is-better-than-
yours rantings?

If you're going to make proclamations, then you really ought to get some
ACTUAL EXPERIENCE instead of relying on what you think you're seeing
online.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 02:55:32 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter.TakeThisOut@charter.net>
wrote in <x-ednca9PcOYiKXanZ2dnUVZ_jednZ2d.TakeThisOut@giganews.com>:

>SMS ???• ? wrote:
>> Daniel Silevitch wrote:
>>
>>> As I noted above, the FZ series is pretty good for its class, but
>>> doesn't hold up to even a mid-range DSLR. So, no argument here.
>>
>> What's kind of sad is that in the film days, it _was_ possible to have a
>> P&S model that could deliver results pretty close to what an SLR could
>> accomplish, but this was lost in the transition to digital. There's
>> something to be said about buying your sensors in rolls, and every
>> camera having access to to the same 24mm x 36mm sensors. With digital,
>> it seems that P&S's are doomed to continue to be noise boxes with
>> comparatively long shutter lags, as long as the sensors remain small.
>> Which of course is the subject of this thread. To whoever started this
>> thread: yes, you're absolutely correct. All the additional features
>> added to the P&S digitals will be of little value, as long as the
>> sensors stay small.
>>
>I disagree, completely. ...

Of course. He has no real experience, and no idea what he's talking
about -- he's just pontificating hot air.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:53:44 -0800, -hh <recscuba_google.TakeThisOut@huntzinger.com>
wrote in <1194735224.206347.192100.TakeThisOut@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>:

>Rich <rander3....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [-hh wrote]
>> > Just curious: what do you think the night photo currently on my
>> > homepage?
>>
>> >http://www.huntzinger.com/
>>
>> It's a great shot, but at that XGA size, not much can be determined
>> about it.
>
>If you pixel-peep, its limitations become quite evident. ...

If you need to pixel peep to see differences, then they really don't
matter, and there are no real "limitations".

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

Ron Hunter rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net posted to rec.photo.digital:

> JosephKK wrote:
>> Ron Hunter rphunter RemoveThis @charter.net posted to rec.photo.digital:
>>
>>> SMS 斯蒂文• å¤� wrote:
>>>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While sensor size, at whatever level of advancement plays a
>>>>> significant role in image quality, it is inaccurate to say that
>>>>> 'no improvement' in image quality is possible without a larger
>>>>> sensor. Other factors come into play, and the improvements ARE
>>>>> substantial, and they continue.
>>>> The only "improvement" is noise reduction software which is
>>>> always a compromise. Unfortunately the physics are what they are,
>>>> and noise is directly related to pixel size. It will continue to
>>>> get worse until the pixel size stops shrinking (at least on Bayer
>>>> sensors).
>>>>
>>>> Until there's an alternative to the Bayer sensor, we'll continue
>>>> to see degradation in high-ISO noise if the sensor size stays the
>>>> same but the resolution goes up. Look at Nikon, which for years
>>>> derided full frame sensors as being unnecessary, but finally
>>>> capitulated when they just could not compete with Canon any
>>>> longer at the high end.
>>> Digital signal processors get better all the time. Other
>>> improvements, just from my first camera to the current one are:
>>> Better display, better lens, more resolution, multiple scene
>>> modes, faster focus, better focusing options, viewfinder with
>>> diopter adjustment, burst mode, better view/review, closeup mode,
>>> closer focus, red-eye reduction (not worth much), and better movie
>>> mode, and last, but not least, much shorter shutter lag.
>>> Now if you want to call those 'no improvements' we just will have
>>> to agree to disagree, because they were quite significant to me.
>>
>> System usability improvements, yes they are, sensitivity vs noise
>> improvements, no they are not. SMS is right on this one.
>>
>
> Read the subject line. Is there anything about sensitivity vs noise
> there? BTW, Kodak has made a change to the way the Bayer sensor
> works that CLAIMS to improve the light sensitivity, but I haven't
> see proof
> that it will make any difference. Will have to wait and see, but I
> have a lot of confidence in the ability of technology to overcome
> obstacles to progress.

In what universe is sensitivity and noise not interrelated?
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

JosephKK <joseph_barrett RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> John Navas spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com posted to rec.photo.digital:
>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 07:48:43 -0800, JosephKK
>> <joseph_barrett RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> <SuFZi.19751$Pv2.16479@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>:
>>>SMS scharf.steven RemoveThis @geemail.com posted to rec.photo.digital:

>>>> In sports photography there's another component as well, and
>>>> that's the frame rate. You often want to shoot multiple frames as
>>>> fast as possible, and this is an area where the limitations of a
>>>> point and shoot are even more apparent (look at the five photo
>>>> times on the web site above). With a D-SLR you can shoot multiple
>>>> frames per second, with a P&S it's multiple seconds per frame.
>>>
>>>It seems that you have heard of burst mode (available on better P&S
>>>and DSLRs) but have not fully come to grips with it.
>>
>> Steven hasn't come to grips with it because he hasn't any real
>> experience -- his pontificating comes from recollections of things
>> he's heard about and pure guesswork.
>>
>>>The biggest
>>>problem i have with it is the reduced resolution. ...
>>
>> Panasonic FZ-series bridge cameras can shoot burst mode at full
>> resolution.

> Some can and some cannot do full resolution, the ones that can are
> driving out the ones that cannot. Burst length matters to some
> people as well.

Since what limits burst length is the size of the buffer, then I'm
surprised more don't offer a variable burst length dependent on
selected image size. In effect video capability is a special case of
that. It would sometimes be very handy to be able to run a very long
burst at say a quarter of maximum resolution.

--
Chris Malcolm cam RemoveThis @infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:12:28 -0800 (PST), -hh
<recscuba_google DeleteThis @huntzinger.com> wrote in
<c3999964-98f2-4656-b094-77ad8cacbd90 DeleteThis @d61g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilt... DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> -hh <recscuba_goo... DeleteThis @huntzinger.com>
>>
>> >If you pixel-peep, its limitations become quite evident. ...
>>
>> If you need to pixel peep to see differences, then they really
>> don't matter, and there are no real "limitations".
>
>Fair enough, but I tend to do the "peep" to see if the original is
>suitable for significant enlargement. The one I was referring to was
>clearly questionable, but I made a 20" x 30" print of it anyway. Kept
>it for around a week before putting it in the trash can. It came out
>fine on this year's Christmas Card, but I figure its maximum useful
>print size is probably 11x14 at best.

Fair enough, but there's a great difference between screen resolution
(72-96 PPI) and good printing, where rules of thumb for normal viewing
distances are at least 130 DPI for barely acceptable results, and up to
230 DPI for excellent results. With current technology, anything more
than 300 DPI is pretty much wasted. This translates to:

4x6 5x7 8x10 11x14 16x20 20x30
------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
Acceptable: 0.4MP 0.6MP 1.4MP 2.6MP 5 MP 10 MP
Very good: 0.8MP 1.1MP 2.6MP 5 MP 10 MP 19 MP
Excellent: 1.3MP 1.9MP 4 MP 8 MP 16 MP 32 MP
Best: 2.2MP 3.2MP 7 MP 14 MP 28 MP 54 MP

For my 7.2MP Panasonic FZ8, 11x14 is "excellent" at about 216 DPI.
The same effect on my high-quality 96 PPI display is 96 / 216 = 44%
zoom, more realistically 50% zoom. On a standard 72 PPI display it's
72 / 216 = 33%.

Even these reduced zooms exaggerate the issue, since display pixels are
so much bigger and more distinct than high-resolution print dots. For
this reason display zoom needs to be reduced even further for meaningful
print judging, to about 25-33% (depending on display) for a high-quality
(8MP) 11x14 print.

Because screen pixels are so much larger and coarser than good printing
dots (effectively a magnifier), zooming in more than this doesn't make
sense (unless the ultimate objective is screen display of 100% crop
rather than normal screen display or printing). If you can't see an
issue at this reduced display zoom, then you're not going to see it in
an excellent print either.

Thus my normal practice is to assess images on screen at no more than
33% zoom, zooming in farther only to examine the effectiveness of
sharpening and/or noise reduction.

This relationship does of course change for larger print sizes, but then
print degradation due to pixelation becomes an offsetting issue -- more
pixels are needed to make larger high-quality prints. When I anticipate
printing larger than 11x14 with my 7.2MP Panasonic FZ8,
I shoot multiple overlapping images and then stitch them together,
multiple-frame super-resolution. 4 image stitching is sufficient for
excellent 16x20 and very good 20x30 prints, and even larger sizes can be
produced by stitching more images. In which case the same reduced zoom
is appropriate.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:22:45 -0800, JosephKK
<joseph_barrett.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<8Ga%i.5610$852.1077@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>:

>Deep Reset DeepReset.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com posted to rec.photo.digital:
>
>> "JosephKK" <joseph_barrett.TakeThisOut@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:W1Q_i.6892$TR5.2745@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

>>> That is how _film_ SLR cameras work, i know, i have some. With
>>> digital there is no need for such mechanical contrivances, thus
>>> they
>>
>> This is a joke, right?
>> You've removed the lens of your dSLR and verified that there is no
>> mirror? Or are you doing this all on the experience of your vivid
>> imagination?
>
>Unit one, no moving mirrors, totally silent operation except for focus
>and iris motors (damn quiet). Need i continue?

I guess so, because you're badly misinformed -- most DSLRs do have
moving mirrors and mechanical shutters.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:27:31 -0800, JosephKK
<joseph_barrett DeleteThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<DKa%i.5611$852.2009@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>:

>John Navas spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com posted to rec.photo.digital:

>> Panasonic FZ-series bridge cameras can shoot burst mode at full
>> resolution.
>
>Some can and some cannot do full resolution, the ones that can are
>driving out the ones that cannot. Burst length matters to some
>people as well.

Panasonic FZ-series bridge cameras can shoot burst mode at full
resolution continuously until the memory card is full. In the case of
the FZ8: 2 FPS continuous burst versus 3 FPS limited length burst.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL