What stands in the way of the better P&S?

Feature creep, the nurturing of low expectations, novelty pretensions, and more are discussed in a pertinent article on product design in a Seattle newspaper today:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/athome/373219_cheek02.html

Don't get grouchy.

Don

They have built a catagory of cameras that does not challenge DSLRs except in size and weight, so they don't want to alter this situation.

Brian

I don't know that it is technically possible. You can't put an APS-C sensor into P&S type cameras with re-engineering the lenses.

The only other option would be to put a sensor with fewer megapixels, but higher quality into the existing bodies. This has a huge marketing task to sell. As you can see by the number of P&S users, there is a big market for people who are satisfied with the image quality that you get in 90% of shots from P&S models, which is generally OK.

If Pansonic made an fz50 with a really high qulity, low noise 10mp sensor, I'd buy one, just as an addition to my kit for those times when the DSLR just get too big and heavy to carry, or going to concerts etc where they aren't allowed.

I for one thought the G9 was a big let-down, as there are a lot of buyers wanting better image quality from that type of camera.

I still use an old P&S camera that blows my DSLR away for certain images,
learn to use what you have and stop wanting more. Then again, don't
listen to me.

WB.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Zindanfel said:

Feature creep, the nurturing of low expectations, novelty
pretensions, and more are discussed in a pertinent article on product
design in a Seattle newspaper today:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/athome/373219_cheek02.html

Don't get grouchy.

Don

Click to expand...

(nt)

What stands in the way of the better P&S? Hmmm. I'd say it is the consumers who think there's a huge difference between 10 megapixels and 12 megapixels, as well as the camera companies who generally fail at explaining that other things like sensor size and lens quality count, too.

Robert
--
My state of confusion has turned into a circle of confusion.

Money

Zindanfel said:

Feature creep, the nurturing of low expectations, novelty
pretensions, and more are discussed in a pertinent article on product
design in a Seattle newspaper today:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/athome/373219_cheek02.html

Don't get grouchy.

Don

Click to expand...

1. Megapixel overkill (anything over 6MP in a compact is a waste of memory!)

2. Too small sensors causing too much pixel density. (anything under 1/1.7" size sensor is too small!)
3. Cheap lenses with too large a zoom range for good quality.
4. Poor quality of construction.

I have two older compact cameras that blow away anything on the market today for image quality and quality of construction. One is a six MP camera x3 power zoom and the other is 7MP with a x4 zoom, and both are 1/1.7" sensors. 4x6 and even 5x7 size prints from these cameras are indestinguishable from a dSLR.

I feel fortunate to have these two discontinued compact cameras when the current compact digicams have such lousy IQ and eat up memory as well! The MegaPixel race was the worst thing to happen to compact digital cameras IMO.
Really too bad.
-Phil

I think it is mainly two things : Low prices of today´s entry level DSLRs and the easily to satisfy low expectations towards IQ of a majority of folks taking pictures.

Why should a manufacturer invest in a good P&S (which will be more expensive than his cheapest DSLR) when by selling the cheap DSLR he has the chance to even make further money from that deal once the buyer finds out that the kit lenses aren´t really good and he doesn´t get the results he hoped to get unless he buys the better and more expensive lenses and maybe the better and more expensive body, too?

And as long as there are so many people happy with the lousy IQ of their silly 10-12 MP 1/2.5 sensor shirt pocket toys, why should manufacturers invest in R&D of a good P&S or bridge camera? Those that want more can go DSLR while the other ones can be satisfied by offering them every year a few new models with even more MP on ridiculously small sensors! But with 2 dozens of scene modes, bodies available in multiple colors, video modes for the youtube generation, face detection, smile detection, air and water pressure measuring device, water proof, "drop from third floor proof" and "delivering lousy IQ proof"! Grrrrh!

I am one of those that really miss a good P&S; still shooting with my old UZI, its TCONs, MCONs and WCON. A few more MP, maybe 8, more dynamic range, maybe a little faster and I´d be happy and could easily forget about any DSLR!

If not this UZI MkII it could be something like an 8080 MKII, just with more zoom, better low light focusing and IS.

But I don´t have much hope we´ll see these cameras soon, start thinking about a 520 as my first step into DSLR world.

René

The article makes some good points, but some of its argument simply doesn't fly for photographic equipment. For example they praise iPod for its "it simply works" design, but can you imagine a camera with nothing but a shutter? There is a reason the higher-end DSLRs are choke-full of external dials and buttons; there is just no way to substitutes them through a simplified interface while giving them the immediate access.

Also while I'm sure many people will complain the modern P&S for having too many useless features, such as face detection and scene modes, I don't see them as problem. You could simply ignore them in the menu and not use them. Of course, there's the issue of manufacturers failing to design proper menu system, but that's another story.

I hope for a better P&S with a bigger sensor, sure, but as much as we all love to talk about it, I have my doubt about the marketability of a $799~999 P&S with a prime lens. I'd think it'll take sometime for companies to come up with enough guts to invest significant amount of R&D in sensor and optics to make a P&S of a manageable size and zoom range. The cost and risk involved in R&D and marketing are the real hindrance against large-sensor P&S, not the existence of the baby smile detection feature and the youtube mode.

Zindanfel said:

Feature creep, the nurturing of low expectations, novelty
pretensions, and more are discussed in a pertinent article on product
design in a Seattle newspaper today:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/athome/373219_cheek02.html

Don't get grouchy.

Don

Click to expand...

hwalker said:

Also while I'm sure many people will complain the modern P&S for
having too many useless features, such as face detection and scene
modes, I don't see them as problem. You could simply ignore them in
the menu and not use them.

Click to expand...

I agree, you could simply ignore them. But only as long as it´s a "real" camera where -besides using scene modes- I have a chance to set exposure time, aperture, focus and all this. Even the 520 DSLR has scene modes and once I´ll have that camera I guess I´ll never use them. Once you understood the basics of photography I don´t see much need for scene modes.

But with most of these little shirt pocket toys I think you just HAVE TO use the scene modes as usually it´s your only way of having any influence on the settings of exposure time, aperture, ISO etc. Most just offer P mode, but no A, S, M mode, so it DOES take these scene modes to adapt to different shooting situations.

Hehe (or better: OMG!), under "Latest News" I just found "the icing on the cake of scene modes", the so called "Auto picture mode" of the Pentax Optio M 60. Now the camera even selects the appropriate scene mode for you!

From that article:

"Major Features

1. Advanced Auto Picture mode that lets the camera automatically select the scene mode

Improvements have been made in the recognition performance of the Auto Picture mode, which is a convenient function unique to PENTAX, where the camera automatically selects the optimal scene mode when pointed at the subject. Through the addition of Candlelight to the conventional scene modes of Landscape, Portrait, Night Scene, Night Scene Portrait, Standard, Flower, and Sport, a total of 8 scenes can now be recognised with the Optio M60, which is the greatest for this series. It is now possible to leave everything up to the camera and take beautiful photos of a wide variety of scenes easily and without hassle."

Oh boy! "...leave everything up to the camera..." - are people really that lazy or stupid??

Next step will be the camera that starts beeping in my pocket when I walk by a nice subject and it won´t stop beeping until I have taken a shot!

One step further, when camera´s will be even smaller, when going for a walk I just clip it to my ear like one of those mobile phone bluetooth things and once I am back home I can enjoy a series of beautiful shots, all taken in full super hyper auto mode! All I had to do was point my head in the direction where the camera detected a nice subject (what it told me by beeping faster and faster until it is a constant tone).

Or no, when I come home the pictures are already in my computer, transmitted via UMTS/HSDPA the moment they were taken!

First we created machines doing the jobs our muscles had to do, now we even let them do the jobs of our brains! Brave new world, not only fat but also stupid, lol!

René

for the majority of P&S cameras. At least in my opinion. Most people here are hobbyist or pros. A niche market of people who enjoy photography.

Most point and shoot cameras are marketed to people like my wife who has no idea about photography or cameras but just wants a camera she can point at something and shoot. Oh, and it should look good and fit in her purse.

--
Stu (N80, N50, D50, E510, TZ4)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stujoe/

.

Lack of demand (by most of market, not enthusiasts who post on forums).

Disappearance of the concept of "pride" amongst manufacturers (of most objects/products)

Design principles seldom include "machine beauty",

http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Beauty-Elegance-Technology-Masterminds/dp/046504316X/ref=sr_1_32?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217764211&sr=8-32
--

'Good composition is only the strongest way of seeing the subject. It cannot be taught because, like all creative effort, it is a matter of personal growth. In common with other artists the photographer wants his finished print to convey to others his own response to his subject. In the fulfillment of this aim, his greatest asset is the directness of the process he employs. But this advantage can only be retained if he simplifies his equipment and technique to the minimum necessary, and keeps his approach free from all formula, art-dogma, rules, and taboos. Only then can he be free to put his photographic sight to use in discovering and revealing the nature of the world he lives in.'
Edward Weston, Camera Craft Magazine, 1930.

'Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to read.' G. Marx

René Schuster said:

I agree, you could simply ignore them. But only as long as it´s a
"real" camera where -besides using scene modes- I have a chance to
set exposure time, aperture, focus and all this. Even the 520 DSLR
has scene modes and once I´ll have that camera I guess I´ll never use
them. Once you understood the basics of photography I don´t see much
need for scene modes.

Click to expand...

Thing is, the majority of people who buy P&S cameras aren't interested in learning the basics oh photography - they just want a device to record significant events in their lives. The easier it is to just point and shoot, the better. If it comes in pretty colours, that's a bonus.

This is why I'm actually supportive of features like face detection et al. - they allow non-photographers to make technically better photos without having to know about photography. People shouldn't HAVE to learn about photography if all they want is to make good photos of themselves and their friends on nights out or on holiday, or of their kids or pets.

That's the key difference: most of us here do and see photography as an art and a craft, but relative to the camera-buying population as a whole, we're a small minority.

René Schuster said:

Oh boy! "...leave everything up to the camera..." - are people really
that lazy or stupid??

Click to expand...

Neither, they just have different priorities to you or I

--
Andy Farrell
http://www.caerphoto.com/
http://flickr.com/photos/caerphoto/

mark_ken9820 said:

I don't know that it is technically possible. You can't put an APS-C
sensor into P&S type cameras with re-engineering the lenses.

Click to expand...

mark_ken9820 said:

The only other option would be to put a sensor with fewer megapixels,
but higher quality into the existing bodies.

Click to expand...

They won't be higher quality, unless there are very, very few pixels, as big as pixels in a Pentax K20D or Canon 450D, in which case they can use transistors that reduce read noise to lower levels at higher ISOs. They will be no better, or even worse, at low ISOs. Read noise is only part of the issue, though, and bigger pixels will not lower the shot noise of the image, only the pixels themselves.

The real problem with high-MP P&S sensors is not the high pixel count per se; it's the way viewers and software deal with them. You can't compare the image quality of a 4MP sensor against a 12MP sensor at 100% view onscreen, because the 12MP would be 73% wider and taller, if you saw the entire image at that magnification!

This can happen even more subtly, because many softwares used for viewing images on-screen downsize images to fit a window or screen by dropping pixels, so you don't get the benefit that you are supposed to of resultant pixel noise lowering with downsizing. The same may happen if you print small, and the printer or driver wants less pixels; it may drop them. There is no law forcing companies to use proper downsampling. Different methods of downsampling can result in drastically different amounts of noise at the same viewing magnification.

mark_ken9820 said:

This has a huge
marketing task to sell. As you can see by the number of P&S users,
there is a big market for people who are satisfied with the image
quality that you get in 90% of shots from P&S models, which is
generally OK.

If Pansonic made an fz50 with a really high qulity, low noise 10mp
sensor, I'd buy one, just as an addition to my kit for those times
when the DSLR just get too big and heavy to carry, or going to
concerts etc where they aren't allowed.

I for one thought the G9 was a big let-down, as there are a lot of
buyers wanting better image quality from that type of camera.

Click to expand...

These two camera DO have sensors almost as good as one can expect at their size. What many people fail to grip is that ALL tiny-sensor cameras have TREMENDOUS amounts of shot noise. There is no way around this at any given ISO, and there NEVER will be, because you can not count photons that aren't there. If you don't see it in some cameras, like some Fujis, it's not because the noise isn't there in the sensor; it's because the NR software has played a trick on your eyes, by heavily filtering the noise and detail between hight-contrast boundaries, and left the boundaried intact and sharp, to give the illusion that no smearing has been done. Some people like that look, but to me, they are immediately artificial looking, and look more like cartoons than photographs.

--
John

Phixel said:

1. Megapixel overkill (anything over 6MP in a compact is a waste of
memory!)

Click to expand...

Only if the lens is soft or the user is shaky.

Phixel said:

2. Too small sensors causing too much pixel density. (anything under
1/1.7" size sensor is too small!)

Click to expand...

Small sensors usually mean more noise. Higher pixel density does not; in fact, the image-level read noise usually improves with pixel density. the problem is, people don't know how to view images properly for comparison, and NR is sometimes out of control, because manufacturers cater to poor viewing practices (and to programs which downsize images incorrectly).

Phixel said:

3. Cheap lenses with too large a zoom range for good quality.

Click to expand...

That could be an issue, but it isn't always. This is about cutting corners, not physical obstacles, as it is easier and cheaper to design a sharp zoom for smaller sensors.

Phixel said:

4. Poor quality of construction.

Click to expand...

Phixel said:

I have two older compact cameras that blow away anything on the
market today for image quality and quality of construction. One is a
six MP camera x3 power zoom and the other is 7MP with a x4 zoom, and
both are 1/1.7" sensors. 4x6 and even 5x7 size prints from these
cameras are indestinguishable from a dSLR.
I feel fortunate to have these two discontinued compact cameras when
the current compact digicams have such lousy IQ and eat up memory as
well! The MegaPixel race was the worst thing to happen to compact
digital cameras IMO.

Click to expand...

No; the worse thing to happen was people ignorantly viewing their images at 100%, trusting their software to properly downsize images, and fueling the noise-reduction complaints with their resulting complaints!

--
John

hwalker said:

The article makes some good points, but some of its argument simply
doesn't fly for photographic equipment. For example they praise iPod
for its "it simply works" design, but can you imagine a camera with
nothing but a shutter?

Click to expand...

Oh yes, I can imagine just that. See below.

hwalker said:

There is a reason the higher-end DSLRs are
choke-full of external dials and buttons; there is just no way to
substitutes them through a simplified interface while giving them the
immediate access.

Click to expand...

"There is no way" of doing something is a bold assertion, specially in the digital/electronics/photo dept.

Yes there is a way of doing it, and it goes precisely in the iPod direction. A large, touch-screen LCD panel can have virtual buttons. This opens up a realm of as-yet unexplored possibilities in cameras.

• Menus can be used only for what they are really good for: configuration and not-often used functions. ALL camera settings can be "hard wired", if you will, to virtual buttons, levers and switches so the interface can actually be more "camera" and less "cellphone", even without the cost of producing real hardware. See the iPod's HP12C application for an excellent example of true-to life virtual buttons.

• Features could be added/changed by firmware updates.

• No mechanical failures from said switches (but touch screen can fail).

• Open-architecture possibility for third-party or even user-defined interface design from manufacturer-published SDKs.

Something similar to this already exists with some high-end communications radios. They are a black box with no controls, with just connections for the antenna, USB and power supply. Alll of the radio's interface is in the notebook or desktop computer, and some models even have an SDK with a scripting language so users can home-brew quite sophisticated features into their radios.

Maybe someday such virtual, touch-LCD screen cameras will available. It is a matter of marketing, not of technical possibility. It wouldn't need to be expensive either. I'd like to try one.

--
Best regards,

Bruno Lobo.



http://www.pbase.com/brunobl

Phixel said:

1. Megapixel overkill (anything over 6MP in a compact is a waste of
memory!)

Click to expand...

Exactly. 100% true.

Phixel said:

2. Too small sensors causing too much pixel density. (anything under
1/1.7" size sensor is too small!)

Click to expand...

I agree to the furthest extent. 2x crop sensor is perfect. Pixel density kills everything, always has, always will. Unless some new technology is introduced, Less IS More!

Phixel said:

3. Cheap lenses with too large a zoom range for good quality.

Click to expand...

(!!!) Thank god someone got this. Also the speed should be improved. 25-100mm f2.8 constant, or 28-80mm f2-2.8.

Phixel said:

4. Poor quality of construction.

Click to expand...

Magnesium or steel chasis would be the best. Or a full metal body like the old film cameras. The closer to M8 the better.

Phixel said:

well! The MegaPixel race was the worst thing to happen to compact
digital cameras IMO.
Really too bad.

Click to expand...

Yes it is bad, bad indeed. And still some people think that more pixels is better. Or that bigger pixel density is better (I can't believe...). That will ruin everything and everyone forever...Pity. 6mp on a 2x crop with ISO 100-3200, with absolutely no noise reduction or it can be turned OFF(!!!),where 1600 is not bad. I don't mind a bit of noise, I mind noise reduction.
--



How many megapixels you need from a camera:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/charts/resolutionChartPopup.html

John Sheehy said:

Phixel said:

1. Megapixel overkill (anything over 6MP in a compact is a waste of
memory!)

Click to expand...

Only if the lens is soft or the user is shaky.

John Sheehy said:

2. Too small sensors causing too much pixel density. (anything under
1/1.7" size sensor is too small!)

Click to expand...

Small sensors usually mean more noise. Higher pixel density does
not; in fact, the image-level read noise usually improves with pixel
density. the problem is, people don't know how to view images
properly for comparison, and NR is sometimes out of control, because
manufacturers cater to poor viewing practices (and to programs which
downsize images incorrectly).

John Sheehy said:

3. Cheap lenses with too large a zoom range for good quality.

Click to expand...

That could be an issue, but it isn't always. This is about cutting
corners, not physical obstacles, as it is easier and cheaper to
design a sharp zoom for smaller sensors.

John Sheehy said:

4. Poor quality of construction.

Click to expand...

John Sheehy said:

I have two older compact cameras that blow away anything on the
market today for image quality and quality of construction. One is a
six MP camera x3 power zoom and the other is 7MP with a x4 zoom, and
both are 1/1.7" sensors. 4x6 and even 5x7 size prints from these
cameras are indestinguishable from a dSLR.
I feel fortunate to have these two discontinued compact cameras when
the current compact digicams have such lousy IQ and eat up memory as
well! The MegaPixel race was the worst thing to happen to compact
digital cameras IMO.

Click to expand...

No; the worse thing to happen was people ignorantly viewing their
images at 100%, trusting their software to properly downsize images,
and fueling the noise-reduction complaints with their resulting
complaints!

--
John

Click to expand...

I don't agree with you in theory or practical experience. You might want to read this John:
http://6mpixel.org/en/

To Quote:

"Instead of placing good design as the highest priority, we demand the lowest price."
--

morninglight said:

To Err is Human, To really foul things up you need a computer.

Click to expand...