Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:15 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: preferences
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:01 pm 
dalethorn wrote:
The point of the bigger sensor was greater quality, which didn't happen. The quality of the Casio 1000 from 3-1/2 years ago was as good, and it was half the size of the LX3.


You keep comparing your LX3 to this Casio and the TZ5. I've already stated that I feel the TZ5's IQ is inferior and some of the people on LL who replied to your posts seem to share this opinion. The Casio I haven't seen but I don't see you giving any other examples. Perhaps the quality of the Casio you keep referring to is an indication of what can be done rather than and indication of the true capabilities of the digital camera industry. You've said it yourself, Panasonic has chosen not to design to design the best camera they can. Why they choose to this and who they listen to is irrelevant. They've produced a camera and all we have to do is decide if we want to pay for it or not.

dalethorn wrote:
So many people have *not* asked for wider lenses, just those forum owners at Dpreview and Cameralabs.


I don't know exactly what the other forums or the unrepresented majority of photographers are saying and I'm not going to try to speak for them. All I'll say is that you're the first person who's disagreed with this whole concept. The TZ5 vs the LX3 isn't exactly a fair comparison, they are aimed at completely different users with different priorities and wants. A comparison between the LX3 and the LX2 it replaces is more appropriate IMO.

You can crop an image taken at a wider focal length but you can't do the reverse to a shot taken zoomed-in. Even more feasible if you don't plan to use the full resolution of the camera.

I doubt you will find what you are looking for in a compact any time soon. The Micro 4/3rds system seems to do what you ask without needing to bother with pixel densities because it is in a completely different league, with a comfortably higher level of noise performance and DR even with +/- 5mp to the current resolution. I am interested to know what you think about those cameras?

Thomas,

Don't forget the micro-lens design! More refined designs can eliminate the side-effects of the wasted space between pixels as Canon and their 5dMkII have shown us. :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:18 pm 
The LX3 produces images with less noise and better dynamic range. The colour tones in the LX3 shots are much more natural and not so "abrupt". How exactly is the LX3 not better than the TZ5? A sensor with a lower pixel density promises those benefits. Judging from the LX3 vs TZ5 images, it looks like the LX3 delivers on those promises.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 2:35 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7937
Location: Germany
Quote:
Don't forget the micro-lens design! More refined designs can eliminate the side-effects of the wasted space between pixels as Canon and their 5dMkII have shown us.
Yes, micro-lenses can enhance sensitivity (by collecting more light) but they cannot improve full-well capacity as the photo-site works like a (3-dimensional) bucket. So even with the best micro-lenses the 4 photo-sites of sensor H in my example can only collect about half of the photons of one photo-site of sensor L. Thus dynamic range after binning 4 pixels together is still reduced by one stop. And don't forget: Without pixel binning the DR would be reduced almost 3 stops :shock:

Now if the "dead" structures can be reduced to only 1 micron width the photo-sites of sensor H would have 16 square-micron which gives 64 square-micron effective area when binning four together. Compared to the then 81 square-micron of one photo-site of sensor L gives 80% efficiency of sensor H vs L. That would be not bad at all as you only lose the equivalent of 1/3 stop. W/o pixel-binning DR would be worse around 2 stops.

But we're looking at an extreme example here of pixel densities that are different by a factor of 4. In real life you might be confronted with even less than a factor of 2 on sensors of the same technology and same size.

Btw. pixel binning is done, when the image is shown full-size on your monitor. Just do a quick math and you find out that to show a 12MP photo on a WUXGA monitor (1920x1200) effectively bins 5 pixels together. Let's hope that the algorithms which do this are pretty good :D

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:00 pm 
Thomas,

I agree with you about the micro-lens not contributing to improvements in the DR. I had overlooked that.

I get the impression that manufacturers have fallen back in their R&D on improving the DR and concentrated on noise control instead. Reading the press statements from Canon and Nikon, I see them boast improvements in the coatings on the filters used and the shape of the micro-lenses but not so much about the redundant space in between the pixels. We lose a lot of detail in the shadows and highlights just by using JPEG and then the manufacturers give this back by altering the tone curve or Active D-Lighting etc. When I weigh all the factors, I don't see the DR being affected dramatically by the pixel density.

A weird question here: Would it be possible to create electron wells that are literally deeper instead of merely increasing the surface area? I'm not sure if there is a third dimension to the imaging recording layer of the sensor.

Panasonic mentioned a while back that the intelligent ISO system on their newer cameras would be able to alter the ISO on a per-pixel basis. By pixel binning say...5 pixels and assigning each an individual ISO sensitivity at ISO 300 increments shouldn't they in theory be able to re-create an expanded dynamic range of a single pixel?

That may be completely wrong, you can probably tell, I was a bit bored. :roll:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 4:39 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7937
Location: Germany
One line of thought that is currently in the making regards turning the sensor around to avoid the "electron-collecting wires" of the photo-site to be in the way of the light. But again, that is "only" increasing sensitivity, not D/R.

As to what manufacturers did to improve D/R I don't know, but producing ever smaller photo-sites certainly didn't help :?

Auto-ISO on a per-pixel basis? Well that is mind-boggling! Does this mean that every photo-site has its own amp which is turned up/down depending on the brightness of the individual cell? Or is this just "simulated" by the processor?

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: lx3
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:48 pm 
pgtips wrote:
The LX3 produces images with less noise and better dynamic range. The colour tones in the LX3 shots are much more natural and not so "abrupt".....

I completely disagree. The images are effectively the same. Not only do they look the same at the image level, they are *difficult* to distinguish at the pixel level. And I have some disinterested observer opinion on this. Heck, anyone can see for themself - just click the links. Note in the garden photos how the LX3 smears detail in full daylight(!), just like the TZ5, and in the same detail areas. There is absolutely no excuse for that. And this directly illustrates the meaning of this topic.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: preferences
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:02 pm 
grahamnp wrote:
.....I've already stated that I feel the TZ5's IQ is inferior and some of the people on LL who replied to your posts seem to share this opinion.....

I ran the autumn leaves pair of photos from LX3 and TZ5 past a couple of art experts who've criticized photos of their own art, down to the minutest differences. Neither(!) could tell a quality difference between these two images at image level (fit to screen, 1280x1024), but both identified the better (Lx3) image at 100 pct. (pixel-level) view. What they did say that differs from the so-called forum experts is that the differences between the two images were insignificant, and a person would have to examine both photos extremely closely to see a difference at all. When I mentioned the design objective of the Lx3, to produce a clearly superior image, both artists stated that the actual differences were negligible.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:21 pm 
Irfanview is wonderful. Works really well and gives a much less "foggy" (for lack of a better word) picture than the basic windows viewer.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:21 pm 
Thomas wrote:
Auto-ISO on a per-pixel basis? Well that is mind-boggling! Does this mean that every photo-site has its own amp which is turned up/down depending on the brightness of the individual cell? Or is this just "simulated" by the processor?


Not sure about that, I doubt that they would have control over the gain of each pixel. Probably done on a software level by the processor but I'm not sure about any of this.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: preferences
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:23 pm 
dalethorn wrote:
grahamnp wrote:
.....I've already stated that I feel the TZ5's IQ is inferior and some of the people on LL who replied to your posts seem to share this opinion.....

I ran the autumn leaves pair of photos from LX3 and TZ5 past a couple of art experts who've criticized photos of their own art, down to the minutest differences. Neither(!) could tell a quality difference between these two images at image level (fit to screen, 1280x1024), but both identified the better (Lx3) image at 100 pct. (pixel-level) view. What they did say that differs from the so-called forum experts is that the differences between the two images were insignificant, and a person would have to examine both photos extremely closely to see a difference at all. When I mentioned the design objective of the Lx3, to produce a clearly superior image, both artists stated that the actual differences were negligible.


You're absolutely right. As a piece of art the two images are almost indistinguishable at the image level but they aren't looking for the IQ that we are. I'm not saying that one camera produces better "art" than the other, one just produces images of a slightly higher quality.

Does the LX3 produce a "clearly superior" image? It produces a superior image yes, but how distinct the advantage is depends on what were expecting from it. I wasn't expecting much at all and it looks like a 0.5-1 stop noise advantage to me. Good enough.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: goodness gracious!
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:41 pm 
Thanks everybody, especially to dalethorn who's knowledge seems to me
to be actually backed up with engineering espertise in the field of design and manufacturing of the subject matter.
I REALLY appreciated that everyone had a pretty keen view of things they wished addressed.
Also everyone also seem to have a fair chew
on the topic, far more than me, I am a retired
not-too-keen-to-get-into-too much detail kind of an amateur.
For goodnes sakes, what the hell are "Algorithyms" and "Pixel Binning"
"AA Filters!"
Even if I were to take a course in Physics, it might take me 4 years(conservatively) to
catch up to what you guys wrote yesterday!
Meantime, me and the vast majority of photographers out there
will just buy what we're told to buy thinking
this is better than that!
dalethorn's last post perfectly illustrates this point, that
IQ to the vast majority, cannot be verified unless they were shown
side-by-side samples and even then, as in cases illustrated here,
people will agree to disagree! (Strongly in many cases).

Let me say, that I would like a camera,
other than my dslr, that is:
fixed lens, which I can strap to my belt.
range 24-80mm(equiv)....wider would be welcomed too,
bright lens of F2 or 1.8,
minimal distortion CA's and so forth,
great performance to ISO1000 with minimal noise and detail smearing,
on board flash,
minimal plastic
800 shots/charge
fast AF
Great IQ all round PD L or H...or M or undisclosed!!!

Please someone tell me when such a camera is available.
Otto


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: preferences
PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:57 pm 
grahamnp wrote:
You're absolutely right. As a piece of art the two images are almost indistinguishable.....

Absolutely wrong. The artists made it clear they were judging them as photos (not art), which I also indicated in my post, where I mentioned they were used to critiquing photographs of their art. These artists also photograph other things, and have expensive DSLR's.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: goodness gracious!
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:12 am 
otto uberswengen wrote:
For goodnes sakes, what the hell are "Algorithyms".....
.....Please someone tell me when such a camera is available.
Otto

Algorithms are simple things, but they're usually described in a complicated way, so that the employers keep paying us engineers the money we get. As to the camera on a belt, I would suggest a Canon G10 or G9 for best image quality and durability, but since the Canons and other similar cameras have zoom lenses that can be damaged when extended, you should get a padded case to enclose the camera, and be absolutely sure that the camera power is off *and* the playback/record switch (if any) is in the playback position when you put the camera back into the case.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: a possible suggestion...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:26 am 
Thanks for the tip.
yes the G10 has been on the list and now it's slipped to slightly "just on the list"...
until further notice. I'll have to see
some full-length reviews and user inputs and so far, it's too early to tell.
I REALLY like the (Ninja Assasin) look of it
and metal construction will be really nice to hold. As an all-rounder, it's probably quite hard to beat.
The big 3" LCD and the manual controls especially,
all go to give it a kind of "Classic" feel which I really like.
All A+'s so far.
However, I was hoping Fuji might come out with something
with almost the same competitive product, as I really
like the Velvia/Provia mode options...call it a carry-over from the film days which brings back quite a few fond memories. Maybe it's all in my imagination, as I like the "Fuji look"....
I have a close relative who is a "big-shot" Canon flag carrier,
and I have to say that if I bought the G10, I will hear no end of
"I told you so's" !!!!
I won't be able to put up with that!
Trite but very real!
Otto


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 2:21 am 
otto uberswengen wrote:
.....I was hoping Fuji might come out with something
with almost the same competitive product.....

I have a friend in Nevada who talks about an older Fuji digital camera he has (something-31, don't remember), which is only 6 mp, but he swears it does better on a lot of photos than his Canon G9 or other compacts.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group