Re: Best non-SLR

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:19:17 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

You'd stand a much better chance of getting your questions
answered if you'd try answering rather than avoiding earlier
questions. Fair is fair, but you don't seem to care.

. . .

At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseam, please just ask your question
which you feel is unanswered once again and I will do my best to answer it
if I can.

Ok, one last try. Returning to your initial reply to Rich's post:

These hyper-long P&S zoom cameras fall apart nicely at the long end
with super-slow and inaccurate focusing.
Couple that with their 1/1.8" or worse, 1/2.5" sensors and it's highly
likely a 200mm equivalent from a DSLR cropped half sized and uprezed
would be as good or better than a 400mm equivalent from one of those
P&S zooms.

I can't speak for all such cameras (as you appear to), but your comments
are not representative of the Panasonic FZ5 and FZ20 which have given
similar results to DSLRs of similar pixel density.

Your reply seemed to miss the point about the effect of high noise
due to using high megapixel sensors that are significantly smaller
that the APS-C and 4/3 sensors which are the smallest used by DSLRs.
You said that you couldn't speak for all such cameras, but gave two
examples (FZ5 and FZ20) which were *not* representative. My point
was that those were older, discontinued cameras, and due to their
age had far fewer pixels than the current P&S sensors (up to 10mp).
I quoted DPReview stating that they would have judged the FZ50 more
favorably if its sensor had fewer megapixels. I'll requote part of
what I posted in a previous reply that illustrates this point:

It is a rewarding and enjoyable photographic tool that - once you've
learned its quirks - offers a compact 'all-in-one' solution to anyone
wanting a huge zoom range without all that lens changing and all that
bulk. Inevitably this involves a certain amount of compromise; the
smearing of fine, low contrast detail that is the hallmark of the Venus III
engine limits the FZ50 to low ISO settings for any serious photography
unless you're happy to accept that you'll never be able to produce big
enlargements.

If this had been a mould-breaking 5 or 6 megapixel with excellent low
noise performance throughout the ISO range (and particularly up to
ISO 800) it would no doubt have performed considerably better and
would have been an easy choice for a Highly Recommended.
[end of DPReview conclusion]

Here is another quote (what *I* said) from the same reply:

You have this amazing inability to focus on what was said. Rich
has no need to justify his claim. The Panasonic reviews are
virtually unanimous in complaining about their much higher than
average "noise", which is the result of cramming too many pixels
into the small sensors that he mentioned. Nobody I've seen has
disputed your contention that non-SLR cameras can take decent
pictures, but that has nothing to do with what was said here, in
this thread. Rich's complaint about super slow and inaccurate
focusing was no doubt partially about the new 18x Olympus, which
does have those problems, but it was in direct response to my reply
that compared the FZ50 with a couple of entry level DSLRs and
mentioned DPReview's criticism of what the small sensor did for it.
You've said nothing to dispute that, but instead have simply tried
to rebut it by pointing out some of the FZ20's virtues which may be
shared by the FZ50.

So the question remains. I agree with Rich's contention that huge
numbers of pixels crammed into small sensors create image quality
problems. With sufficient light, your FZ20 shouldn't have serious
noise problems at reasonably low ISO, but that's not the type of
camera we've been talking about. The FZ50 has some noise problems
or problems due to trying to cope with noise at virtually all ISO
settings. DPReview didn't say that the FZ50 couldn't produce
excellent images, just the opposite actually. But it did say that
the camera had compromises that limits its images unless you stick
to low ISO or are happy making small prints. That's a direct result
of it having too many pixels for its small sensor, and this should
be obvious, and doesn't require any proof from Rich to confirm this.
It's not as if he's the only person aware of this problem afflicting
most small sensor cameras.

Your example using your FZ20 didn't disprove Rich's contention for
two reasons. First, as already noted, it's an older, no longer
available model (unless bought used) that has a reasonable number of
pixels. Second, your moon images examples did not attempt to
demonstrate low noise from a small sensor camera. You just used it
to show that nice, sharp images could be produced by the FZ20, but
nobody has ever said that it couldn't. But you went further and
added that it produced images of similar quality to the DSLR :

The way I see the images is that the non-SLR is capable of producing
similar results to the DSLR when used under the best conditions. Of
course, if you wind up the ISO, the larger sensor camera wins, or if the
DSLR has a higher resolution, it wins.

I've agreed, along with DPReview that 5mp represents a very good
choice for the small sensors. But that's not what's available
today, and as I also noted, the images on Roger's page don't show
that the FZ20 produces results similar to the DSLR's. They were
noticeably inferior. Not bad mind you, but even the FZ20 is not
capable of producing similar results unless you restrict prints to
small sizes. With its smaller 5mp sensor it wouldn't be fair to
expect the FZ20 to match the image quality of the 8mp EOS-1D MkII,
but I highly doubt that the FZ50, with its higher resolution 10mp
small sensor could surpass or even do as well as the 1D MkII. Now
if you can show that the FZ50 produces images as good as the 1D MkII
for shots that typically strain small sensors, such as high ISO or
low light, then I'll agree that you've disproved Rich's contention.
But providing a completely different type of example that's not
limited by a camera having a high megapixel count small sensor isn't
a counterexample that disproves what he or I have been talking
about. So my question is, can you show an example using current
cameras such as the FZ50 (even though you don't own one and can't
give your own test results) that shows comparable performance to
DSLRs using moderate to high ISOs in low light? Even your more FZ20
with its more reasonable sensor won't do as well, but if you can
show that the FZ50 or a similar camera can match DSLRs, I have a
feeling that you'll instantly become more of a celebrity that the
infamous Ken Rockwell. :)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Utterly off-topic: digital cameras
    ... priced cameras with good reputations. ... more gross image distortion (because the lens is smaller) ... fuzzier images (because the lens is worse and more of it ... of the sensor design rather than of the optics. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Best non-SLR
    ... non-SLR cameras do not cover the entire gamut of such cameras, ... I have shown the images to prove my point. ... expected from a P&S's small sensor. ... if you wanted to compare the ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The Joy of Pixel Density
    ... the direct comparison would be between the images, ... into a given sensor size deteriorates image quality, ... your pet FZ50. ... will help people to select a camera that produces superior images. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Cassini: where are colors and detail?
    ... >cameras by implication of your statements. ... use a color sensor for spectroscopy, but the quality of the data is largely ... independent of the quality of the filters, ... cannot take good images of emission nebulas. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: A Step Backward ?
    ... be a factor in determining the DOF. ... Hey, they're my cameras and my lenses and my films and my oh my, ... sensor size rather than allowing it to scale along with the other ... depths of fields if the pixel sizes were varied. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
Loading