Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 12, 2010, 8:25 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 36
Default

Hey FiveO,
We've gone back and forth enough, that perhaps you are familiar with where I'm coming from (if not: I'm a strict P&S'r, looking for a pocketable camera with profound features, and I want to become a better compact P&S'r. No aspiration to become an dSLR'r.)

Anyway, one of the cameras on my radar supports RAW shooting. For someone like me, is RAW shooting something that is accessible, in practical terms. e.g. Would it probably be a hassle for someone like me, to go and manipulate the RAW images, etc. As I said, it's a feature on one of the cameras I'm looking at... if it's something that's not as complicated as it is sometimes made out to be, then that would be a strike against that cam, to me. Thanks.
roaddawg31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 12, 2010, 9:22 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roaddawg31 View Post
Hey FiveO,
We've gone back and forth enough, that perhaps you are familiar with where I'm coming from (if not: I'm a strict P&S'r, looking for a pocketable camera with profound features, and I want to become a better compact P&S'r. No aspiration to become an dSLR'r.)

Anyway, one of the cameras on my radar supports RAW shooting. For someone like me, is RAW shooting something that is accessible, in practical terms. e.g. Would it probably be a hassle for someone like me, to go and manipulate the RAW images, etc. As I said, it's a feature on one of the cameras I'm looking at... if it's something that's not as complicated as it is sometimes made out to be, then that would be a strike against that cam, to me. Thanks.
In most cases, I think JPEGs will do the trick but there are some instances in which you might be able to squeeze a little more detail or dynamic range out of an image with RAW.

Anyway, the Canon software for RAW images is very easy to use and if you get to a point where you want/need something more advanced, you can check out Adobe Lightroom. As for other manufacturers like Samsung/Panasonic, I would think they have software that is fairly easy to use but I'm not certain. I shoot in RAW+JPEG on the S95 and most of the time I just use the JPEG files. Ocassionally I'll use the RAW files if I want to tweak the pics a bit.
__________________
Disclaimer: I take photos of life rather than live to take photos and my opinions of cameras are reflected accordingly.
FiveO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 3:45 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 107
Default

I've tried a number of cameras as of late and was quite impressed with the size and performance of the Sony WX5. It's a wide angle with only a 5x zoom, so it may not zoom enough for you, but it had a very nice 1080p AVCHD video and decent low-light capability.

Despite the challenge of its tiny 1/2.4" sensor, the WX5 makes a lot out of it with its f2.4 aperture lens, CMOS, backlighting, and clever processing. The 5x zoom seemed woefully inadequate, but its IQ was light years ahead of the older HX5V I tried (twice!). Perhaps worth some of the trade-off for such a tiny camera and 1080p AVCHD video with decent low-light performance.
nwtim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 6:08 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Marawder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Geneva, SWITZERLAND
Posts: 677
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nwtim View Post
I've tried a number of cameras as of late and was quite impressed with the size and performance of the Sony WX5. It's a wide angle with only a 5x zoom, so it may not zoom enough for you, but it had a very nice 1080p AVCHD video and decent low-light capability.

Despite the challenge of its tiny 1/2.4" sensor, the WX5 makes a lot out of it with its f2.4 aperture lens, CMOS, backlighting, and clever processing. The 5x zoom seemed woefully inadequate, but its IQ was light years ahead of the older HX5V I tried (twice!). Perhaps worth some of the trade-off for such a tiny camera and 1080p AVCHD video with decent low-light performance.
As an owner of a WX5, I concur...
__________________
Sony α
dSLR-A580
Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4
Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 SAM

Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di-II LD
Tamron SP AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di USD XLD
Marawder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 7:50 AM   #25
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

roaddawg

What you are looking for cannot happen.

The size of the lens is constrained by the size of the camera that is "pocketable", thus the size of the sensor is constrained too.

To get better low light images you need more light to be captured. There are abundant sources on the internet to research this. But very briefly, the current sensors are already reaching pixels sizes of 2-3 microns. This is small enough that the sensors are Nyquist-limited at the maximum apertures of the lenses.

Can they make tiny incremental gains over the next few years? Yes likely so, but the biggest breakthroughs are likely to come in terms of making the existing technology cheaper, not better. Can they make huge leaps? No.

Unfortunately what you want isn't possible. It's been the holy grail of photography through its entire history: the highest possible quality from the smallest possible camera.

If you want some convincing start here:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ter/index.html
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Dec 13, 2010 at 7:55 AM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 13, 2010, 10:27 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

That is a great and very informative post, Craig-

The Clark Vision reference really addresses the imager size/ photosite problem quite well. Well done.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2010, 8:17 PM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 36
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
roaddawg

What you are looking for cannot happen.

The size of the lens is constrained by the size of the camera that is "pocketable", thus the size of the sensor is constrained too.

To get better low light images you need more light to be captured. There are abundant sources on the internet to research this. But very briefly, the current sensors are already reaching pixels sizes of 2-3 microns. This is small enough that the sensors are Nyquist-limited at the maximum apertures of the lenses.

Can they make tiny incremental gains over the next few years? Yes likely so, but the biggest breakthroughs are likely to come in terms of making the existing technology cheaper, not better. Can they make huge leaps? No.

Unfortunately what you want isn't possible. It's been the holy grail of photography through its entire history: the highest possible quality from the smallest possible camera.

If you want some convincing start here:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ter/index.html
Well, I don't want to get into a technical debate about cameras, because it's not gonna help me make a choice. And I hope it doesn't seem like I'm attacking your post, or anything you say as true. I'm sure it is.

But to a layman, I do see the S95, SD4000, and others that are pocketable and sport a f2.0 lens. So that's possible.

And also, we have 10x zooms in a pocketable form all over the place.

So I don't see why these factors can't converge at some point. Maybe not at f2.0/10x... but maybe f2.4/8x, etc.

To the Sony WX5, that camera is appealing. It seems a lot like the Samsung TL350, that I still have my eye on. I'm beginning to realize that cool features are something that appeal to me too. What I want is a camera that will deliver something others simply don't. (I mean, I'm not one of those who always has to have the "cool" gadget or something.) I just want to bring something that others don't bring to the party.

It could be stellar low-light quality (something that other PNS's can't match); it could be a wide-angle; it could be just playful fun effects (love the Samsung in this regard too)...
roaddawg31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2010, 9:36 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

I like your idea, but if you understand optics, as Craig pointed out. I is just not going to happen.

Take a good look at the Canon SD4000 and SD4500, they share the same camera body, but they have to use different lenses. Canon would have loved to put a 10X optical zoom F 2.0 lens on the SD4500, it would have been a "killer" camera. But it was just not optically possible, so Canon could not do it..

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2010, 12:19 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,130
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by roaddawg31 View Post
Well, I don't want to get into a technical debate about cameras, because it's not gonna help me make a choice. And I hope it doesn't seem like I'm attacking your post, or anything you say as true. I'm sure it is.

But to a layman, I do see the S95, SD4000, and others that are pocketable and sport a f2.0 lens. So that's possible.

And also, we have 10x zooms in a pocketable form all over the place.

So I don't see why these factors can't converge at some point. Maybe not at f2.0/10x... but maybe f2.4/8x, etc.
If you read the information that has been provided in a variety of posts, you will understand exactly why it isn't possible to cram what you're looking for into a pocketable form factor.
__________________
Disclaimer: I take photos of life rather than live to take photos and my opinions of cameras are reflected accordingly.
FiveO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 16, 2010, 8:08 AM   #30
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Here's the thing.

Think about the actual aperture from the f-stop.

The S95 has a lens with a focal range of 6-22.5mm (28-105 equivalent). So f2 @ 6mm means that the actual aperture of the lens is 3mm at the wide end.

If you want a 10x zoom with a sensor of that size you are going to need the lens to be 6-60mm. Now if you want it to be f2 @ 60mm (300mm equivalent) then the actual physical size of the hole that lets in the light is going to need to be 30mm. Which means at least some of the glass elements of the lens will need to be approximately 50-60mm wide, the housing perhaps 60-70mm at least, and when extended will need to be at least 60mm away from the sensor.

Can you please tell how this could be possible in a compact camera? It's not even complicated physics. Try to build one from wood. Look at the physical dimensions of what you have to build. Then think about whether any of those elements of the problem are likely to be at all different 2 years from now.

I think you will come to the conclusion that what you want to happen cannot happen short of massive advances in multi-dimensional physics and a mini-tardis being built into your $300 P&S camera. In other words: don't hold your breath.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:30 AM.