A New Large Sensor PowerShot Coming [CR1]

[RLPhoto]

I'm very happy with my RX100 with its zeiss 1.8 zoom thanks.

That would be a 28mm-100mm f4.9-f13.2 equivalent, hardly anything to get very excited about.

F/1.8 is ALWAYS f/1.8!! Some people are more interested in shooting in Low Light than having oh-so-trendy paper-thin DOF. YMMV.

+1

I think DOF equivilents are important, but they are not everything. I would venture to say a modern 1" sensor good results at ISO 800 (similar to an APS-C sensor from 3 or 4 generations back), and a modern 1/1.7" sensor (like the BSI-CMOS in the S110) likely gives acceptable results at ISO 400 (similar to an APS-C 4 to 5 generations back).

In a given era different sized sensors will never be able to compete against each other, but looking back you might be able to get the same image quality from an S110 @ ISO 400 & f/2.0 as a 10D or 20D at the same ISO and aperture (and have all the modern features of a new camera and many more MP to boot).

The same could probably be said for a RX100 @ ISO 800 & f/1.8 and a 30D or 40D.

Depth of field does not an image make.

I've been using my g15 quite a bit lately and It gets some nice shallow DOF for a small sensored compact. Infact, I see little need for a camera like the g1x with a slow aperture when I get f/1.8-2.8 on the g15.

The flower shot is @ ISO 3200. The mailbox is ISO 100.

Edit: It seems that CR forums is stretching the photos, making them seem worse than they are.

 

[privatebydesign]

And those three images perfectly illustrate the uses and limitations of small sensor cameras.

Shot one is at f2.8, the narrowest DOF the G15 can do.

The second and third shots illustrate that even if you want to output at 800x600px the image quality is severely compromised by noise and aberrations at any kind of iso much above base.

I have a G10 and really like it, on well illuminated scenes with lower dynamic range when shot at base iso where I am not fussed about selective dof, the camera is great and gives results much better than most people gave it credit for. But cameras with those sized sensors, which are far "better" per area than anything in a DSLR, are still severely compromised in their output when pushed, even gently.

This is a great link putting P&S performance into perspective http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml The trouble is, if you are after something more, which most of us are most of the time, then small sensored P&S's can't cut it, they have to obey the laws of physics for noise and dof.

 

[RLPhoto]

And those three images perfectly illustrate the uses and limitations of small sensor cameras.

Shot one is at f2.8, the narrowest DOF the G15 can do.

The second and third shots illustrate that even if you want to output at 800x600px the image quality is severely compromised by noise and aberrations at any kind of iso much above base.

I have a G10 and really like it, on well illuminated scenes with lower dynamic range when shot at base iso where I am not fussed about selective dof, the camera is great and gives results much better than most people gave it credit for. But cameras with those sized sensors, which are far "better" per area than anything in a DSLR, are still severely compromised in their output when pushed, even gently.

This is a great link putting P&S performance into perspective http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml The trouble is, if you are after something more, which most of us are most of the time, then small sensored P&S's can't cut it, they have to obey the laws of physics for noise and dof.

I don't believe you can shake a stick at the ISO 3200 performance of a compact camera sensor. It delivers the goods, gives me a fast aperture, decent zoom range, and is well... compact.

Afterall, thats the point of a compact, versatility with decent performance. If you want to shake the stick, let's see some of your ISO 3200 compact sensor photos.

 

[RLPhoto]

ISO 1600 W/ G15

 

[hgraf]

Sounds to me like Canon is in Panic Mode. Lots of new cameras No-One is asking for. First the lack-luster M without an EVF, and now an APS-C Super Zoom (without an EVF). Keep throwing things at the wall, something will stick ... Yeah Right!!

Panic mode? They are number 1 in the market, yup, time to panic...

Personally, I would LOVE to have a P&S camera with the 18MB sensor in the T4i/60D/SL1/whatever. Some many people here deride that sensor, probably because they are fortunate enough to have the $1500+ it takes to go for a 6D/5DII setup.

For those of us with much less money the 18MB APS-C sensor is VERY good. Having that picture quality in a P&S body (don't need exchangable lenses, don't need a super zoom) would be heaven.

I dread it every time I go somewhere where instead of pulling out my T4i I have to pull out my P&S. I just know my P&S will do OK during the day, but in lower light it's always been very dissapointing, especially after being used to the images coming out of my T4i.

My only concern of course with Canon is cost, I don't see why they'd make this camera affordable, I wish they would though.

TTYL

 

[iowapipe]

And those three images perfectly illustrate the uses and limitations of small sensor cameras.

Shot one is at f2.8, the narrowest DOF the G15 can do.

The second and third shots illustrate that even if you want to output at 800x600px the image quality is severely compromised by noise and aberrations at any kind of iso much above base.

I have a G10 and really like it, on well illuminated scenes with lower dynamic range when shot at base iso where I am not fussed about selective dof, the camera is great and gives results much better than most people gave it credit for. But cameras with those sized sensors, which are far "better" per area than anything in a DSLR, are still severely compromised in their output when pushed, even gently.

This is a great link putting P&S performance into perspective http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml The trouble is, if you are after something more, which most of us are most of the time, then small sensored P&S's can't cut it, they have to obey the laws of physics for noise and dof.

I might be missing something in your thread of postings on this subject: but it seems the article you link to, which I read the entirety of, gives credence to the original posting made about being happy with the rx100.
Of the pocketable cameras I have owned, I have always found low-light conditions to be the ones I most often shoot in. You are right, the laws of physics can only be toyed with artificially, but the newest pocketable cameras perform quite well up to a certain point. And as the article deftly illustrated; even those with a well trained eye can find themselves drawn to aesthetics which go beyond the 'physics' involved.
The original poster to this thread made a point which holds merit, even if anyone can find a slew of technical reasons to argue the minutiae.

 

[privatebydesign]

"I don't believe you can shake a stick at the ISO 3200 performance of a compact camera sensor."

I believe we are looking at different images then. The one I am seeing is severely compromised from a noise, aberration, dynamic range and detail (there is none of either) point of view, all at the massive reproduction size of 600x800px.

For my personal use that output is worse than useless, I would rather try and remember the scene than look at that kind of compromised image of it.

Of course different people have different needs and expectations. But consumers have a poor track record of choosing devices based on output quality, just look at VCR's, audio, etc etc. The main thing compacts have going for them, they are compact. That is what people want and they are prepared to put up with severe output quality compromises to get it. I am not. That is just a personal preference and carries no more weight or importance than anybody elses, but don't try and convince me that P&S output is anything above severely compromised the vast majority of the time.

 

[RLPhoto]

"I don't believe you can shake a stick at the ISO 3200 performance of a compact camera sensor."

I believe we are looking at different images then. The one I am seeing is severely compromised from a noise, aberration, dynamic range and detail (there is none of either) point of view, all at the massive reproduction size of 600x800px.

For my personal use that output is worse than useless, I would rather try and remember the scene than look at that kind of compromised image of it.

Of course different people have different needs and expectations. But consumers have a poor track record of choosing devices based on output quality, just look at VCR's, audio, etc etc. The main thing compacts have going for them, they are compact. That is what people want and they are prepared to put up with severe output quality compromises to get it. I am not. That is just a personal preference and carries no more weight or importance than anybody elses, but don't try and convince me that P&S output is anything above severely compromised the vast majority of the time.

Pony up, and lets see some of your compact sensor images @ ISO 3200. Talk is cheap, and I stand by my images as being great for what they are.

 

[privatebydesign]

"Pony up, and lets see some of your compact sensor images @ ISO 3200. Talk is cheap, and I stand by my images as being great for what they are."

Why? There isn't a small sensor made that I would use most of the time, and none at 1600 iso. I said they are all bad so don't have any high iso sample images, as I said I'd rather try and remember the scene than suffer the horribly compromised P&S rendition of it. Saying that, I don't use 3200iso on a FF camera either for exactly the same reasons. The 5D MkIII and 1DX might be workable for me there, but I don't own either of them.

I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years, I probably print bigger than most more often than most and I have a built in abhorrence to noise.

All this boils down to is personal opinion on "great for what they are" to me they are worthless so I have no interest in taking them.

 

[RLPhoto]

"Pony up, and lets see some of your compact sensor images @ ISO 3200. Talk is cheap, and I stand by my images as being great for what they are."

Why? There isn't a small sensor made that I would use most of the time, and none at 1600 iso. I said they are all bad so don't have any high iso sample images, as I said I'd rather try and remember the scene than suffer the horribly compromised P&S rendition of it. Saying that, I don't use 3200iso on a FF camera either for exactly the same reasons. The 5D MkIII and 1DX might be workable for me there, but I don't own either of them.

I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years, I probably print bigger than most more often than most and I have a built in abhorrence to noise.

Then you have no experience in using compact cameras at the limits? That's a shame, They offer a-lot of advantages but usually not to pixel-peepers but you know, like photographer's who look at the bigger picture.

I disagree, I get great ISO 1600-3200 photos out of my g15 as long as I do my job on the other side. Are they technically the best? No, but neither would a 5D3 if I didn't bring it.

Lol @ you, you'd rather not get a photo at all than capture something that's alittle grainy.

 

[privatebydesign]

So because I don't have exactly the same values as you my opinion is worthless?

We have a difference of values, that is all. To you the output of a P&S in less than ideal circumstances is "great for what it is" for me it might be great for what it is, but it has no value.

I have plenty of P&S experience, so what? I know what I like and need and I also know that no small sensor yet made delivers it, I also know that even when it does, and it will eventually, I will still find the lack of selective focus a severe limitation. As a record of a situation with no "photographic" value, a phone stacks up pretty close to a P&S, and there are millions of people who agree, just look at the advances in phone cameras and the decrease in the P&S market.

 

[RLPhoto]

So because I don't have exactly the same values as you my opinion is worthless?

We have a difference of values, that is all. To you the output of a P&S in less than ideal circumstances is "great for what it is" for me it might be great for what it is, but it has no value.

I have plenty of P&S experience, so what? I know what I like and need and I also know that no small sensor yet made delivers it, I also know that even when it does, and it will eventually, I will still find the lack of selective focus a severe limitation. As a record of a situation with no "photographic" value, a phone stacks up pretty close to a P&S, and there are millions of people who agree, just look at the advances in phone cameras and the decrease in the P&S market.

I find this ironic, as I never said your opinion was "worthless". I was simply reasoning with you, and you came to that conclusion yourself. :

An iphone, while a good camera, still can't do what my G15 does and that's why I carry it so much now. I find that you must have been the type who looked at their negatives with a 30x microscope to see how the grain pattern changed over reciprocity failure on the slides.

WHY!?

 

[privatebydesign]

Not at all, I am not a pixel peeper, I just know what I need. I did have an enlarger focuser, but then that is a prerequisite for good wet prints.

 

[RLPhoto]

Not at all, I am not a pixel peeper, I just know what I need. I did have an enlarger focuser, but then that is a prerequisite for good wet prints.

If so, I find it strange for someone as yourself to be so harsh on a few sample's of ISO 1600 & 3200 shots I did recently with a g15. Which are perfectly acceptable by my normal terms, and would print a nice 8x10. Any larger? Probably not, but its a compact camera that has everything that I need.

 

[privatebydesign]

Not at all, I am not a pixel peeper, I just know what I need. I did have an enlarger focuser, but then that is a prerequisite for good wet prints.

If so, I find it strange for someone as yourself to be so harsh on a few sample's of ISO 1600 & 3200 shots I did recently with a g15. Which are perfectly acceptable by my normal terms, and would print a nice 8x10. Any larger? Probably not, but its a compact camera that has everything that I need.

That is my point, I wasn't being harsh on "your photos" I was saying that, for me, the fact that you might be able to get an 8x10 out of it but no more means that I have no value for that camera, that is all, it just doesn't fulfill a photographic requirement that I, personally, have. The only people who could take offense are Canon, after all they made it!

Like I said, on a purely personal level, even when small sensor output does dramatically increase in quality, I will still have a major issue with the limits imposed on selective focus by the physics of the thing. Surely somebody who places so much value on an f1.8 over an f2 (1/3 of a stop) could understand that.

 

[RLPhoto]

Not at all, I am not a pixel peeper, I just know what I need. I did have an enlarger focuser, but then that is a prerequisite for good wet prints.

If so, I find it strange for someone as yourself to be so harsh on a few sample's of ISO 1600 & 3200 shots I did recently with a g15. Which are perfectly acceptable by my normal terms, and would print a nice 8x10. Any larger? Probably not, but its a compact camera that has everything that I need.

That is my point, I wasn't being harsh on "your photos" I was saying that, for me, the fact that you might be able to get an 8x10 out of it but no more means that I have no value for that camera, that is all, it just doesn't fulfill a photographic requirement that I, personally, have. The only people who could take offense are Canon, after all they made it!

Like I said, on a purely personal level, even when small sensor output does dramatically increase in quality, I will still have a major issue with the limits imposed on selective focus by the physics of the thing. Surely somebody who places so much value on an f1.8 over an f2 (1/3 of a stop) could understand that.

Straight from the horses mouth

"For my personal use that output is worse than useless, I would rather try and remember the scene than look at that kind of compromised image of it."

Not a pixel peeper... Right..... That statement is equal to an honest politician.

 

[KyleSTL]

For my personal use that output is worse than useless, I would rather try and remember the scene than look at that kind of compromised image of it.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I am trying to state, in a fairly objective manner, that a modern mid- to high-end fixed lens camera can produce noise levels similar to that of DSLR cameras that was produced several years back. You're making extremely subjective comments that seem to indicate some sort of gearhead complex, and from everything you've stated absolute lack of noise and shallow depth of field are the only things that make a photograph, and without them the image is absolutely worthless. I will not validate your opinion, but you certainly have a right to have it.

In a dimly venue the following cameras will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels, whether one is happy with the noise level or DOF is for each individual to decide:

6D/5D Mark III @ ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/60 35mm
7D/60D/550D/600D/650D/700D/100D/EOS M @ ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/60 20mm or 24mm (slightly wider or narrower)
G1X @ ISO 5000 f/3.5 1/60 18.9mm
G15 @ ISO 1600 f/2.0 1/60 7.6mm
S110 @ ISO 3200 f/2.8 1/60 7.6mm

 

[c.d.embrey]

I'm very happy with my RX100 with its zeiss 1.8 zoom thanks.

That would be a 28mm-100mm f4.9-f13.2 equivalent, hardly anything to get very excited about.

Me:100mm f13.2; You: "oh-so-trendy paper-thin DOF" Hmm, methinks we have different ideas completely with regards dof.

You can't change horses in the middle of the stream You are the one who said "That would be a 28mm-100mm f4.9-f13.2 equivalent, ..." The implication was that you thought that f/1.8 was only exciting on a DSLR, NOT on a RX100.

Besides, if low light is your muse, why use a camera with a 2.6 times worse noise factor?

Depends on what you mean by low light. Are you talking about shooting in a broom closet (with the door closed ) or in a living room lit by several table lamps, or maybe on a urban street at night (like Time Square or the Ginza).

BTW 2.6 times more noise mean little when the photo will be posted on FaceSpace or showm to friends on an iDevice. You have to remember that not everyone is a Very Serious Photo Enthusiast like yourself

 

[KyleSTL]

Saying that, I don't use 3200iso on a FF camera either for exactly the same reasons. The 5D MkIII and 1DX might be workable for me there, but I don't own either of them.

I come from a 25/50/80 iso slide background, I also shot Pan F for thirty years, I probably print bigger than most more often than most and I have a built in abhorrence to noise.

Then why are you even here? Clearly nothing physically possibly will mean your demands (especially something not medium format).

 

[privatebydesign]

" will all produce the same image, with different DOFs and noise levels"

Therein lies the difficulty in any kind of meaningful discussion.

If it has a different dof, or noise characteristics, it is not the same image. We might attach different importance to the various metrics, but it seems all P&S proponents decide they mean nothing just so long as they have a camera with them, I don't. Which is, in actual fact, much more in line with the majority of threads here that go on for ever about the miniscule differences between, for instance, an f2 vs f2.8 at different subject distances. I don't have selective myopia and I don't change my standards just because a camera is small. The output is either up to my personal standard or it is not, I have never seen a smaller than 135 format digital sensor that is though I will be very interested in the next generation of APS-C cameras.