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

John Sheehy said:

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.

Click to expand...

That leads us to the unavoidable conclusion that small sensors stand in the way of better P&S cameras. Small sensors are used since they are cheap and allow to make the optics smaller and lighter, in turn allowing for smaller and lighter cameras. People like their P&S small and light. Cheap too or at least cheaper than the Sigma DP-1.

That said, I believe there would be room for P&S with somewhat larger sensors. Once upon a time 2/3" sensors were common, but today they are a rarity. There are no compact cameras with 1" or 4/3" (a.k.a. FourThirds) sensors. APS-C might be a bit too big for compacts to be practical, but currently there is a lot of room for growth while still keeping the sensors smaller than APS-C.

Unfortunately the men in the suits have counted with their spreadsheets that there is not too much money to be made in high quality large sensor compacts. It is quite understandable, since people even in this forum seem to want light P&S with long zooms (2-3x zooms are often called too short). And they are simply not possible with current sensor technology, if the sensors are to be significantly larger than they are today.

I agree with the well canvassed views on pixel mania. The first digital I purchased was a 5 MP konica Revio and it still produces an overall more pleasing photo than the 10MP Canon used at my workplace (albeit with less resolving capability in shots of well lit scenes viewed at 200%). I tend to begin an assessment of side by comparison shots in a non scientific way much as I do with audio equipment and then, in the case of of the digicam, explore the reasons for my preference.

The 1/1.8 5mp Konica has pleasing colour rendition and texture (eg grass that looks like grass rather than green soup).

In the 80's and 90's I watched with dismay as camera manufacturers, having discovered the market appeal of 35mm autofocus compacts, created a distorted set of parameters for a superior photographic tool that ultimately left the market disenchanted. Only the emergence of digital aquisition saved the industry from being overwhelmed by other more exciting options for the discretionary dollar.

Once again the industry is making the mistake of deluding the public into thinking that quality is represented by the most conveniently quantified attribute of a camera. This strategy will work in the short term but ultimately result in compact image capture devices becoming simply a component of an all in one personal communication and entertainment unit. Mobile phones are already capable of boasting more megapxels than is necessary to produce an accptable photograph (if that is all it takes).

To avoid an inevitable decline in the appeal of photography as a satisfying creative pastime inthe popular market Olympus, Canon etc need to urgently develop a product that will give them a point of difference that is based on commitment to excellence of output rather than hyping up "horsepower" and bling. Sadly photography is not the only field of human endeavour that has sold its soul to the marketing "devils" and I am not optimistic.

--

Ex photo specialist/enthusiast dealer driven out by discount stores. current hardware Linhoff 6x9, Minolta 600si and heaps of lenses, Konica KD-510Z, Konica KD-500Z, Konica KD 400Z and KM 5D. Recently purchased finepix f31 to explore the legendary status of this camera cf KD series.

sirrah said:

I agree with the well canvassed views on pixel mania.

Click to expand...

What you and those you agree with fail to grasp is the fact that you are looking at everything through too many levels of abstraction to be able to accurately blame your disappointment on increasing pixel density. Viewing methods and noise reduction (which is desired by consumers using poor viewing methods) are the real reasons. If monitor resolutions were always higher than those of highest digital cameras, and there was no noise reduction at all except hot pixel rejection, everyone would agree that cameras are getting better and better. Because of the fact that your monitor has such a coarse resolution, you can never, ever look at your image in all its glory on your monitor! You need to print it at a large size to see everything your camera has to offer.

Because people are viewing at 100% pixel view, or using downsizing methods of screen display that totally wreck images, and wreck them more, the more pixels they have, combined with a lack of critical thinking, people falsely assume that pixel density is the root problem.

--
John

Stujoe said:

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.

Click to expand...

Precisely. Worse, many of that "niche" are far too pretentious and worse still, vain to a fault about their choices of gear.

The mere possession of a DSLR "wndercamera" has made ordinary people into snobbish photographic technophiles.

Brunobl said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting to replace the hard buttons and switches found on more advanced SLRs with a touchscreen for interface?

My good man, have you ever used an advanced SLR? Have you used these features in real world conditions?

Nevermind the fact that the screen on SLRs tend to sit right under your cheek when actually using the camera. Move the screen somewhere else you might respond? Well where would you put it? On the lens barrel? On the shutter grip?

Understanding the reality of what you suggest before you suggest it would go a long way.

-Suntan

Agreed. A pocketable P&S is tailored to a market that is looking for convenience and not control. (That is certainly the notion I have when choosing which to take.)

Although disproportionately represented here, the market for a pocketable camera with very high quality and full manual control is not very big. The camera makers are just giving the markets what they want.

-Suntan

MisterBG said:

To Quote:

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

Click to expand...

Early in the thread, I summed it up in one word: Money.

These P&S cameras are designed to a price point for the casual photographer, not for someone earning a living from them. Nevertheless, some do an incredible job, thanks to digital technology.

--mamallama

When dslrs were selling for kilobucks, there was a market and demand for "good" digicams. Even marginal, by anything approaching today's models, digicams were selling for over $500. The long zoom digicams were approaching $1000 and exceeding it for some. The 3x-4x optical finder cameras were chugging along and the Canon G9 still reflects that set of cameras.

If one goes back to the various good rangefinders of the later 35mm era, the size "limitations" on cameras/lenses should be similar. I think a competent (OK, really good lens) aps-c digicam that is quiet and reasonably unobtrusive would be extremely saleable. You'd have no shutter, no mirror slap and no film wind noise to deal with.

Simple fact is, if one is going to invest a substantial sum of money in a camera, why stick with a single, fixed lens?

Interchangeable lens systems have plunged in price, to where $600-700 will get you a 2 lens system with two very good lenses instead of a single mediocre one.

Size? The E420 or D60 are very small, only slightly larger than a high end P&S. Equipped with the 25mm pancake lens, the E420 is positively tiny. Can't speak for Nikon, but I can speak for Oly on lens quality. Their two kit lenses aren't just better than the single 18-180, they're a lot better.

There is no technical reason that a high quality P&S sized camera can't be designed and built - technically speaking, the Sigma DP1 falls into this category.

There are economic barriers to a new P&S, as the dslr's are no more expensive, and not much larger.

Nobody can afford the development and marketing costs to create something unique. They end up spending their limited money where it makes little difference. It's pretty much like the mp3-player market before the iPod (only a much larger market) - mediocre products because they sell well enough and are more profitable than excellent product.

I'd like to see a combined p&s camera and video camera, with a multitouch 1mpx screen on the back. Otherwise only two buttons - the shutter release/record toggle, and power button. Native 16:9, resolution at 6mpx, and support for 1080p video. Relatively clean ISO 1600.

This can be made today, but nobody's trying (that we know of)

The typical customer wants the MP and higher X zoom. The manufacturer is there to give it to him.

Brunobl said:

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.

Click to expand...

He's talking here about higher-end DSLRs, not entry-level P&S cameras. An iPod is very simple because it's got to appeal to as many people as possible. In addition, there's not a lot you really need to adjust on one - most of the time they're in use they're just sitting there pumping music into your ears.

Using a camera, on the other hand, is very much an interactive process of adjusting things to suit the conditions, so the things that need adjusting have to be as accessible as possible, and that means buttons and dials that can be found by sense of touch alone, ideally adjustable without the need to take your eye from the viewfinder or the action going on in front of the camera. The tactile element is key here, and is even more important when wearing gloves.

Now, if you want to talk about P&S cameras then sure, your touch-screen idea is fine, and in fact is how some of them work (can't think of specific models, as I don't really pay attention to them).

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

You need a better DSLR set-up.

John Sheehy said:

Phixel wrote:

Click to expand...

(snip)

John Sheehy said:

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!

Click to expand...

John, perhaps you could clarify this by testing raw files from a modern P&S (say, a 12 megapixel Canon G9) along with raw files from a well regarded "vintage" camera (say, a four megapixel Canon G3.) Then use the results of these tests to demonstrate that the older cameras (that had fewer pixels) weren't really better than newer cameras.

Otherwise, your arguments vis-à-vis the megapixel race seem to be flying right past most non-technical DPReviewers (and the management of DPReview.)

Wayne

Suntan said:

Suntan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting to replace the hard buttons and switches found on
more advanced SLRs with a touchscreen for interface?

Click to expand...

No.
I am suggesting to replace the hard buttons and switches found on
compact digicams with a touchscreen for interface, and then adding some.

Suntan said:

My good man, have you ever used an advanced SLR? Have you used these
features in real world conditions?

Click to expand...

Yes, I have been shooting SLRs since 1970 and developing my own negatives & prints very shortly after that, why? And what does my SLR experience have anything to do with my suggestion?

Suntan said:

Understanding the reality of what you suggest before you suggest it
would go a long way.

Click to expand...

I fully understand the reality of what I suggested.

OTOH, Suntan, understanding the subject of the discussion before jumping to wrong conclusions firing off your keyboard as a result, also goes a long way.

Hint: the thread's title is "What stands in the way of better P$S", is it not?

--
Best regards,

Bruno Lobo.



http://www.pbase.com/brunobl

Caer said:

Brunobl said:

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.

Click to expand...

He's talking here about higher-end DSLRs, not entry-level P&S
cameras.

Click to expand...

Hi Andy,

My reply to Hwalker was in response to his blanket statement that "The article makes some good points, but some of its argument simply doesn't fly for photographic equipment". Note that my reply was in the context of the thread's, and original post's, subject (better P&S). The above ended up clipped off from your quote of my original reply.

I took Hwalker's mentioning a DLSR only as an extreme example of a button-full camera that he added just to make his point, since he started his post saying that the online article's ideas would not fly FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT. He did not say it wouldn't fly FOR DSLRs. Still, I now see that I could (and probably should) have explicitly excluded DSLRs from the reply. I am sorry if my post came across as saying that a large LCD touch screen would be good for ALL digital cameras, let alone DSLRs, that was not what I meant.

Caer said:

Now, if you want to talk about P&S cameras then sure, your
touch-screen idea is fine,

Click to expand...

Yes, that was it.

Caer said:

and in fact is how some of them work
(can't think of specific models, as I don't really pay attention to
them).

Click to expand...

Neither do I.

Hope this is cleared up,

--
Best regards,

Bruno Lobo.



http://www.pbase.com/brunobl

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post Bruno. My implicit point was that a "high-end"(thus "better") P&S wouldn't have touch screen just as a high-end DSLR wouldn't. Touchscreen just isn't very practical for a "better" P&S, by "better," I assume it's a camera that can live up to expectations by photographers who seek the best manual control in a camera. In other words, one should be able to adjust setting quickly on the fly.

I am a owner of a 6 year-old Toshiba T20, one of earlier cameras with the touch screen interface, and I've tried the latest Sonys with the touch screen, including the T300 as well as some of the Samsung NV cameras. After my experience, I can very confidently say touch screen just does not cut it. Some of my problems are:

1) It still means wading through menus
2) Too easy to make mistake touching through selection, taking more time
and..

3) I suspect most people really want some form of tactile response from control in a photographic instrument. Without tactile response, it's very difficult to adjust setting on the fly quickly. You have to visually confirm every setting carefully.Then there's the issue of relatively low quality of touch screen LCD and finger prints.

After spending years with a touch screen camera and playing with a number of others, I can tell you it's just not the way to go for a high-end camera. The Sony T300 has a really cool AF point setting through touch screen, but other than that, I found the touch screen interface far more time consuming. Now if you want to talk about a real consumer-level P&S, then I can definitely see the appeal of the touch screen, but when the OP said "better P&S," I assumed he meant a camera of a higher grade.

Brunobl said:

I took Hwalker's mentioning a DLSR only as an extreme example of a
button-full camera that he added just to make his point, since he
started his post saying that the online article's ideas would not fly
FOR PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT. He did not say it wouldn't fly FOR DSLRs.
Still, I now see that I could (and probably should) have explicitly
excluded DSLRs from the reply. I am sorry if my post came across as
saying that a large LCD touch screen would be good for ALL digital
cameras, let alone DSLRs, that was not what I meant.

Brunobl said:

Now, if you want to talk about P&S cameras then sure, your
touch-screen idea is fine,

Click to expand...

Yes, that was it.

Brunobl said:

and in fact is how some of them work
(can't think of specific models, as I don't really pay attention to
them).

Click to expand...

Neither do I.

Hope this is cleared up,

--
Best regards,

Bruno Lobo.



http://www.pbase.com/brunobl

Click to expand...

Brunobl said:

OTOH, Suntan, understanding the subject of the discussion before
jumping to wrong conclusions firing off your keyboard as a result,
also goes a long way.

Hint: the thread's title is "What stands in the way of better P$S",
is it not?

Click to expand...

Take a look at the sentence you originally responded to. It read something like this...

Brunobl 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.

...Forgive me if I thought we were talking about SLRs.

In any case, being a home theater nut, I have extensive experience of another segment where touchscreens and hard buttoned controls are used interchangeably. A touchscreen is just a distraction that requires too much attention to operate. It is good for people that actually like to look at and play with the touchscreen itself, not use it to control something else. A touchscreen will never replace hard, tactile buttons for ease of use and the ability to use it without having to look at it, or think to much about it.

If you're the kind of person that likes to look at a screen while you press your finger against it then say "hey I pressed a screen and made a button do something" touchscreens are right up your alley. If you'd rather spend more time thinking about photography and getting the camera to do what you want it to do, they would be nothing but a hindrance.

-Suntan

Suntan said:

If you're the kind of person that likes to look at a screen while you
press your finger against it then say "hey I pressed a screen and
made a button do something" touchscreens are right up your alley. If
you'd rather spend more time thinking about photography and getting
the camera to do what you want it to do, they would be nothing but a
hindrance.

Click to expand...

This perfectly describes the gadget/digicam crowd. I really think there is a future in touch screens for photography.

--
Best regards,

Bruno Lobo.



http://www.pbase.com/brunobl

hwalker said:

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post Bruno.

Click to expand...

Sorry about that. Reading your last post, I think I got a better grasp of what you meant.

Anyway, one of the problems you report from using your touch screen camera, I think one that severely undermines the very "all-virtual button" interface that I described was the unit's use of menus. You said it is a 6-year old camera and that is a very long time in the digicam business. Touch screen per se does not mean the interface was designed as a virtual button interface, so the camera really presented a very traditional, menu-driven interface with a touch screen input device. This is not quite what I was talking about.

hwalker said:

Now if you want to talk about a
real consumer-level P&S, then I can definitely see the appeal of the
touch screen, but when the OP said "better P&S," I assumed he meant a
camera of a higher grade.

Click to expand...

I can see a higher grade digicam with good quality, low noise image and a large, touch screen in the back. It would have all the traditional shooting modes, P S, A, M, Bulb, image stabilization, picture styles, the whole lot, short of interchangeable lenses and optical VF, with all virtual buttons on the back.

It is of course a matter of whether or not the digicam crowd would think this is a cool idea.

--
Best regards,

Bruno Lobo.



http://www.pbase.com/brunobl