 |
 | 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 / Point & Shoot Cameras / September 2007No P&S for a serious hobbyist?
Living with a very nice film SLR, and a digital p&s, i decided to investigate a serious ditial p&s as my travel camera: compact size, 28-200 range, manual control. Frankly, I am disgusted that with so many companies flooding the market with so many models that they must be running out of model numbers to name them, they have all decided not to offer even a single model that will appeal to a serious hobbyist like me! The cameras with all the feature I want are way too big for the purpose (Lumix FZ-18, oLympus 550 SZ). Cameras of manageable size make you give up on some important feature: Lumix TZ-3 (no manual control) and LX2 (limited telephoto) are probably the best examples. So, I'll have to decide which feature to give up: compact size (FZ-18), manual control (tz-3), telephoto (lx-2 or Leica version). If it is telephoto I decide to give up, then I'd also investigate the Ricoh models that start at 24mm. Or I could just wait until somebody offers the first p&s for me. Why spend money and still be unhappy? :) It is not like I don't have any cameras to take pictures right now.  SignaturenusharXX@operamailYY.comZZ (Remove all XX, YY, ZZ) > Living with a very nice film SLR, and a digital p&s, i decided to > investigate a serious ditial p&s as my travel camera: compact size, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > cameras to take pictures right now. > You did not mention the Canon S5 IS and the new soon to be released Canon G9. : You did not mention the Canon S5 IS and the new soon to be : released Canon G9. AFAIK both lack wide angle (28mm or lower). SignaturenusharXX@operamailYY.comZZ (Remove all XX, YY, ZZ) > Living with a very nice film SLR, and a digital p&s, i decided to > investigate a serious ditial p&s as my travel camera: compact size, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > spend money and still be unhappy? :) It is not like I don't have any > cameras to take pictures right now. You'd HAVE to give up on the 'compact size' unless you can give up zoom size. And that Oly 550 is really quite small compared to my s6000fd, it's like a s700 (denoted to be in the "serious" catagory -LOL). But for that insane zoomer I would go with the Oly, or cut the zoom and spend less on a E900 for compact-ness and serious image quality (does 9mp raw), which should really be the point of "the hobby". E900 has a good enough zoom of 32-128mm. Maybe some company makes a slip-on auxiliary lens or two for it. But don't sterotype "28mm" as being so totaly necessary, please. Signature}<)))*> Giant_Alex cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/ > You'd HAVE to give up on the 'compact size' unless you can give up zoom size. And > that Oly 550 is really quite small compared to my s6000fd, it's like a s700 (denoted to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enough zoom of 32-128mm. Maybe some company makes a slip-on auxiliary lens or > two for it. But don't sterotype "28mm" as being so totaly necessary, please. Here's the example, slip-on auxiliary lenses and the adapter for them: ebay's search engine: 230162290331 > ... Thanks. A few points: (1) I don't need what you call insane zoom, around 200 would be ok. The rest is bonus, welcome but not required. (2) I take 28mm as beginning of wide angle. Now, one may say, what about 29 which is so close? And if that is ok, what's the big deal with 30, and then 31? All of that is fine. If the rest of the package is compelling, one need not quibble about 27,28, or 29. Fuji E-90 is a good package which will suit many, but even if I accept 32, the tele end is too short and there are no manual controls: so I am looking at *three* compromises. I have already determined that in the present market I need not compromise on more than one feature: wide-angle, tele, manual control, size. (3) I realize that given the market, I do have to compromise somewhere even if there are no technological reasons why a camera with all the features should not be offered (grrrrrr.....). I am trying to decide what compromise is most acceptable to me. (Of course, waiting is one possible compromise as I do have other cameras.) (4) What I need is one single camera, absolutely no attachments etc. When I travelled with my film camera (35mm fixed focal length) I seem to miss the wide angle just a little more often than tele, hence my goal of at least 28mm. I would *like* to have the option of manual control, but when deciding what to give up it would be one chip on the table. The size, everyone has to handle and decide for themselves. For me, Canon G7, Panasonic TZ-3, LX-2 would have been acceptable on size. Like many here, I am waiting to see and handle FZ-18. SignaturenusharXX@operamailYY.comZZ (Remove all XX, YY, ZZ) > Thanks. A few points: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > present market I need not compromise on more than one feature: > wide-angle, tele, manual control, size. YES but you can get those auxiliaries, remember? They would outdo what you need but give you what you need. You should download the pdf of the owners manual read what it can do. > (3) I realize that given the market, I do have to compromise somewhere > even if there are no technological reasons why a camera with all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (4) What I need is one single camera, absolutely no attachments etc. No... one of the principle of proper photgraphy, even given as a "hobby, camera must be able to take lens filters such as a polarizer, strong UV for long distance and sky 1A (across a field) and 1B (long distance atmospheric blue control) as well as neutral density in different strengths for light reduction, as well it must have a hot shoe but these days you can use a slave flash and a bracket instead... > When I travelled with my film camera (35mm fixed focal length) I seem > to miss the wide angle just a little more often than tele, hence my > goal of at least 28mm. No kidding! > I would *like* to have the option of manual > control, but when deciding what to give up it would be one chip on the > table. > The size, everyone has to handle and decide for themselves. For me, > Canon G7, Panasonic TZ-3, LX-2 would have been acceptable on size. > Like many here, I am waiting to see and handle FZ-18. Okay now, pay careful attention: You must sacrifice that glorious compact size for all the features you want, unless you buy a Leica M8 and that triple focal length lens they make ($10,000 for both). But the Fuji s6000fd and the better s9100 do allow full manual control including a focusing ring on the lens, s9100 being ever so slightly smaller, both giving awesome image quality and shooting raw. I checked for cameras on www.dpreview.com/ using the "feature search" for 28 to 200+ - *not one* was a compact, as follows: Canon PowerShot Pro1 (nice and small, and gone) Fujifilm FinePix IS-1 (s9100 size, infra red shooting for police work) Fujifilm FinePix S9100 Fujifilm FinePix S9000 Z (s9100 size) Fujifilm FinePix S6000 fd (mine, bigger than the s9100) Fujifilm FinePix S8000 fd (not out yet) Minolta DiMAGE 7i (gone) Minolta DiMAGE 7 (gone) Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi (gone) Minolta DiMAGE A1 (gone) ALL of the above are super zooms, is to say "SLR like" I think it would be a better idea to get a Minolta scan dual III and just use film, truly. What film SLR system do you have? (please answer that one) Because you'd probably love a Pentax ME-Super (nice and small, full control) and a 28-200 zoom that ends in 5.6 (also small), Kalimars are famously sharp. The only extras to carry are a few filters and a flash. That's it. It would be the same size as the s9100, though a bit heavier. But that Oly 550 would perfect as it is smaller than the s9100, which is slightly smaller than the s6000fd. If you go into camera stores to see and handle all, you'll get a far better perspective. Signature}<)))*> Giant_Alex cravdraa_at-yahoo_dot-com not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/ : Okay now, pay careful attention: : You must sacrifice that glorious compact size for all the features : you want... : I checked for cameras on www.dpreview.com/ using the "feature : search" for 28 to 200+ - *not one* was a compact, as follows: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : Minolta DiMAGE 7Hi (gone) : Minolta DiMAGE A1 (gone) OK, now your turn to pay careful attention... You don't know how to use dpreview.com. Your criteria were not specific enough and their engine, seeing too many matches, cut the list off at 10 items arranged alphabetically. If you were even semi-familiar with the market, you'd know even without dpreview that a few compact cameras do cover 28-200+ range: Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ3; DMC-TZ2; Sony DSC-F828. (From my perspective, the first two lack manual control; the Sony is a special case because of price as well as weight.) Not only that, a few ULTRACOMPACT cameras also cover the 28-200 range: Ricoh Caplio R3; R4; R5; R6. (Again, for me, no manual control.) Look, I know my requirements. I have plenty of film cameras for the situations when they'd serve the need. There are good personal reasons why I am looking for a digital w/ certain features and no attachments. In search of such a camera I have almost done a dissertation at dpreview.com! The cameras you have listed are classified as "SLR-like" at dpreview. The lightest of this breed with 28-200+ is Panasonic Lumix FZ-18, which got alphabetically cut off in your list. If you wish, you can look it up directly or get to it by specifying the weight <500g. :-) Anyway, I do realize that I have to make a compromise unless I don't buy a camera for now. I am waiting to look at the FZ-18 before making those decisions. I do appreciate your intention to help. However, your "wagging finger" beginning, manifest ignorance about the market, and the demeanor most reminiscent of a missionary preaching to cannibals were a bit annoying. SignaturenusharXX@operamailYY.comZZ (Remove all XX, YY, ZZ) > OK, now your turn to pay careful attention... > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > beginning, manifest ignorance about the market, and the demeanor most > reminiscent of a missionary preaching to cannibals were a bit annoying. This is not how to respond to people. And thank you for revealing "who" you are as a person, you worthless disrespectful cretin! You are absolutely mentally abnormal psychiatrically. There is a mental illness named " anti-social " and this a physical brain condition. YOU SHOULD NEVER treat people who work to help you as though they were a piece of trash that you simply use, and I'll never reply to you again. And if I ever do, it will be an interjection in order to cut you down! You are a complete and total zodiak weakling with a zero level of conscienciousness OR respect, OR appreciation for the kindness it takes for some to work and use their personal time to help you out. And in return, YOU absolutely have no valid opinion whatsoever. Didn't anyone ever teach you how to "human" when you were growing up??? Or are you merely a Virgo? SignatureGiant_Alex not my site: http://www.e-sword.net/ : This is not how to respond to people. : ...you worthless disrespectful cretin! [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : takes for some to work and use their personal time to help you out. : And in return, YOU absolutely have no valid opinion whatsoever. Funny how people who wag their finger when they obviously don't know what they are talking about, suddenly become "touch me not" sensitive when they are at the receiving end. All posts in this thread remain for all to see. Each participant here can evaluate our conduct for himself or herself. I am appreciative of everyone who offered sincere advice or opinion. Do you see anybody else foaming and ranting like you are? None of us knows it all, but we act with that awareness. SignaturenusharXX@operamailYY.comZZ (Remove all XX, YY, ZZ) I wrote: : The lightest of [SLR-likes] with 28-200+ is Panasonic Lumix FZ-18, which : got alphabetically cut off in your list. If you wish, you can look it : up directly or get to it by specifying the weight <500g. :-) At this point I have to say that the just announced Olympus 560 uz is also a candidate: <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082309olysp560uz.asp> SignaturenusharXX@operamailYY.comZZ (Remove all XX, YY, ZZ) > Living with a very nice film SLR, and a digital p&s, i decided to > investigate a serious ditial p&s as my travel camera: compact size, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > spend money and still be unhappy? :) It is not like I don't have any > cameras to take pictures right now. FWIW - I've found the Kodak P series to be a nice camera - I bought a P850 last fall - refurb from Kodak's online store. It's not all that compact, but not bad; has full manual controls available; 12x zoom; saves raw, tiff,jpeg. May not be right for you, but might be worth a look. > Living with a very nice film SLR, and a digital p&s, i decided to > investigate a serious ditial p&s as my travel camera: compact size, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > spend money and still be unhappy? :) It is not like I don't have any > cameras to take pictures right now. What you want is difficult to find, and not just because camera manufacturers are idiots who focus too much on gadgets & spec and not enough on picture quality. Because they're able to keep adding & enhancing features on P&S cameras, it's tempting to believe they can do anything. But the physical limitations of the small sensor size, *especially* for wide-angle, become the deal breaker. You & I are spoiled rotten, both of us by our SLRs (you by your film, me by my Canon 350XT). And we want those same features & quality in a P&S. And why not? Because it's darned near impossible to design a wide-angle wide-range zoom lens for a camera with a tiny sensor that doesn't display quite a bit of chromatic aberration at the wide end. Even at 35mm it's a problem (about the only real issue with my Fuji F10 & F30). Thus a severe limitation on picture quality that can't be overcome with all manner of added features (image stabilization, raw shooting, manual modes, etc). My perfect camera would have all the features you want, with slight modification. I don't need the super-long lens (100-150 at the long end would be fine) but I'd love to have a 24 at the bottom... but would settle for a 28. The wide range would be great because I take photos while riding my bike, and can't take a whole lot of time setting up my shots. Raw mode would be nice, because you've got more to deal with when correcting exposure issues. A decent manual mode would be nice, and I'd *love* to have a manual or fixed-focus option (because, when taking photos while riding, nearly everything of interest is going to be 20+ feet away). Also long battery life (the Fuji F30 excels there!) is a must. And I'd be willing to pay extra $$$ for a great lens!!! The lens is absolutely the weakest link in the Fuji F30. One last thing would be reasonable moisture protection. So I want it all too! But for top-quality photos, I'm going to have to stick with my Rebel 350XT. Not because it has better electronics and shooting modes, but because I can hang a wonderful piece of glass on it. Sigh. If I'm wrong, and you find that perfect camera, please let me know. I want it too! --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com >> Living with a very nice film SLR, and a digital p&s, i decided to >> investigate a serious ditial p&s as my travel camera: compact size, [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Hi, I would also more settle with your Ideas.... But right now, I will probably buy one of the chdk-hack-compatible Canon Powershots. So I have the RAW Format... just most of those Cameras start at 35mm... So I might try with a conversion lens if that doesnt make it too big. I wait some time, so maybe the Powershot S80 will be supported soon, which will solve my issues. The cool thing with the hack is that you can let it set up hyper focal distance for you and run scripts. But of course after all, the hack is not such a good solution as some programs just don't eat the raw format and need a conversion to dng with a special tool before doing so. The Powershot G9 will also just start at 35mm :( It's really a shame for all Camera manufacturers out there, except maybe Ricoh and Sigma which at least have an approach to something different. (Whilst Ricohs Sensor-experiences aren't the best, Sigma just wants to offer a fixed lens, and not something like any Zoom) I'm in for the perfect camera too! ;-) - Dennis Olympus SP-560 UZ and Panasonic FZ18 begin at 28mm and seem to offer many things you want. Ricoh GX100 begins at 24mm. Sorry, nothing can be done about small sensors. It seems to be a "cartel" decision not to offer decent size sensors in P&S cameras. > Olympus SP-560 UZ and Panasonic FZ18 begin at 28mm and seem to offer > many things you want. Ricoh GX100 begins at 24mm. > > Sorry, nothing can be done about small sensors. It seems to be a > "cartel" decision not to offer decent size sensors in P&S cameras. Not exactly. Larger sensors dictate larger lenses. And larger lenses make for a... bigger camera. Darn, hate those simple laws of physics. --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com >> Olympus SP-560 UZ and Panasonic FZ18 begin at 28mm and seem to offer >> many things you want. Ricoh GX100 begins at 24mm. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com That's not really correct... There were also a lot of small pocketable cameras in the 35mm-film age, when there were no digital sensors.... And they were able of having things like a 3x zoom and things like that. The lenses weren't really/much bigger than of current pocketable digicams. examples: Fujifilm DL-270 ZOOM, Pentax IQZoom 115, .. just look for compact cameras at ebay --Dennis >>> Sorry, nothing can be done about small sensors. It seems to be a >>> "cartel" decision not to offer decent size sensors in P&S cameras. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > --Dennis Afraid the laws of physics still apply. I took a quick look at the Pentax you listed; at wide-angle, the max aperture is F4. The Fuji is even worse, at F5. That's how they got the lens size down, no magic involved. If you've got a large imaging area (either film or digital sensor), it's going to take a correspondingly large piece of glass for the same amount of light to hit the sensor. Small cameras, whether film or digital, simply cannot disobey the basic laws of physics. You can make the lens smaller (and thus camera size) by either using a smaller sensor or giving up an F stop or two. Perhaps we could evolve a digital sensor so incredibly sensitive that it could be very small and noise-free, such that a lens with a max aperture of F8 is all that's needed. That could really get size down! But then I'm told there are problems with such a small lens, due to the refraction of light at extreme angles (if I've got this right). Did pinhole cameras have such issues? :>) --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com >>>> Sorry, nothing can be done about small sensors. It seems to be a >>>> "cartel" decision not to offer decent size sensors in P&S cameras. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles > www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Yeah, of course the lens will let through less light, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. With a bigger sensor you can then push up the ISO, and it will be less noisy. Of course the lens will let less light through. So in the end you might have the same, if there wasn't diffraction. And I also think the factor of the lens letting light through depending on the image circle is not directly proportional to a sensor being more or less sensitive to light and being more/less noisy depending on the image circle it can capture. I think that it behaves more exponential at sensor size, but linear in lens size? I'm not sure at all, but to my observation it looks like that (at least as a rule of thumb). So, I think, a bigger and more sensitive sensor and slower (letting less light through) lens will be a better combination than a fast lens and small sensor. (also because of the diffraction, and yes pinholes can suffer from diffraction, but if you have a larger format camera it will be less) --Dennis > So, I think, a bigger and more sensitive sensor and slower (letting less > light through) lens will be a better combination than a fast lens and > small > sensor. (also because of the diffraction, and yes pinholes can suffer from > diffraction, but if you have a larger format camera it will be less) So you're proposing an extraordinary sensor that could work at, say, F16 and deliver great images. One thing's for certain; you'd have great depth of field! Of course, that can be as much a curse as a blessing. We need someone with strong knowledge of optics to help us out on this one. Anyone want to step in? --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles www.ChainReactionBicycles.com Nobody is saying the there are no physical limitations, only that the cameras are nowhere near them. What is being offered or withheld is governed not by physics but marketing decisions. The 35 mm film cameras had a bigger "sensor", the film itself, than any digital ps. Lenses, zooming, etc. are not affected by whether the image is recorded in analog or digital format. > Nobody is saying the there are no physical limitations, only that the > cameras are nowhere near them. What is being offered or withheld is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > digital ps. Lenses, zooming, etc. are not affected by whether the image > is recorded in analog or digital format. I have long argued that digital photography is in its infancy. I have tons of Kodachrome 25 tranparancies that I shot with my old, (well I still have it if I want to get serious), Leica M2. I have a few scans and believe me, they are the standouts in my screen saver. Additionally, the tonal range is far greater and I get great detail even when shooting into the sun late in the afternoon. OTOH, nothing beats the convenience of digital and the cost is far less when you can simply erase and reshoot... JT > With a bigger sensor you can then push up the ISO, and it will be less > noisy. Of course the lens will let less light through. So in the end you > might have the same, if there wasn't diffraction. The trouble is, ISO rating is not a free parameter: It's a property of the sensor, I think roughly it's the ratio of quantum efficiency and dark current with some fudge factors added to make the numbers comparable to the old ASA film speed ratings. > And I also think the factor of the lens letting light through depending on > the image circle is not directly proportional to a sensor being more or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > size? I'm not sure at all, but to my observation it looks like that (at > least as a rule of thumb). I'll admit I didn't follow those two paragraphs..... > So, I think, a bigger and more sensitive sensor and slower (letting less > light through) lens will be a better combination than a fast lens and small > sensor. (also because of the diffraction, and yes pinholes can suffer from > diffraction, but if you have a larger format camera it will be less) A bigger sensor will also contribute more noise (dark current) so making it bigger becomes a losing game after a point where it catches most of the light the lens puts on it. One of the tricks is that the sensor surface is not all active; a bigger sensor can have a higher percentage of active area, that may be what you're thinking of: For a given number of pixels, active area goes up as the sensor grows, but as the pixels grow so does the noise. In a noiseless detector you might be correct, but then you'd be lugging a Dewar of liquid nitrogen around to top up your camera 8-) The pictures, however, would be very good, especially the night shots. bob prohaska Canon SD 800IS. Just bought one 3 weeks ago and I am ready to sell off all my other gear. Greta little camera with a 28mm FOV on the wide side, optical stabilization, and great picture quality. You can find it under $300 now. Signature© Johnny Slothman Slowest Contractor In The West If you need it done 10 years from now, call Johnny |
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
|
©2008 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.