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

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:31:05 GMT, JosephKK
<joseph_barrett.RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
<JOa%i.69743$Um6.46139@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>:

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

>> 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?

In the real universe. You're confusing sensitivity from amplification
(which increases noise) with basic sensitivity to light. Current Bayer
sensors throw away about 80% of the incoming light, so there is huge
room for sensitivity improvement without increasing noise. What Kodak
is doing is trading color resolution for an increase of 2x to 4x in
light sensitivity (1-2 stops), and since the human eye is much more
sensitive to luminance than to chrominance, that may be a good tradeoff.
Sample images are impressive, but how well it will work in real products
in the real world remains to be seen. For more information see
<http://www.dpreview.com/news/0706/07061401kodakhighsens.asp>

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

JosephKK wrote:
> Deep Reset DeepReset DeleteThis @hotmail.com posted to rec.photo.digital:
>
>> "JosephKK" <joseph_barrett DeleteThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:W1Q_i.6892$TR5.2745@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Scott W biphoto DeleteThis @hotmail.com posted to rec.photo.digital:
>>>
>>>> JosephKK wrote:
>>>>> nospam nospam DeleteThis @nospam.invalid posted to rec.photo.digital:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <4734d22d$0$79918$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>>>>> ���������Ģ §ï¿½ <scharf.steven DeleteThis @geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So do none of the other Live View DSLR models also offer
>>>>>>>> auto-focus in
>>>>>>>> Live View? If it's Live View, doesn't it to have to be
>>>>>>>> contrast detection?
>>>>>>> I was only listing non-D-SLRs with hybrid auto-focus. Yes, of
>>>>>>> course you're correct, the live view D-SLRs will also use
>>>>>>> contrast detection when using live view.
>>>>>> not all slrs with live view have contrast detection. canon, for
>>>>>> example, does not. to obtain focus in live view, they drop the
>>>>>> mirror and focus.
>>>>> Moving parts (other than in the lens) in a DSLR? There is no
>>>>> design reason to do such a thing.
>>>>>
>>>> You really don't know how a DSLR works, do you?
>>>> The mirror has to swing out of the way for each shot.
>>>>
>>>> Scott
>>> 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?
>
You really don't know what you are talking about, this is not a joke?

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

Chris Malcolm wrote:
> JosephKK <joseph_barrett.DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
From the way my camera behaves in 'burst mode', it simply records the
image to the buffer without doing the 'post processing' work normally
done to process the image for storage. The raw data is stored in the
buffer, and the normal things like sharpening, and compression, are done
before writing the image to the card. This allows, in the case of my
camera, about 6 images to be captured in 2.5 seconds. Then it takes a
significant amount time to write all this to the card before I can
resume normal operation. All this is conjecture from the way it seems
to operate, but makes sense from a programming, and electronic point of
view.

As for variable burst length, sure, just release the shutter button!
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:12:22 GMT, John Navas <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

>On 16 Nov 2007 12:46:23 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam RemoveThis @holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote
>in <5q5hovFu4ie3U2 RemoveThis @mid.individual.net>:
>
>>JosephKK <joseph_barrett RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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, ...
>
>Depends on the camera. As I just posted, Panasonic FZ-series cameras
>have continuous burst mode at full resolution until the memory card is
>full.

So do many Canon P&S cameras. The only limit to full-speed and continuous
burst-shooting duration is the type of memory card installed. Too slow of a
memory card and after the buffer fills up (about 30-50 shots later) it can have
a slight lag between shots. Probably the same situation occurs in your P&S
cameras.

DSLRs on the other hand are limited to 10 to 30 frames before they slow down to
half the rate that the better P&S cameras can do non-stop. It's odd that they
would limit that to all resolutions in DSLRs. But there they sit, with a
crippled burst-mode. Let me get in line to pay more for that!

I don't depend on burst-modes often, only under special circumstances do I need
it. When I do I'm glad it's there. People who have to rely on fast and long
burst rates don't know much about photography. They're like the million monkeys
at keyboards, eventually one of them might pound out something useful just by
chance alone. You can always tell who doesn't know anything about photography
when one of the few things that's better about a dSLR being it's short-lived but
higher frame-rates becomes a main purchase point for them.

If they only knew how much they were revealing about themselves with their
camera feature priorities.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:31:48 GMT, LaramieV <lv0127861 RemoveThis @mailinator.com>
wrote in <cpqsj357nh734j6hn0aq8hgmtvpg3grr37 RemoveThis @4ax.com>:

>I don't depend on burst-modes often, only under special circumstances do I need
>it. When I do I'm glad it's there. People who have to rely on fast and long
>burst rates don't know much about photography. They're like the million monkeys
>at keyboards, eventually one of them might pound out something useful just by
>chance alone. You can always tell who doesn't know anything about photography
>when one of the few things that's better about a dSLR being it's short-lived but
>higher frame-rates becomes a main purchase point for them.

When photographing baseball games with my SLR, my high-speed motor drive
lets me get great action shots (swinging at a pitch, diving catch) that
I couldn't otherwise get. Likewise when photographing motor sports.
Etc. Short high-speed burst is just what's needed, and the 5 frames per
second is better than the 3 frames per second of my Panasonic FZ8. No
one tool is perfect for all needs.

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

On Nov 11, 5:35 am, SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B <scharf.ste... RemoveThis @geemail.com> 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.

And hence we have a new class system in cameras that didn't exist
before. In the 1980s, someone with a Pentax K1000 could theoretically
take as good a picture of something as a Nikon F3, but now, there is
no way in Hell someone with a 1/2.5" sensor-equipped P&S can begin to
match what a FF, 1.5 or even a 4/3rds DSLR can deliver.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Nov 13, 9:23 am, Ron Hunter <rphun... RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:
> SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B 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.

It's the "silk purse from the sow's ear" theory that you can make,
using technology, something decent out of something that wasn't to
begin with (the output of a small sensor) and we know it just isn't
true.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

Rich wrote:

> And hence we have a new class system in cameras that didn't exist
> before. In the 1980s, someone with a Pentax K1000 could theoretically
> take as good a picture of something as a Nikon F3, but now, there is
> no way in Hell someone with a 1/2.5" sensor-equipped P&S can begin to
> match what a FF, 1.5 or even a 4/3rds DSLR can deliver.

This is true. Some people don't seem to understand that a system is only
as good as its weakest link. You can improve the lenses, focusing, and
frame rate, etc., on a small sensor camera, but you can't fix the
inherent noise issue. You can try to do noise reduction, but it's not
free, you lose detail.

The noise issue on sensor is analogous to the leakage problem as
transistors on CPUs get smaller. The leakage power is often more than
the actual operating power, and the attempts to control leakage have
been largely unsuccessful up to this point.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

Rich wrote:
> On Nov 11, 5:35 am, SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B <scharf.ste....DeleteThis@geemail.com> 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.
>
> And hence we have a new class system in cameras that didn't exist
> before. In the 1980s, someone with a Pentax K1000 could theoretically
> take as good a picture of something as a Nikon F3, but now, there is
> no way in Hell someone with a 1/2.5" sensor-equipped P&S can begin to
> match what a FF, 1.5 or even a 4/3rds DSLR can deliver.

That depends entirely on WHO is taking the picture, and when, and where.
In good light, it really matters very little. In bad conditions, the
DSLR will certainly help. Of course the photographer may have set the
wrong aperture, wrong shutter speed, and fouled up the focus, too.
Makes for a lousy picture.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

Rich wrote:
> On Nov 13, 9:23 am, Ron Hunter <rphun... RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote:
>> SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B 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.
>
> It's the "silk purse from the sow's ear" theory that you can make,
> using technology, something decent out of something that wasn't to
> begin with (the output of a small sensor) and we know it just isn't
> true.

The point is that we aren't trying to make purses, we are taking
pictures, and there are MANY factors which contribute (or detract) from
picture quality, and the sensitivity of each sensor element is only one
of many factors. It is an important one, especially in challenging
circumstances, but is only ONE factor.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:31:48 GMT, LaramieV <lv0127861.TakeThisOut@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> DSLRs on the other hand are limited to 10 to 30 frames before they slow down to
> half the rate that the better P&S cameras can do non-stop. It's odd that they
> would limit that to all resolutions in DSLRs. But there they sit, with a
> crippled burst-mode. Let me get in line to pay more for that!

From a review of one of the cheaper (i.e. lower end, i.e. slower) DSLRs:

" "It does what it says on the box", and thankfully, too many camera
manufacturer marketing departments are ready to over-inflate specs,
Nikon however can be commended for delivering exactly the shooting rate
quoted in their specs. The D40X achieved a consistent three frames per
second, in JPEG mode it will shoot until the card is full (with a fast
card), in RAW mode you're looking at between six and seven frames before
slowing to 1.2 fps (no big concern as few people will shoot RAW
continuously)."

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page13.asp

Since in your words, that's half the rate that a good P&S can do,
perhaps you'd care to name a specific "better P&S camera" that can shoot
continuously at full resolution at 6 fps? Or, for that matter, a P&S
that will get above 2.5 fps continuously in RAW mode?

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

Daniel Silevitch wrote:

> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page13.asp
>
> Since in your words, that's half the rate that a good P&S can do,
> perhaps you'd care to name a specific "better P&S camera" that can shoot
> continuously at full resolution at 6 fps? Or, for that matter, a P&S
> that will get above 2.5 fps continuously in RAW mode?

The older cameras, both digital & P&S were limited by the write speed to
the memory card, but with faster cards this has gone away and the buffer
can be flushed as fast as it can be filled, as long as you are using a
high enough speed card. Amusingly, the manual for the last P&S I bought
warned that the rated frame rate could not be achieved with the memory
card they included.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 05:20:13 -0800, SMS ???? ? <scharf.steven.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:
> Daniel Silevitch wrote:
>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page13.asp
>>
>> Since in your words, that's half the rate that a good P&S can do,
>> perhaps you'd care to name a specific "better P&S camera" that can shoot
>> continuously at full resolution at 6 fps? Or, for that matter, a P&S
>> that will get above 2.5 fps continuously in RAW mode?
>
> The older cameras, both digital & P&S were limited by the write speed to
> the memory card, but with faster cards this has gone away and the buffer
> can be flushed as fast as it can be filled, as long as you are using a
> high enough speed card. Amusingly, the manual for the last P&S I bought
> warned that the rated frame rate could not be achieved with the memory
> card they included.

Given the sorts of cards that are typically included, I'm surprised that
the warning wasn't "with the included card, you can shoot for 3 seconds
before the card is completely full". For a 32 meg card (typical, I
think, for the included-in-the-box card), a 10 MP camera can save maybe
8 full-resolution pictures.

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