As Karl Marx said, “Quantity has a quality all its own.” More=generally better.
Cramming=? They’re trying to fit smaller sensors onto the same area? That would seem like they’d be gathering more data. Or do you think they’re trying to use computer logic to guesstimate?
[QUOTE=Telemark]
There are several good software packages out there that help remove noise from final images. Try the free demo of Noise Ninja to start.
Thanks for the advice. I figure I’ll be shooting a lot with flash!
More in this case = worse, at least under some conditions. You seem to be confusing some of the terms here:
Sensor = wafer of silicon with the photosites/pixels
The sensors in point and shoot cameras have been staying the same size. The number of pixels on those sensors has been increasing, and hence the individual pixels have been getting smaller. The amount of data hitting the sensor has remained constant, but is getting carved up into more pieces. This improves resolution under optimal light conditions, but hurts the signal-to-noise ratio, and hence decreases the camera’s ability to control digital noise at anything above base ISO.
With regards to the aside about Leica and Zeiss lenses on point and shoots - it’s my understanding that the Panasonic and Sony cameras sporting these labels do not have lenses that are produced by Leica and Zeiss, and in some cases not even designed by them. It’s mostly a case of electronic giants with no reputation for optics buying the right to use a label to increase the credibility of their products. That said, the “Leica” lenses on the Panasonics particularly are quite well regarded.
OK, got it with regard to sensors/pixels. They’re improving but let’s not get carried away, yes? Under difficult lighting the shortcomings come through loud and unclear.
The licensing thing would explain how high end optics could end up on P/S cameras.
Thanks everybody for taking time to post! I’ll be taking more pics and hopefully will get this down. I suspect I’ll settle on some settings and never change them.
The other analogy I’ve heard used is push processing. For an identical exposure, an ISO 200 film pushed to ISO 800 in the tank is going to give you a dramatically different result to an actual 800 film.
In terms of digital cameras, what you see is that a point&shoot with a sensor the size of your little fingernail gives totally pash results at ISO 800 whereas an expensive DSLR with the same number of pixels on a sensor the size of your thumbnail gives a useable result.
Same relationship between 35mm and 6x6 SLR’s. All other things being equal - i.e. quality of optics and engineering precision, bigger =better.
I’m still finding some odd disparities between my old Olympus OM1 and the newer E500.
Yes, but you’re keeping them in the lossy Jpeg format aren’t you? So the loss in picture quality gets compounded each time you save the picture.
Get your camera to save the pictures in a lossless format - like TIFF - and only manipulate them in such formats. Only when you want to publish the picture on a web-page should you convert to Jpeg.
And now, with the current generation of full-frame DSLRs from Canon and Nikon, we have CCDs the same size as 35mm film. Quality is excellent and you no longer have to worry about focal length conversions, just your empty bank account.
A good idea, in theory. However, the vast majority of P&S cameras do not save in TIFF format (or RAW for that matter). JPEG is still the default format of choice. I still stand by my recommendation of Picasa. It automatically works on a copy of your photo and tracks all changes so you can undo any of them with no loss in image quality. Prepping photos for printing is easy, allowing you sharpen, specify output size and export the edited file to a JPEG that’s all ready to print or send off the print place.
For the most part they aren’t improving. Adding more MP to a fixed dimension CCD has generally and repeatedly produced poorer image quality. That’s why people are trying to find discontinued models; the new ones produce noisier (albeit larger) images. I can’t find much reason to go above 8 MP for most P&S users and I can find many reasons not to.
The names are high end, the optics are OK.
As others have noted, every time you save a JPG you are recompressing the image and losing some data. If you keep things at the highest JPG quality the effect is minimal but repeated edits will produce more JPG artifacts. Picasa is one way, the other is to do all your edits from the base image each time. Sadly, very few P&S cameras save in anything but JPG these days.
Thanks for the additional info, all.
I think one major flaw in my thinking has been comparing these to the old SLR/RF options. In those days, both used 35mm film so with a decent lens on a RF you could probably get away with making 8x10s. The paradigm shift I have to undergo is in approaching it like I’m shooting with a smaller format because really, I am.
Quoting finagle:
Most point and shoot cameras have a “pre-flash” that’s used to help focusing and maybe allow some pre-exposure metering. There might also be some red-eye reduction going on. This pre-flash will trigger your slave strobe prematurely, causing the underexposure that you’re seeing. Slave strobes for digital cameras will usually have adjustments that allow the slave to handle the preflash.
OK, maybe that explains it. A long time ago I tried one of the early digital cams. The preflashes were discrete and noticeable. Picking up the Canon now, I notice it seems continuous but there is a pulsy quality when the flash fires.
Maybe the sequence of events then is like this:
Press shutter release. Preflash begins
Aux is triggered while exposure is calculated (Camera thinks, ‘Damn! it’s bright in here. Stop lens WAY down.’)
Aux flash ends, room back to normal light level.
Shutter opens and closes, flash fires, but lens is way stopped down and it’s underexposed.
So, picked up the Canon again. Program mode test shot, flash but no aux flash. Looks good. Exposure info is 1/60 @ f/2.8.
Mmkay, try with the aux, same scene…results dark. Info shows 1/60 @ f/5.0, and that seems to bear out the above theory, that the aux is throwing off the camera’s exposure calculations. So, let’s just override + 2EV and see where that gets us. No dice. Won’t budge from f/5.0 so I guess in program mode Canon takes the control away where flash is concerned.
Aperture priority…still won’t budge.
Getting serious now. Switch to complete manual. I set it at 1/60 @ f/2.8, both flashes definitely fired. Check picture: almost TOTALLY black and yes, it says it made the exposure with 1/60 @ f/2.8. HUH?
OK, try that in manual mode but with onboard flash only. Better but still pretty dark. Wow, that’s just weird: I used the exact same combination as the camera determined in program mode and it didn’t work?
I guess the moral to the story is, buy the $100 Canon flash with wimpy specs.
Finally a tidbit many of you may already know: if you have a remote control for your TV etc. and you’re not sure it’s working properly, press the keys while viewing it through a digital camera’s LCD and you can see the beam.