 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / October 2006Inexpensive low-light digital??
I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably only afford around $300. Thanks for your help, Nosey Nancy > I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light > without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably > only afford around $300. I would suggest looking into the newer Fuji point and shoot cameras. They have very good low light sensitivity and are pretty good cameras overall. >> I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light >> without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They have very good low light sensitivity and are pretty good cameras > overall. Here is a link to one I would recommend: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixf30.asp >>> I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light >>> without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Here is a link to one I would recommend: > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixf30.asp It has 3.1 micron pixels, which is much better than a lot of other P&S cameras that approach 2 micron pixels. (see my other post about pixel size) Roger >>>> I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light >>>> without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > other P&S cameras that approach 2 micron pixels. > (see my other post about pixel size) If I were in the need of another small P&S camera Fuji would most likely get my money. While not perfect, they have come quite far with low light performance in their small cameras. >>>> I would suggest looking into the newer Fuji point and shoot cameras. >>>> They have very good low light sensitivity and are pretty good [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > get my money. While not perfect, they have come quite far with low > light performance in their small cameras. It still is nowhere near a DSLR. Roger >>>>> I would suggest looking into the newer Fuji point and shoot >>>>> cameras. They have very good low light sensitivity and are pretty [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It still is nowhere near a DSLR. True but there are many times I don't want to lug around a boat anchor to take pictures. The P&S cameras definitely have their place and it is nice to see Fuji addressing something important like low light performance instead of just increasing resolution for marketing bragging rights. Just maybe if they keep up the pressure the other brands will be forced to do the same. IMO, any more than 6-8 megapixels for a P&S is just a waste. At this point there are more important things to design into the cameras before increasing resolution. >> It still is nowhere near a DSLR. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is just a waste. At this point there are more important things to > design into the cameras before increasing resolution. Compare the digital rebel with a 50mm f/1.4 lens to "super" P&S cameras, like the FZ20. Not much difference in bulk and weight, but huge huge huge difference in low light performance. Even change to a slow zoom and low light performance will still be much better. Roger >>> It still is nowhere near a DSLR. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > huge huge difference in low light performance. Even change to a slow > zoom and low light performance will still be much better. I have had a Sony P200 for about a 1.5 years and I don't want anything bigger. It slips into a pant, or shirt, pocket and I hardly know it is there. I have the original Rebel and it weighs on me after a full day of carrying it with a neck strap. Then add the extra gear should I want to swap lenses and it gets worse. Not to mention I have to constantly be careful not to let it bang into anything hard when bending over, leaning, or being active. Don't get me wrong, in return for all this hassle I get the best pictures from the DSLR, hands down. The P200 has plenty of resolution for my needs and other improvements like low light performance, shot to shot time, more aperture settings etc. would be more useful than additional megapixels. If you mean handheld look at Fuji their sensors are usualy now 2 stops faster. If you mean tripod alot of cameras will work with scenery. > If you mean handheld look at Fuji their sensors are usualy now 2 stops > faster. I do not believe this. Quantum efficiencies of CCDs are generally about 30%, so 2 stops faster would be above 100%, which is impossible. Fuji is not using back-side illuminated CCDs in their cameras, so their CCDs should be about the same sensitivity as those from everyone else. Roger [From the forest for the trees dep't] : >> If you mean handheld look at Fuji their sensors are usualy now 2 stops >> faster. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > their CCDs should be about the same sensitivity as > those from everyone else. I think that you took m Ransley's words too literally. Even though he said "their sensors are", he may have actually meant "their cameras are", which might easily allow the Fuji cameras to have a 2 stop advantage, because then sensitivity could be aided not just by the CCD design, but by the size of the pixels as well as by the processing engine. You even delved into part of this in the message you posted 4 minutes earlier in this thread, where you credited Fuji's F30 like so: > It has 3.1 micron pixels, which is much better than a lot of > other P&S cameras that approach 2 micron pixels. The 3.1 micron pixels have an area 2.4 times that of 2.0 micron pixels, so that alone accounts for somewhat more than 1 of the 2 stops advantage claimed by m Ransley. Others, speaking of the earlier F10's supposed 2 stop advantage, also said that the sensor material alone couldn't account for the entire 2 stops worth. They surmised that superior software processing in the camera might account for part of it. So if the F10 and the F30 have the same sensor size (I assume that they might, but haven't checked), a better CCD combined with better software would have an easier job getting the F10 to its measured 2 stop advantage, since together they'd need to make up the difference, which is less than the amount needed to improve the performance by one stop. Perhaps the F30's software (or sensor) has improved, because all of the reviews I've seen indicate that it outperforms the F10/F11 in low light conditions. > [From the forest for the trees dep't] : > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > just by the CCD design, but by the size of the pixels as well as by > the processing engine. That's a bogus argument because other manufacturers have larger pixel P&S as well as DSLRs. There are no processing algorithms that suppress random noise without averaging pixels in some form, thus reducing spatial resolution. The latest trend by manufacturers of the small pixel cameras is to average more to reduce noise. This is very obvious in the review images on dpreview, on many cameras, even on some DSLRs. > You even delved into part of this in the > message you posted 4 minutes earlier in this thread, where you [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pixels, so that alone accounts for somewhat more than 1 of the 2 > stops advantage claimed by m Ransley. It's actually a much larger factor. The pixels must have space between pixels of a micron or so. So as pixel size decreases, the active area decreases more. But again, other manufacturers have larger pixel P&S cameras too. > Others, speaking of the > earlier F10's supposed 2 stop advantage, also said that the sensor [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > seen indicate that it outperforms the F10/F11 in low light > conditions. If Fuji has such great performance, check the night shot noise images on this page: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/cameras/camtests.php Compare the Canon 350 Rebel to the S9500 (yes the pixels are different), but compare the Canon 350 at iso 1600 to the Fuji S9500 at iso 400. If Fuji had a 2 stop advantage, I wouldn't expect the S9500 to do so poorly. Roger On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:25:01 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username to BogusMeister) wrote: >> I think that you took m Ransley's words too literally. Even >> though he said "their sensors are", he may have actually meant [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to reduce noise. This is very obvious in the review images > on dpreview, on many cameras, even on some DSLRs. It may be a bogus argument, but I'm not the one that made it. It's been made by a number of rpd'ers that have long and loudly insisted that Fuji's F10/F11/F30 can't have the low light performance that reviewers have attributed to them, using claims similar to yours, that the CCD technology imposed a fundamental limit on what was possible. All I've said is that the CCD technology alone probably isn't the whole story, which was your assumption here: >>I do not believe this. Quantum efficiencies of CCDs are >>generally about 30%, so 2 stops faster would be above >>100%, which is impossible. Fuji is not using >>back-side illuminated CCDs in their cameras, so >>their CCDs should be about the same sensitivity as >>those from everyone else. So I simply said that to get a 2 stop advantage the quantum efficiency doesn't have to be as great as you stated, since other factors can provide part of the advantage. One of them was even provided by you, when you said: >>It has 3.1 micron pixels, which is much better than a lot of >>other P&S cameras that approach 2 micron pixels. So that's a bogus argument? Repeating your rebuttal: > That's a bogus argument because other manufacturers have larger > pixel P&S as well as DSLRs. Sheesh. I didn't compare the Fuji F30 to DSLRs nor did I attempt to say that they have better low light performance than DSLRs. We *both* were comparing the Fuji to "other P&S cameras", which you've now added that "It's actually a much larger factor." than the 3.1 vs 2.0 micron pixel size implies due to unused space between the pixels. You're trying to have it both ways, saying that the Fuji P&S sensors have pixels that are both larger than those from other manufacturers, and no larger than some (adding DSLRs into the mix which was a red herring). I think that your instinct was to shout "bogus argument" and then try to spin something to make it appear plausible. Sorry, but it didn't work, and you also justified the "[From the forest for the trees dep't]" preface. > If Fuji has such great performance, check the night shot noise images > on this page: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/cameras/camtests.php > Compare the Canon 350 Rebel to the S9500 (yes the pixels are different), > but compare the Canon 350 at iso 1600 to the Fuji S9500 at iso 400. > If Fuji had a 2 stop advantage, I wouldn't expect the S9500 to do > so poorly. Why is this relevant? Neither the 350 Rebel or the S9500 are inexpensive low-light digitals selling for the $300 which is the limit imposed by the OP (Nosey Nancy). Nobody said what you're implying here, that *ALL* Fuji cameras have a 2 stop advantage over all other types of cameras from all other manufacturers. The only thing I've seen stated is that in one small line of Fuji cameras, the F10/F11/F30, the 2 stop advantage is over other similar small P&S cameras. Nobody but you seems to think that anyone claimed that these few Fujis have better low light performance than DSLRs, nor that the S9500 does as well as the F30. But I'm not even sure that the S9500 has been fully reviewed as it's too new. I haven't checked other stores, but yesterday I stood next to someone that purchased an S9000 at J&R, which has yet to see their first S9500. FWIW, with smaller sensors having a greater number of pixels, I wouldn't expect the S9000 or S9500 to do as well as the 350 Rebel in low light. I also haven't seen any S9000 reviews or S9500 preliminary reviews that attribute to these cameras the superior low light performance that the F30 has over its peers. Note the word "peers", since your arguments so far have conveniently glossed over it. > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:25:01 -0600, Roger N. Clark (change username > to BogusMeister) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > "peers", since your arguments so far have conveniently glossed over > it. You made a jump to DSLRs, I didn't. There are other camera manufacturers that make P&S cameras with pixels larger than 3 microns. For example, the Canon S50 has 4.5 micron pixels in a 5 megapixel camera. The problem with the review sites, e.g. dpreview, is they compare images and noise to similar cameras, so you can only compare within a group. We need broad spectrum comparisons. Sometimes the test methods even change between DSLRs and P&S, so you can't compare if you tried. The site http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/cameras/camtests.php at least starts some of that (although I wish the daylights scenes were of a uniform target that included smooth areas). Camera manufacturers are improving their product lime across the board. It would seem strange for Fuji to improve by 2 stops one P&S camera without improving other newer products with the same methodology. To the contrary we have been seeing camera manufacturers make the improvements across their product line. So when you see a new camera from Fuji not perform up to other cameras, one must really wonder what is going on and how well other cameras actually perform. Broad spectrum testing is needed. Roger > You made a jump to DSLRs, I didn't. There are other camera manufacturers > that make P&S cameras with pixels larger than 3 microns. For example, > the Canon S50 has 4.5 micron pixels in a 5 megapixel camera. Hmm, per http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons50/page2.asp the S50 has 2592x1944 pixels in 7.2x5.3mm on the sensor, which is about 2.7 microns. Also, the S50 has been discontinued for a while. I think large pixel P/S's are getting harder to find. Even my old Olympus E-100RS (1/2" sensor (6.4x4.8mm), 1.3MP) had 4.7 micron pixels. >>You made a jump to DSLRs, I didn't. There are other camera manufacturers >>that make P&S cameras with pixels larger than 3 microns. For example, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > large pixel P/S's are getting harder to find. Even my old Olympus > E-100RS (1/2" sensor (6.4x4.8mm), 1.3MP) had 4.7 micron pixels. Oops, your right. I looked at the line below and used the 1600 pixels in my computation. But the point stands. If you can find a large pixel size, low megapixel count camera, it should have better low light performance (assuming it doesn't have other noise problems). There has been a trend in recent years in the megapixel wars of pixel size getting smaller and users complaining about high iso performance. I just added data for unity gain iso on an S60 camera at http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter (Figure 6). It has 2.7 micron pixels and a unity gain of ISO 335, compared to the newer S70 with 2.3 micron pixels and a unity gain of only 100. Roger > You made a jump to DSLRs, I didn't. There are other camera manufacturers > that make P&S cameras with pixels larger than 3 microns. For example, > the Canon S50 has 4.5 micron pixels in a 5 megapixel camera. Have you been eating the wrong kind of mushrooms? I spoke of the F10, F11, and F30. The first mention that was made of DSLRs was by you. The thread title alone ("Inexpensive low-light digital??") would be enough of a hint for most people that a DSLR is not what was wanted. If you're not convinced, then show where I made a jump to DSLRs. That you didn't already do so may be because you incorrectly read something into my words that wasn't there. The S50 may be what the OP might want, but that camera is long discontinued, so it won't be waiting to be selected from too many store shelves. > The problem with the review sites, e.g. dpreview, is they compare > images and noise to similar cameras, so you can only compare within > a group. We need broad spectrum comparisons. Sometimes > the test methods even change between DSLRs and P&S, so you can't > compare if you tried. That's a *good* thing, otherwise the size of the reviews would grow exponentially. At over 30 pages, many reviews are already larger than most people need. I wouldn't mind reading 100 page reviews of the few cameras *I'm* interested in, but for those to be produce, dpreview and others are going to need a benefactor with large pockets. Unless I missed something, changes in test procedures are usually done for the sake of getting better results, either more accurate or more meaningful. I don't expect them (except for unusual cases) to be applied retroactively to previously reviewed cameras. Reviewers seem to be already handling their maximum workload. > The site > http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/cameras/camtests.php > at least starts some of that (although I wish the daylights > scenes were of a uniform target that included smooth areas). Well yeah, shots of growing things aren't the best subjects for reproducibility or making comparisons between cameras when the shots can't all be taken within a short period of time. At least a good number of images are available, but there's essentially no camera data given. There's little need to list things like the batteries used, etc. But a small number of details, such as sensor size and resolution, which are related to the noise tests being performed should really be included. > Camera manufacturers are improving their product lime across the > board. It would seem strange for Fuji to improve by 2 stops [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on and how well other cameras actually perform. Broad spectrum > testing is needed. I haven't seen full reviews of their latest cameras, but in any case, the S9000 not only has 50% more pixels than the F10/F20/F30, it's also got a fairly slow processor, so that may explain part of why the S9000 hasn't been touted as a good low light camera. The newer S9500 may do better than the S9000, but until it's readily available and tested, we won't really know. But I won't be waiting anxiously for one even if it does better in low light, since it's of comparable size and cost to low end DSLRs, and I don't expect it to do as well in low light unless/until its sensor size increases. It's when measured against competing small P&S cameras that the F10/F11/F30 stand out. Fuji may also have been testing the waters with the F10/F11/F30, to see if better low light performance would spur sales the way more megapixels do for most cameras, carefully watching sales figures. Fuji also has a history of not making sweeping changes throughout their camera lines. Some had those clumsy Super CCD sensors that through user-selectable interpolation could produce a tiny amount of additional detail, but at the expense of doubling image file sizes. I think that the S5000 was one of those 3mp/6mp cameras and I'm pleased that my S5100 has a more traditional 4mp sensor, not a 4mp/8mp version. > I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light > without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably > only afford around $300. > > Thanks for your help, > Nosey Nancy I have used the Fuji F30 at indoor concerts. Fantastic! But it costs more than AU$300....now if you are talking about US$300? > I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light > without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably > only afford around $300. > > Thanks for your help, > Nosey Nancy Ha-ha-ha Nancy ! Are you the troll promoting Fuji F30 ? >> I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light >> without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably >> only afford around $300. > > Ha-ha-ha Nancy ! Are you the troll promoting Fuji F30 ? Probably not. The F30 kook posts using Google. Nancy is using Supernews and a proper news reader. Plus, different writing style. Notice that Nancy was able to post without any all caps words, proper punctuation, and she didn't use the exclamation point even once. The F30 kook couldn't possibly restrain himself.  SignatureTony Sivori >> I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light >> without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Ha-ha-ha Nancy ! Are you the troll promoting Fuji F30 ? Actually, I just started using the Nosey Nanci, since a friend calls me "nosey." That is my only claim to fame with that name. I appreciate all the help everyone is giving me, but I also wanted to add this: I wanted a camera that will give me some control as to speed settings and the basics. Here are two links to cameras that have caught my eye, but I am very much interested in your suggestions as well. Please look at these links and give me your thoughts, please: http://reviews.cnet.com/Canon_PowerShot_A640/4505-6501_7-32072675.html?tag=nl.e404 http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/ (I really like the looks of this one. I am most interested in what you think of this) > I appreciate all the help everyone is giving me, but I also wanted to > add this: I wanted a camera that will give me some control as to > speed settings and the basics. Here are two links to cameras that have > caught my eye, but I am very much interested in your suggestions as > well. Nancy, Low light performance is directly related to the size of each pixel (not the number of pixels). Think of setting buckets out in a rain storm. Larger buckets collect more rain drops. Same with pixels in a digital camera. Second after pixel size is low noise electronics. Unfortunately, camera manufacturers do not publish the info we all need for evaluating performance. Further they try and confuse the buyer with the bizarre specification of sensor size, like 1/2.5". You can look up what such sensor sizes actually mean, and compute the pixel size yourself. Example: 1/1.8" sensor = 7.18 x 5.32mm image size in pixels = 3072 x 2304 size of a pixel in microns = 1000 * 7.18 / 3072 = 2.34 microns You can find the actual size of sensors in Table 5 here: Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter? Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter Pixel sizes range from a low of around 2 to a little over 8 microns. Larger pixels with more numbers of pixels = higher cost. It is the area that counts, so 2 to 8 linear microns corresponds to 4 to 64 square microns, which makes for a huge difference in light gathering ability (16x). For lower cost cameras, reduce the pixel count, to 4 or 5 megapixels then search for larger pixels. In general, the larger sensor has a smaller number in the denominator for the bizarre sensor specification. For example, 1/1.7" is a larger sensor than a 1/3.2" sensor. (DSLRs do not use this nomenclature.) The above web page has more on pixel size issues. For the very good performance in low light you need the large pixels of a DSLR. A great relatively low cost combination would be a Canon Digital Rebel and a 50mm f/1.4 lens. It's above your price range, but you might try for a used one. Roger : I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light : without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably : only afford around $300. It depends on just what you mean by low-light. A well lit room that is slightly less than daytime outdoors could be possible, but outdoors in the evening or in a dimly lit room, may be impossible without going to the upper end (read more expensive). Unfortunately most of the low priced digitals are point & shoot cameras without a manual focus. And in low light the camera can not auto focus, and thus will not allow you to take the shot. I have found that most digitals are able to actually acquire an image of some sort in conditions far darker than the auto focus will work in. So this may be the limiting factor. Low light conditions are one of the situations that DSLRs are good at. But they also are generally much more expensive. Depending on the lighting conditions you are hopeing to shoot in you may be limited to the DSLRs. And even then some are better than others. So in your search you may want to look for a camera that allows some kind of manual focus. Off the top of my head I have no specific camera recommendations, but wish you luck. Randy ========== Randy Berbaum Champaign, IL >: I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light >: without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably >: only afford around $300. > >It depends on just what you mean by low-light. Randy, What I am interested in is inside churches and outside at night, such as taking pictures of bridges and things where I can just get the night time effect without flash being visible. I really love going into big old churches and taking pics of them. Thanks! > I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light > without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably > only afford around $300. > > Thanks for your help, > Nosey Nancy Maybe you want to look at one of the Sony digicams that support Nightshot. I think there are some in your price range, especially discontinued used models. Nightshot is a feature inherited from camcorders that lets you take pictures in the dark, using infrared illumination from LED's mounted in the camera. The pictures are monochrome and look like surveillance shots, but given your nickname of Nosey Nancy, it could be that that's what you want. > I would like to get a digital camera that would work well in low-light > without flash if possible. Anything like that exist? I can probably only > afford around $300. By the time you pay for an xD picture card, unless you catch a sale or rebate the Fujifilm F30 will probably break your $300 budget. You might be able to find a closeout on an F10 or F11 that may meet your needs. I picked up an F10 for $210 at my local Sam's club just before the F30 was released. I've taken nearly 1000 pictures with it, and I am happy with it. Low light performance is very good. No camera is perfect, so read some reliable reviews before you spend your money. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF30/ SignatureTony Sivori |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.