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

Ron Hunter wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>> []
>>> Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical [IF] Macro (Model
>>> A20)? With the cropping factor of typical non-full frame bodies,
>>> that would be much worse on the wide end than the Leica lens on my
>>> DMC-FZ8, not much longer on the long end, much slower, and not even
>>> close optically.
>>
>> Here's a small test I did this morning - same scene photographed
>> with the Nikon D40 6MP DSLR using the kit lens, and the Panasonic
>> 7MP TZ3 with its Leica lens:
>>
>> http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/imaging/QualityExperiments.htm
>>
>> I know that the exposures are slight different, and that the framing
>> is slightly different. With the compact camera, I could not set the
>> zoom precisely as I wanted, with the DSLR what I got was slightly
>> more than what the viewfinder showed. It's interesting to compare
>> the bottom left corner for focus, and the top edge for the grey to
>> red transition. There's a lot even more difference at ISO 400, as
>> would be expected. Cheers,
>> David
>>
>>
> The lens on one is noticeably better, as is the resolution. The color
> is quite different as well. What white balance settings were in use?

Auto on both, Ron. The full EXIF data should still be there.

It was a daylight shot, with the winter sun illuminating the room through
thin, drawn curtains. The Nikon colour setting was at its default, but I
had changed the TZ3 to "natural" as recommended to reduce the noise. If I
had the time, it would be interesting to repeat the test outdoors where
the higher light level would allow the lenses to stop down more.

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

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:53:09 -0800, SMS ???• ?
<scharf.steven.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote in
<47333e90$0$79883$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> These cameras aren't DSLRs, and they certainly have their limitations.
>> But then a 1957 VW Beetle doesn't have the room of a Rolls Royce, either.
>
>The shutter lag on even the new point and shoots is way too long for
>many users. Sports action shots are not possible.

Wrong again. As I posted earlier in this thread, to quote Digital
Photography Review on the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between
pressing the button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous".

>I do a lot of sports
>photography.

So do I.

>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.

I sure can, in both cases.

>The biggest complaint about point and shoot cameras by most owners is
>_not_ high ISO noise, they don't even know what that means, it's the
>shutter lag.

That only applies to _some_ compact cameras, not _all_ of them.

"All generalizations are false", and this one is no exception.

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

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:53:09 -0800, SMS ???• ? <scharf.steven.TakeThisOut@geemail.com>
wrote:

>Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> These cameras aren't DSLRs, and they certainly have their limitations.
>> But then a 1957 VW Beetle doesn't have the room of a Rolls Royce, either.
>
>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.
>

I hope you enjoy all those warped bats and shrunken or stretched bodied
high-divers that are caused by focal-plane-shutter distortions. Anything that
moves fast when taken by any moving-slit imaging system causes this. Care to see
some helicopter photos done by DSLRs where the blades are bent in spirals?
There's tons of those on the net.

You really are clueless, aren't you. Either that, or you've never taken a photo
with any camera in your life. Which is it?

All too obvious -- just another armchair photographer with a keyboard.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

IDIOT ALERT! wrote:

> I hope you enjoy all those warped bats and shrunken or stretched bodied
> high-divers that are caused by focal-plane-shutter distortions. Anything that
> moves fast when taken by any moving-slit imaging system causes this. Care to see
> some helicopter photos done by DSLRs where the blades are bent in spirals?
> There's tons of those on the net.

Dear Mr. Idiot Alert!:

Helicopter blade and sky diver photos are immaterial. The issue is that
with a P&S you cannot capture most sports action unless you can predict
when the bat will swing, or when the ball will hit the glove. We're
talking about times that need to be less than 2/10 of a second
_including_ autofocus time, and even the newer point and shoot cameras
with shorter shutter lag won't work.

You really need to do some research into shutter lag times on various
cameras. You need to look at hard numbers, not general statements about
the shutter lag, like "short" or "pretty good" or "really fast." You can
start your research here,
"http://www.cameras.co.uk/html/shutter-lag-comparisons.cfm".

Also, what you appear to not understand is that shutter lag has two
components, the actual lag, plus the auto-focus time.

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

Bill Tuthill wrote:
> David J Taylor
> <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Here's a small test I did this morning - same scene photographed
>> with the Nikon D40 6MP DSLR using the kit lens, and the Panasonic
>> 7MP TZ3 with its Leica lens:
>>
>> http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/imaging/QualityExperiments.htm
>
> I like the Panasonic 7MP TZ3 image much better because the color
> is closer to neutral. Is that your point?

I'm presenting the images for people to make their own judgments - they
can decide for themselves.

The colour on the Nikon is actually much closer to the colour as I
perceived it (warm autumn sunlight) and the TZ3 has lost the dark red
colour of the surround almost completely, in addition to having poorer
focus at the corners.

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

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:21:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<hGzYi.44033$c_1.40362@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:37:28 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>> <seqYi.43899$c_1.36531@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>
>>> Well, you can now take the approach of a single-walk round lens with
>>> a 27 - 300mm zoom range, available from several manufacturers, some

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> I weighed by DSLR versus my compact camera outfits, and
>>> the DSLR was only 3oz (85g) heavier, for a similar focal length

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> range.

>> With what lens? With something reasonably close to the Leica lens,
>> like the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus lens, the
>> weight difference is huge:
>> * DMC-FZ8: 310 g
>> * Canon 300D + EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM: 560 g + 1,670 g = 2,230
>> g Even with the less good Tamron, the weight difference is still huge:
>> * Canon 300D + Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR: 560 g + 555 g = 1,115 g
>
>Well, I was thinking more of the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikon (27-300mm
>equivalent).

Not your "similar focal length" range, but OK:
* DMC-FZ8 (35 mm equiv: 36-432 mm): 310 g
DMC-FZ18 (35 mm equiv: 28-504 mm): 360 g
* Nikon D40: 471 g
AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR
(35 mm equiv: 28-300 mm): 572 g
Total: 1,043 g
[continued below]

>I can't find the numerical review pages online right now,
>but I think you will find the performance is similar.

I haven't used that lens myself, but reviews I've seen have say
distortion is not as good as the Leica lens on the FZ8. And of course
it doesn't have the same tele reach.

>The speed issue is
>an interesting one - is it better to have an f/5.6 lens on a sensor that's
>four times the linear dimension than an f/2.8 lens on the smaller sensor?
>It sounds close to me. My own experience shows that the DSLR working at
>ISO 400 produces a better image quality than the Panasonic at ISO 100.

I don't think it's even that close. The f/5.6 lens typically has to be
stopped down to at least f/8 or even f/11 to match the optical quality
of the Leica lens wide open, a difference of 3+ stops, so I think the
more appropriate comparison is more like ISO 100 versus ISO 800,
although I'll grant you the D40 does very well at ISO 800.

Regardless, what really matters is whether or not noise is objectionable
in the final image when viewed at the intended distance. I personally
don't find noise from the FZ8 at ISO 100 to be any issue, and the fast
lens and image stabilization allow me to work at ISO 100 most of the
time. So how about we just say the faster lens on the FZ8 levels the
image quality playing field?

>The weight comparison was between an SLR outfit with a Nikon D40 with
>18-55mm and 55-200mm VR lenses, and a compact outfit with Nikon 8400 (for
>wide-angle) and Panasonic FZ5 for IS zoom. Interchangeable lenses versus
>interchangeable cameras!

How about comparing your Nikon DSLR kit to a (35 mm equiv: 28-504 mm)
Panasonic DMC-FZ18?

I personally usually stitch when I need wider angle with my (35 mm
equiv: 36-432 mm) DMC-FZ8, so don't see a real need to carry a 2nd
camera (although I admit to have additional cameras in my car, sailing
bag, etc.).

>I still have and use both DSLR and compact cameras.

I have and still use SLR (film) in addition to fixed lens "prosumer"
bridge digital cameras, and great as the glass is for my film SLR, it
now stays in the closet the great majority of the time.

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

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:42:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<6DCYi.44125$c_1.15627@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>John Navas wrote:
>[]
>> Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di VC LD Aspherical [IF] Macro (Model
>> A20)? With the cropping factor of typical non-full frame bodies, that
>> would be much worse on the wide end than the Leica lens on my DMC-FZ8,
>> not much longer on the long end, much slower, and not even close
>> optically.
>
>Here's a small test I did this morning - same scene photographed with the
>Nikon D40 6MP DSLR using the kit lens, and the Panasonic 7MP TZ3 with its
>Leica lens:
>
> http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/imaging/QualityExperiments.htm
>
>I know that the exposures are slight different, and that the framing is
>slightly different. With the compact camera, I could not set the zoom
>precisely as I wanted, with the DSLR what I got was slightly more than
>what the viewfinder showed.

Thank you, but the TZ3 has a different sensor and lens than the FZ8, and
doesn't fit my needs, so I don't really have an opinion.

>It's interesting to compare the bottom left
>corner for focus, and the top edge for the grey to red transition.
>There's a lot even more difference at ISO 400, as would be expected.

What grey? There seems to be a bad color cast to both the Nikon images,
something like 168-146-109 (RGB) versus 147-157-158 (RGB) for the
Panasonic.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:21:33 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
> <hGzYi.44033$c_1.40362@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 21:37:28 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
>>> <seqYi.43899$c_1.36531@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
>>>
>>>> Well, you can now take the approach of a single-walk round lens
>>>> with a 27 - 300mm zoom range, available from several
>>>> manufacturers, some
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> I weighed by DSLR versus my compact camera outfits, and
>>>> the DSLR was only 3oz (85g) heavier, for a similar focal length
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>> range.
>
>>> With what lens? With something reasonably close to the Leica lens,
>>> like the Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus lens, the
>>> weight difference is huge:
>>> * DMC-FZ8: 310 g
>>> * Canon 300D + EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM: 560 g + 1,670 g =
>>> 2,230 g Even with the less good Tamron, the weight difference is
>>> still huge: * Canon 300D + Tamron AF28-300mm F/3.5-6.3 XR: 560 g +
>>> 555 g = 1,115 g
>>
>> Well, I was thinking more of the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikon (27-300mm
>> equivalent).
>
> Not your "similar focal length" range, but OK:
> * DMC-FZ8 (35 mm equiv: 36-432 mm): 310 g
> DMC-FZ18 (35 mm equiv: 28-504 mm): 360 g
> * Nikon D40: 471 g
> AF-S Zoom-Nikkor ED 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF DX VR
> (35 mm equiv: 28-300 mm): 572 g
> Total: 1,043 g
> [continued below]
>
>> I can't find the numerical review pages online right now,
>> but I think you will find the performance is similar.
>
> I haven't used that lens myself, but reviews I've seen have say
> distortion is not as good as the Leica lens on the FZ8. And of course
> it doesn't have the same tele reach.
>
>> The speed issue is
>> an interesting one - is it better to have an f/5.6 lens on a sensor
>> that's four times the linear dimension than an f/2.8 lens on the
>> smaller sensor? It sounds close to me. My own experience shows that
>> the DSLR working at ISO 400 produces a better image quality than the
>> Panasonic at ISO 100.
>
> I don't think it's even that close. The f/5.6 lens typically has to
> be stopped down to at least f/8 or even f/11 to match the optical
> quality of the Leica lens wide open, a difference of 3+ stops, so I
> think the more appropriate comparison is more like ISO 100 versus ISO
> 800, although I'll grant you the D40 does very well at ISO 800.
>
> Regardless, what really matters is whether or not noise is
> objectionable in the final image when viewed at the intended
> distance. I personally don't find noise from the FZ8 at ISO 100 to
> be any issue, and the fast lens and image stabilization allow me to
> work at ISO 100 most of the time. So how about we just say the
> faster lens on the FZ8 levels the image quality playing field?
>
>> The weight comparison was between an SLR outfit with a Nikon D40 with
>> 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR lenses, and a compact outfit with Nikon 8400
>> (for wide-angle) and Panasonic FZ5 for IS zoom. Interchangeable
>> lenses versus interchangeable cameras!
>
> How about comparing your Nikon DSLR kit to a (35 mm equiv: 28-504 mm)
> Panasonic DMC-FZ18?
>
> I personally usually stitch when I need wider angle with my (35 mm
> equiv: 36-432 mm) DMC-FZ8, so don't see a real need to carry a 2nd
> camera (although I admit to have additional cameras in my car, sailing
> bag, etc.).
>
>> I still have and use both DSLR and compact cameras.
>
> I have and still use SLR (film) in addition to fixed lens "prosumer"
> bridge digital cameras, and great as the glass is for my film SLR, it
> now stays in the closet the great majority of the time.

Oh, indeed, John. My film SLR stayed in the cupboard as soon as I got my
first digital in 1998. I remembered to remove the batteries, and sold it
all a few years ago.

The comparison is what I actually had in my bag. At the time, a
wider-angle ZLR was not available, and I knew I needed wider. I used this
program:

http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html

to produce a histogram of all the focal lengths I had used during a
particular trip. Hence getting the Nikon 8400. I often take photos of
speakers at meetings (for reports) and found that the compact camera
wasn't really sensitive enough without using flash, hence buying the Nikon
D40 DSLR earlier this year. Now I can shoot at ISO 1600 with complete
confidence in the quality of the result. I have also found that the speed
of operation (e.g. setting a particular zoom) has been a welcome bonus.

I don't know if the problem with the TZ3 is the folded optics, but I don't
find the image quality as good as the kit lens on the Nikon D40 in the
test I did. I think that both lenses were fully open. I had no
complaints about lens on the earlier Panasonic ZLRs like the 5MP FZ5 and
FZ20. It's a slightly disappointing result, I feel. If anything, it's
the Panasonic lens which needs to be stopped down to match the Nikon, at
least judging by:

http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/imaging/QualityExperiments.htm

I'm sure that in an outdoor scene there would be less difference.

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

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:42:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
[]
>> It's interesting to compare the bottom left
>> corner for focus, and the top edge for the grey to red transition.
>> There's a lot even more difference at ISO 400, as would be expected.
>
> What grey? There seems to be a bad color cast to both the Nikon
> images, something like 168-146-109 (RGB) versus 147-157-158 (RGB) for
> the Panasonic.

Yes, I agree, but I was trying to do the least "tampering" with the
images, least I be accused of favouring one or the other! The "correct"
value is probably midway between the two!

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

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 17:31:14 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<CJHYi.44251$c_1.12668@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>Bill Tuthill wrote:
>> David J Taylor
>> <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a small test I did this morning - same scene photographed
>>> with the Nikon D40 6MP DSLR using the kit lens, and the Panasonic
>>> 7MP TZ3 with its Leica lens:
>>>
>>> http://www.david-taylor.myby.co.uk/imaging/QualityExperiments.htm
>>
>> I like the Panasonic 7MP TZ3 image much better because the color
>> is closer to neutral. Is that your point?
>
>I'm presenting the images for people to make their own judgments - they
>can decide for themselves.
>
>The colour on the Nikon is actually much closer to the colour as I
>perceived it (warm autumn sunlight) and the TZ3 has lost the dark red
>colour of the surround almost completely, in addition to having poorer
>focus at the corners.

I guess it's a matter of personal taste, because I usually don't want
auto white balance to preserve the color of the lighting at the expense
of the color of the subject, as with this subject. I doubt you would
either when shooting under (say) "cool" fluorescent (green) lighting,
and maybe not even when shooting with "warm" (orange) incandescent
lighting. When I want to preserve a particular lighting cast, I take
white balance off auto to get the particular effect I want. So on color
balance I personally think the Nikon did a poor job and the Panasonic a
good job, although as always, "different strokes for different folks".

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

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:52:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
<oVIYi.44294$c_1.13885@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:42:58 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>[]
>>> It's interesting to compare the bottom left
>>> corner for focus, and the top edge for the grey to red transition.
>>> There's a lot even more difference at ISO 400, as would be expected.
>>
>> What grey? There seems to be a bad color cast to both the Nikon
>> images, something like 168-146-109 (RGB) versus 147-157-158 (RGB) for
>> the Panasonic.
>
>Yes, I agree, but I was trying to do the least "tampering" with the
>images, least I be accused of favouring one or the other! The "correct"
>value is probably midway between the two!

It's a matter of personal taste, and as I explain in the post I just
made, I personally prefer to have auto white balance preserve the color
of the subject, not the lighting, so my own take is that the Panasonic
did a much better job of auto white balance.

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

John Navas wrote:
[]
> It's a matter of personal taste, and as I explain in the post I just
> made, I personally prefer to have auto white balance preserve the
> color of the subject, not the lighting, so my own take is that the
> Panasonic did a much better job of auto white balance.

I've found this to be a characteristic of Nikon in their compact cameras
as well (e.g. the 8400 I have). But I agree with you. Were I making a
strict record of this I would try to use my Kodak Grey card, and manual
colour balance. I've had neither camera long enough to get the best out
of it in all situations.

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

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 20:18:03 -0800, Rich <rander3127.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in
<1194495483.165461.43230.RemoveThis@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>:

>On Nov 7, 6:26 pm, John Navas <spamfilt....RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 14:43:50 -0800, Rich <rander3....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote in
>> <1194475430.199350.33....RemoveThis@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.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>
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL