Camera advise

Forums › Digital Imaging › Camera advise

1 | 2 | 3

6706 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#447433 10-Mar-2011 22:52

daskip: The one trick I think with these cameras is to either get a 12mp one or below, or get one where you can dial the stupid 16mp setting to around 10mp, 16mp is just stupid, and leads to a stupid amount of noise in the samples I've seen.

That won't make a difference. Noise levels are determined by sensor design, not by the resolution that you select on the camera.

I do agree that it's stupid for manufacturers to be designing 1/2.5" sensors with 12mp or more, although there is some technical debate around this and it's more complex than most people realise.

Kilack

527 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#447436 10-Mar-2011 22:59

alasta:
daskip: The one trick I think with these cameras is to either get a 12mp one or below, or get one where you can dial the stupid 16mp setting to around 10mp, 16mp is just stupid, and leads to a stupid amount of noise in the samples I've seen.

That won't make a difference. Noise levels are determined by sensor design, not by the resolution that you select on the camera.

I do agree that it's stupid for manufacturers to be designing 1/2.5" sensors with 12mp or more, although there is some technical debate around this and it's more complex than most people realise.

I was interested in his post and looked up the sx230 which is a 12mp camera cmos with canon claiming it has some new tech that makes it take great low light photos without a flash etc.
the earlier version of this model was the 210.. which was 14 megapixel but ccd.

What is the reason the resolution decrease? cmos is superior is it not? so why is the resolution being decreased in a later model? is it because of the change from ccd to cmos? or that they wanted to decrease noise?

I have really enjoyed this thread, have learned so much so quickly. Even though some are talking about cameras I will never buy it is all very interesting.

I've finally moved the dial on my camera off the auto mode and playing with the manual modes! :)
its fun but i am sure one day soon even on compacts for even fast moving subjects manual modes will be uneeded - auto modes will be so fast and sensors so good etc. perfect for guys like myself that really just want to click a button and get a photo.....

timmmay

20581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#447439 10-Mar-2011 23:06

Fewer pixels in a given space means less noise per pixel, and generally better image quality. I think CCD is what sensors were years ago, CMOS is better in low light these days, Canon's been CMOS for years and I think everyone's switched for DSLRs.

Manual mode gives you control, but isn't really all that useful on compact cameras. I mostly use it for shot to shot consistency, to make my post processing easier, but when I take the shot I know the limits of my equipment and exactly how i'll process it. If I use P&S cameras it's generally on auto or with a scene mode.

alasta

6706 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#447441 10-Mar-2011 23:09

Kilack: I was interested in his post and looked up the sx230 which is a 12mp camera cmos with canon claiming it has some new tech that makes it take great low light photos without a flash etc.
the earlier version of this model was the 210.. which was 14 megapixel but ccd.

I'm pretty cynical when it comes to manufacturers making extravagant claims like this. Over time sensor technology has gradually improved and will probably continue to do so, but the laws of physics will ensure that a large sensor always performs better than a small one.

What is the reason the resolution decrease? cmos is superior is it not? so why is the resolution being decreased in a later model? is it because of the change from ccd to cmos? or that they wanted to decrease noise?

As I mentioned above imaging sensor design is very complex and there are a lot of parameters that manufacturers have to compromise. Personally it's not something that I would worry about because you're not going to notice the difference between 12mp and 14mp on a small sensor compact camera.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#447442 10-Mar-2011 23:10

When I was trying to use a DSLR (admitidly an old EOS) I found it much more frustrating than my powershot. The stupidly small depth of field meant that even when taking a photo of a product, most of it was out of focus unless I stopped it way way down, and then it wanted to do a 20+ second exposure which really slowed down the workflow when wanting to do 50+ products. Whereas the P&S powershot was virtually all in focus with its defaults.

The problem with useless depth of field is a problem with the larger cameras, some artistic types seem to like that, but IMO, the best camera would be one where everything is in focus.

Richard rich.ms

timmmay

20581 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#447443 10-Mar-2011 23:13

Rich, control of depth of field is one of the primary things you need to learn with a DSLR. Lighting becomes much more important, as does understanding of the technical aspects of photography. For product shots ISO800 F8 a tripod and any shutter speed works, but most people (professionals or keen amateurs I guess) would use a white seamless background, 1-3 off camera lights, and radio triggers.

I find P&S cameras exceptionally frustrating. I understand light and I know exactly what I want the camera to do, how I want the photo to look, the trick is getting it to do it well. Even when I was last on an island in Fiji I used the DSLR more than the P&S, though honestly I didn't use either all that much.

Chainsaw

357 posts

Ultimate Geek

#447447 10-Mar-2011 23:18

richms: When I was trying to use a DSLR (admitidly an old EOS) I found it much more frustrating than my powershot. The stupidly small depth of field meant that even when taking a photo of a product, most of it was out of focus unless I stopped it way way down, and then it wanted to do a 20+ second exposure which really slowed down the workflow when wanting to do 50+ products. Whereas the P&S powershot was virtually all in focus with its defaults.

The problem with useless depth of field is a problem with the larger cameras, some artistic types seem to like that, but IMO, the best camera would be one where everything is in focus.

That's a really good reason to have a dslr!! You can control the dof. Check your sports shots (they are not "arty" ones), notice the players in focus and the crowd not. Those photos would be terrible if everything was in focus. I could go on ;)

Yep the smaller the sensor the more depth of field you get basically, that's why i like a big sensor.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

alasta

6706 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#447450 10-Mar-2011 23:21

Chainsaw: That's a really good reason to have a dslr!! You can control the dof. Check your sports shots (they are not "arty" ones), notice the players in focus and the crowd not. Those photos would be terrible if everything was in focus.

Not to mention shooting portraits would be utterly hopeless with a long DOF.

richms

28187 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#447454 10-Mar-2011 23:34

Chainsaw:
richms: When I was trying to use a DSLR (admitidly an old EOS) I found it much more frustrating than my powershot. The stupidly small depth of field meant that even when taking a photo of a product, most of it was out of focus unless I stopped it way way down, and then it wanted to do a 20+ second exposure which really slowed down the workflow when wanting to do 50+ products. Whereas the P&S powershot was virtually all in focus with its defaults.

The problem with useless depth of field is a problem with the larger cameras, some artistic types seem to like that, but IMO, the best camera would be one where everything is in focus.
That's a really good reason to have a dslr!! You can control the dof. Check your sports shots (they are not "arty" ones), notice the players in focus and the crowd not. Those photos would be terrible if everything was in focus. I could go on ;)

Yep the smaller the sensor the more depth of field you get basically, that's why i like a big sensor.

I find looking at things that are not in focus really hard on my eyes. IMO that is one of the biggest reasons I cant stand watching 3d movies because I am constantly trying to focus on something and its failing.

I would rather the whole lot in focus from the camera and I can sort it out later if I want those effects applied to it.

The other thing that I found was worse on the DSLR was the blobs of light off reflections of things were a lot larger, meaning more time removing them in photoshop.

Best solution we had was to put the DSLR about 1.5m back from the item and use the other lens which had a zoom on it, that got an acceptable shutter time without needing to stop it way down, and it was all in focus.

Richard rich.ms

Chainsaw

357 posts

Ultimate Geek

#447531 11-Mar-2011 12:36

Horses for courses. The idea is that you don't really look at the out of focus bits!

Sounds like you had a filter or just crap lens on the camera. Just look through photos on facebook - blobs galore on the P&S camera photos!

Yes putting the camera further away gives you a greater dof.

If a P&S does what you want - great! We're not trying to persuade you to swap, just pointing out that what you don't like about a dslr is the same reason many people buy them!

daskip

79 posts

Master Geek

#447950 13-Mar-2011 10:54

alasta: That won't make a difference. Noise levels are determined by sensor design, not by the resolution that you select on the camera.

Oh thank you, good to understand, that knocks about 50% of the cameras off my shopping list, and maybe more if I check the sensor details! I wouldn't want anything over 12 mp in a 1/2.3" sensor compact. No use in a larger file with more noise.

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#447952 13-Mar-2011 10:58

daskip:
alasta: That won't make a difference. Noise levels are determined by sensor design, not by the resolution that you select on the camera.

Oh thank you, good to understand, that knocks about 50% of the cameras off my shopping list, and maybe more if I check the sensor details! I wouldn't want anything over 12 mp in a 1/2.3" sensor compact. No use in a larger file with more noise.

Actually, it's only partly true.

If you have a 14mp camera and select a 7mp mode, then noise levels will be better. It's basic physics and maths. The high mp modes in any P&S camera will be rubbish at high ISO (800-3200 or above)... Camera designers are clever people, but if Scotty couldn't change the laws of physics, then I doubt they could either.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

alasta

6706 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#447957 13-Mar-2011 11:09

Talkiet:
daskip: Oh thank you, good to understand, that knocks about 50% of the cameras off my shopping list, and maybe more if I check the sensor details! ?I wouldn't want anything over 12 mp in a 1/2.3" sensor compact. ?No use in a larger file with more noise.

Actually, it's only partly true.

If you have a 14mp camera and select a 7mp mode, then noise levels will be better. It's basic physics and maths. -

On what basis would you compare them to draw that conclusion? If you're looking at a 7mp result viewed at 100% (I.e. viewed at the native resolution of your display) and compare it with a 12mp result viewed at 100% then obviously the latter will be noisier. However to make a useful comparison you would need to look at the 12mp result scaled down in which case the visible noise should be the same.

Talkiet

4793 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#447958 13-Mar-2011 11:13

alasta:
Talkiet:
daskip: Oh thank you, good to understand, that knocks about 50% of the cameras off my shopping list, and maybe more if I check the sensor details! ?I wouldn't want anything over 12 mp in a 1/2.3" sensor compact. ?No use in a larger file with more noise.

Actually, it's only partly true.

If you have a 14mp camera and select a 7mp mode, then noise levels will be better. It's basic physics and maths. -

On what basis would you compare them to draw that conclusion? If you're looking at a 7mp result viewed at 100% (I.e. viewed at the native resolution of your display) and compare it with a 12mp result viewed at 100% then obviously the latter will be noisier. However to make a useful comparison you would need to look at the 12mp result scaled down in which case the visible noise should be the same.

You're right, but that's a pointless issue to someone that just wants the pics. The 7mp image will be less noisy than the 12mp image.

I long ago stopped caring about noise in images. It's pretty much the last thing I care about now and there are ways to photographically control it instead of hoping the engineers did a good job.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

alasta

6706 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#447965 13-Mar-2011 11:41

Talkiet:
alasta: On what basis would you compare them to draw that conclusion? If you're looking at a 7mp result viewed at 100% (I.e. viewed at the native resolution of your display) and compare it with a 12mp result viewed at 100% then obviously the latter will be noisier. However to make a useful comparison you would need to look at the 12mp result scaled down in which case the visible noise should be the same.

You're right, but that's a pointless issue to someone that just wants the pics. The 7mp image will be less noisy than the 12mp image.

I disagree. The average user isn't going to be viewing their photos at 100%; they'll be seeing the end result scaled to their computer screen size or their preferred print size.

I long ago stopped caring about noise in images. It's pretty much the last thing I care about now and there are ways to photographically control it instead of hoping the engineers did a good job.

I tend to agree that the issue of noise is often overblown, but really bad chroma noise is pretty offensive and even if you shoot RAW and use good software it's pretty hard to remove without some loss of photographic detail.

1 | 2 | 3