Intelligent digital Zoom 2.0x

[Pop P]

Very new to the HS 50.

I would like to keep Intelligent digital Zoom 2.0x on all the time. What I mean is, if a situation arises, I'll be ready.

I set it on and when I shut off and reopen camera it is gone. So I do I keep it on at all times. Thanks Paul

 

[Orion12]

PR I personally was only talking about S size in the sense that perhaps 2x IDZ crops 4 megapixels from the sensor instead of interpolating, but I guess when the supermoon comes about on Sept 9, I'll test that myself.

I had another question I wanted to ask about teleconverters, but it's pretty basic. Let's say we have a 1.7x teleconverter but that it results in a 2 stop loss of light, if attached to the HS50, does that make this combo a 1,700mm f/11 lens? Also, because of this light loss, would this teleconverter cause diffraction in this combo even at max aperture (since we've established that this camera starts to diffract as soon as f/8.)

Hi Alex The following is quoted from the Raynox site 2.2x TC Description which will also have relation to their 1.54x TC which I use . . . "There will be no reduction of light value (F.Number) when this conversion lens is attached on the camera's lens."

This is More or Less Typical for a "Front End" TC which is NOT the Case for a Back-End TC like many DSLR's use . . . Which DO Reduce f/Stop Light Level.

Cheers from Orion

 

[alexisgreat]

The Raynox is terrific Orion, the Olympus C-180 though does cause 1.5-2 stops of light loss as exposures are typically that much longer with it than without it. If this is because of a decrease in aperture, I wonder if it will also cause unacceptable diffraction even with the camera "wide open."

If this is the case, then I fear that 1.5x TC may be the highest to go with this camera.

 

[Orion12]

Orion, I've always wanted to ask you- what is direct mapped pixel capture? Do you mean the sensor behaves as if it were a 4 megapixel sensor (with the light gathering sensels being more sensitive than if they were 16 megapixel size?)

I WISH Your 4-Mp Idea was Being Implemented - That Would Be Like an EXR : SN x4 Mode on a 16-Mp Sensor which would be KILLER Good imho

Direct Pixel Mapping in simple terms is AVERAGING Excess Pixels into ONE Pixel Location . . .
For Example when using the EXR : SN Sensor Mode you're Getting 8-Mp from the Sensor - IF You Select "S" Size then Obviously their are MORE Pixels than will FIT into that ~ 2-Mp Output File - So Fuji Engineers have TWO Basic Choices - 1. Throw Away ALL Excess Pixels. 2. Direct Map ALL Available Pixels into the Corresponding Output File Pixel-Locations. . .
This is done by AVERAGING ALL Available Pixels & Storing the Result in the "S" Image File Locations.

Cheers from Orion

http://www.researchgate.net/publica...mata_transform_and_direct_smart_pixel_mapping This further describes it but this paper is in terms of 3D translation but the Theory Applies to 2D Images as well. . .

 

[Orion12]

The Raynox is terrific Orion, the Olympus C-180 though does cause 1.5-2 stops of light loss as exposures are typically that much longer with it than without it. If this is because of a decrease in aperture, I wonder if it will also cause unacceptable diffraction even with the camera "wide open."

If this is the case, then I fear that 1.5x TC may be the highest to go with this camera.

That's a Good Question . . . Raynox handled the Light Reduction Problem EVEN with a 2.2x TC BUT the Image Quality Sucks in Comparison with their 1.54x TC . . . That's ALL I'm 100% Certain of. . .

Cheers from Orion

 

[photoreddi]

PR I personally was only talking about S size in the sense that perhaps 2x IDZ crops 4 megapixels from the sensor instead of interpolating, but I guess when the supermoon comes about on Sept 9, I'll test that myself.

Hmm, I'm not sure about this. I almost wrote something ridiculous so let me think it out a different way. If you have the HS50 in L size take a picture of a rectangular painting that's in the center of the frame and which occupies 25% of the frame, the painting would use 4mp's worth of the sensor's 16 megapixels. If you switch to S size, now the entire photo is 4mp and the painting in the center of the frame only used 1mp's worth of the sensor's data for a full resolution S size photo. But if you then use 2x IDZ for the S size photo, you're still only taking a picture of the painting that's still only impinging on the central 25% of the sensor. So I guess that a crafty firmware designer could cheat and invisibly switch the S size 2x IDZ to an L size crop that gives you a picture of the same painting, so now it's a 4mp photo of the painting instead of a 1mp painting based on a 25% crop of an S size photo. It would look better but it's still "cheating". I have no idea what Fuji actually does but if you're interested enough you could try to puzzle it out.

.

I had another question I wanted to ask about teleconverters, but it's pretty basic. Let's say we have a 1.7x teleconverter but that it results in a 2 stop loss of light, if attached to the HS50, does that make this combo a 1,700mm f/11 lens? Also, because of this light loss, would this teleconverter cause diffraction in this combo even at max aperture (since we've established that this camera starts to diffract as soon as f/8.)

TCs that you attach to the end of a lens (like you're talking about) aren't like the TCs that you mount a DSLR lens on which reduce the maximum aperture of the TC+lens. So I'd say that you have a 1.7x TC added to your HS50, the lens's f/5.6 maximum aperture stays the same as far as diffraction is concerned (I think), but the loss of light makes it equivalent to f/11 only for figuring out the exposure.

Saying "this camera starts to diffract as soon as f/8" is technically incorrect though. Diffraction can't be avoided, lenses always produce diffraction blurring, at ALL apertures. What's more accurate to say is that the blurring due to diffraction keeps increasing as the aperture is reduced, but it isn't until f/8 is reached that the additional blurring would be easily noticed. But I think that pixel peepers might be able to notice some blurring even at f/5.6, but it won't be enough for most people to notice.

In the past, f/11 was the 'safe' aperture for APS-C sensors and f/16 for full frame sensors. But this was when DSLR had 12mp sensors. With 24mp APS-C sensors and 36mp full frame sensors, diffraction effects can be noticed at wider apertures. Would you believe that even the D800 isn't totally safe at f/5.6? This is from Thom Hogan's D800/D800e review :

Resolution, Diffraction, and To E or Not to E
It was the best of cameras, it was the worst of cameras. Remember that? Yeah, it's back.

Here's the thing: certainly when we were at 12mp and lower we were living in a sort of Disneyesque world where everything was slightly sharper than reality. What do I mean by that? Diffraction wasn't getting fully recorded or seen in most cases. A D3 at f/16 was just starting to show visible differences on edges at 100% view for most people (though diffraction was already present, it wasn't clearly destroying edges enough for people to get upset). Some of this has to do with the way Bayer sensors record data. I've been saying for a long time that diffraction really only starts to be fully recorded by a Bayer camera when the Airy disc becomes about twice the size of an individual photosite. It's not a perfect predictor, since there's an optical system that sits above the photosite (AA/IR filter, which may have a waveplate in it, microlenses on the sensor itself). But it's been a "good enough" predictor for some time now.

So what do we see on the D800 and D800E? At and above f/8 diffraction is being fully recorded (at f/8 the Airy disc diameter is 10.7 microns, while the D800 sensor photosite implied diameter is a bit less than 5 microns). Even at f/5.6 the Airy disc is big enough to be producing clearly visible diffraction.

Okay, so what about the AA (D800) or lack of an AA (D800E)? Does that make a difference. At f/8 and above, not really. Diffraction is a worse sin than anti-aliasing, at least when you use the "visible" criteria. Technically, I measure a bit more resolution on the E than the non-E in these mid-range diffracted apertures. But looking at pixel views of images, the diffraction kills the edge acuity that the E normally provides you. I'm not convinced there's enough gain to warrant the difference if you're shooting at f/5.6 or above all the time. That shouldn't surprise anyone, considering that I concluded the same thing with a D3x (24mp) with and without an AA filter. In that case, the "without" was optical glass, with no fuzz/defuzz system like the D800E has.

Below f/5.6, things are completely different, and surprisingly so. From f/1.4 to f/4 the D800E has crisp, clean edges and is clearly gaining something from the lack of an anti-aliasing filter. But the D800 is different. While the D800 has what I would characterize as a weak AA filter (I've got plenty of moire examples from it, and can produce color fringing with it, too), it exhibits a different pattern than the D800E. From f/1.4 to f/4 there's a small but steady degradation of edges, almost like some form of weak diffraction were in play. That's actually entirely possible, as Nikon claims that there is a waveplate involved in the AA filter, and it may be the culprit.

So basically the conventional guess about who would want an E and who would want a non-E are exactly backwards. If you shoot wide open or near wide open with your lenses all the time (portraits, wildlife, sports, etc.) there's something to be said for having the D800E. If you shoot landscapes and are going for depth of field, diffraction will be your real enemy, not the AA filter.

But how does 36mp resolve, Thom?

Incredibly well, thank you. Even with diffraction in play, I can measure clearly better resolution scores from my D800 than my D3x, which is exactly as expected. As I've written before: all else equal, I'll always take more pixels.

But this will be an eye-opener for some of you. Resolution not only reveals more detail, it can also reveal more about how your lens performs. A lot was written about how the D800 would out-resolve lenses. Get that out of your mind, because that's not what's happening. Your lenses are capable of resolving even more than the D800 models will manage. But along with that extra resolution comes the ability to actually resolve what the lenses are doing. Poor corners become very obviously poor. Edge to edge sharpness differences (miscentered elements, etc.) become more obvious, especially on a D800E at or near maximum aperture. Chromatic aberrations now encompass more pixels on edges, so often become more visible at pixel level, too. Be prepared to see how your lens actually performs, at least if you're a pixel peeper or printing big.

As it turns out, that list that Nikon had in their Technical Guide for the D800 turns out to be basically right: the modern zooms (f/2.8, f/4 max apertures), most of the recent fast primes (f/1.4, f/1.8), the Micro-Nikkors, the PC-E lenses, and the exotic telephotos (200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, etc.) are all very good on a D800 model. Used with discipline and given a bit of post processing clean-up, they can be stunning.

Drop down to the next level of Nikkors--the 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 comes to mind--and the results aren't quite so stunning. Heck, that lens is diffraction impacted above about 135mm, even shooting wide open, so this really shouldn't surprise anyone. That doesn't mean I wouldn't use that lens on a D800 model, only that my expectations would be that I won't get as much out of the camera as I would with even the 24-120mm f/4 in the overlapping focal lengths. Lenses that you can stop down to hit f/4 tend to do even better, such as the f/2.8 zoom trio.

http://www.bythom.com/nikond800review.htm

.

So if f/5.6 isn't a wide enough aperture to clearly eliminate diffraction from the D800, there's going to be a lot more diffraction blurring happening with the HS50's much tinier pixels (photosites), even if the aperture is wide open at f/5.6. The lens might be a bit sharper if the aperture is closed down slightly, but you don't get to see the benefit of this because of the diffraction blurring that's even worse at f/7.1 or f/8.

 

[photoreddi]

...

That's all well and good if you say that it's what works best for you. But please, don't try to tell other HS50 owners that they'll get better results if they stop using L size or M size and permanently set their cameras to S size resolution. That could get you hauled into court for malpractice.

You can Try to Lock Me Up IF You Want . . . BUT After Shooting OVER 13,500 HS50EXR Photos in ALL Available Modes & Sizes - I've Concluded that the 16-Mp "L" Sized / Sensor Modes are Only Good for BRIGHT LIGHT & LOW ISO Captures . . . And Even within this Range ANY Shadow Areas WILL BE Faded to BLACK or Grey as the 16-Mp / SMALL Sensor Sites are Shadow-NOISY & Need Heavy Filtering which Reduces MORE Original Content then When Shooting Using the EXR : SN Double Sized Pixel-Sites. . .

IF You want to Prove this to YOURSELF then View 100% Crops of Various Capture Methods. . .
100% Crops REVEAL the ACTUAL PIXEL Quality . . . The ACTUAL Captured Pixels are After-All the SOURCE of Original Image Information - ANY Construct is USING this as SOURCE Image Information. . . Scaling ALWAYS includes Data Translation & Osculation of Original Information. . .
BUT Will Often Make LOWER Quality Pixel Captures LOOK BETTER. . . That's MOSTLY an Apparent Increase in CONTRAST that Causes that Effect. . . Their is NO TRUE Substitute for CLEAN Pixel Capture. . .

Exactly. That's what I've done and the L size pixels produce slightly greater resolution 100% crops than 100% crops of S size photos.

I NOW Use Direct Pixel Mapped "S" Files because this is the Technique that I've Found Produces the CLEANEST Images for DISPLAY on 2-MP Optical Devices. . . Which is MY Target Media.

Try to think this through. Nasa gives you their highest resolution, 48mp LCD display (just guessing) and it any 16mp L size HS50 photo should have more detail than an HS50's 4mp S size photos when both are viewed on this really neat but expensive display. The same thing applies if you're making 48" prints from both photos. You're than trying to convincingly say that the higher resolution L size photo will actually look better when viewed on a 2mp display, or when use to make 48" prints?

I think that you're making a mistake by reasoning that a downsampled 4mp photo has larger, more noise free pixels so S size photos must be superior. That may be true comparing larger pixels, but a 16mp photo shot in low light will look just as good if it's also downsized to 4mp, and if shot in bright light, at low ISO it will also have a big edge over S size photos.

Also, are you sure that the "pixels" are really larger? Four L size pixels may be processed to produce a single S size pixel but a pixel really has no size, it only has a certain number of R, G and B bits, 8 per channel. Because they're 'averaged', the noise per pixel can be lower than the noise per pixel of 16mp pixels, but the noise per picture remains the same, and if you make prints of both 16mp and 4mp photos, the 4mp photo won't appear less noisy.

In any case I've shot several photos of the same subjects using L size and S size and the L size photos have more detail that's almost impossible not to notice. I can post them if you'd like to compare them. And no, IDZ wasn't used. That's just a form of in-camera post processing and if comparisons are to be fair, the non-IDZ photos would require equivalent sharpening in post processing.

 

[alexisgreat]

I didn't think large sensor cameras fell victim to diffraction issues that early either. I see why so many people were going crazy over the FZ200 and its constant f/2.8 aperture, and it wasn't just because it allows you to use lower ISO with that bright lens. It's interesting what you said about the aperture with the TC only affecting the exposure, not the amount of diffraction. I wonder if the same is true with depth of field, like it is when comparing small sensor and large sensor cameras. Because, if I remember correctly, in terms of depth of field, an aperture of a crop sensor is equivalent in depth of field to a full frame camera of the same aperture multiplied by the crop factor....even though the exposure value would be the same. I wonder if diffraction works the same way (for example, an HS50 at f/5.6 would produce the same diffraction and depth of field as a full frame camera at f/5.6 multiplied by 5.4, although the shutter speed would be the same at the same ISO and aperture.)

It's interesting you mentioned the Nokia 41 MP camera earlier in this thread and now I'll reference it again with regards to lossless digital zoom.....I really wish Fuji had done it this way!

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5234892048/nokia-lumia-1020-camera-review

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/5234892048/nokia-lumia-1020-camera-review?page=6

Zoom Image Quality

Nokia takes advantage of its big, high-res sensor to offer a true novelty: a digital zoom that doesn’t suck. A “digital zoom” traditionally means cropping the image and then upsampling it to the camera’s native resolution. Since you can’t create image data from thin air, heavy upsampling results in the soft, detail-impoverished images we’ve come to expect from digital zooming. The 1020’s high native resolution means that even with some cropping (zoom) applied, the image is still downsampled through most of the zoom range. You get a 2.7X zoom ratio (a 74mm equivalent in 4:3 mode) before the cropped image hits 5MP. The same digital zoom ratio on an 8MP camera results in a 1MP image being blown back up, with predictably underwhelming results.

n good light, quality drops off relatively little when zooming, thanks to the 1020’s solid low ISO performance. With a moderate zoom setting, the loss is negligible. At full zoom, when you’re getting un-oversampled output from the sensor, the quality remains good but noise is definitely more present.

At higher ISOs, image quality drops more as the 1020 doesn’t get to average out noise in the downsampling process. That said, at ISO 800, even at full zoom, image quality remains quite steady at screen resolutions: you have to get down to pixel level to see how more noise is cutting down on detail.

Our verdict is that while the zoom isn’t quite “lossless,” we wouldn’t hesitate to use it under most any lighting condition. Plus, if you’re saving the full-res file as well, you can always get back to the original, unzoomed image.

This camera still has a huge wow factor- I cant believe how clean the ISO 4000 images they posted are!

It's also worth mentioning this about dynamic range

While the 1020’s combination of high resolution and larger sensor make great strides in some image quality metrics, dynamic range does not appear to be much better than the competition. From a technical perspective this makes sense. It’s the size of the individual photosites, rather than that of the sensor as a whole, that has the biggest impact on the ability to record wide dynamic range (the difference between the brightest and darkest parts of the scene). Because of the 1020’s high pixel count, the photosites are no bigger than on most phones. As that fact predicts, the 1020 appears to blow out highlights about as much anything else on the market. It’s worth noting that because of the 1020’s low noise output, you can get away with underexposing more to protect highlights and then brightening dark areas in postprocessing.

The 1020’s lens is sharp across most of the frame, but the unforgiving resolution showcases some poor corner sharpness. This is still visible, though less insulting, in the 5MP files.

Too bad the camera doesn't have an EXR DR mode

 

[Orion12]

...

That's all well and good if you say that it's what works best for you. But please, don't try to tell other HS50 owners that they'll get better results if they stop using L size or M size and permanently set their cameras to S size resolution. That could get you hauled into court for malpractice.

You can Try to Lock Me Up IF You Want . . . BUT After Shooting OVER 13,500 HS50EXR Photos in ALL Available Modes & Sizes - I've Concluded that the 16-Mp "L" Sized / Sensor Modes are Only Good for BRIGHT LIGHT & LOW ISO Captures . . . And Even within this Range ANY Shadow Areas WILL BE Faded to BLACK or Grey as the 16-Mp / SMALL Sensor Sites are Shadow-NOISY & Need Heavy Filtering which Reduces MORE Original Content then When Shooting Using the EXR : SN Double Sized Pixel-Sites. . .

IF You want to Prove this to YOURSELF then View 100% Crops of Various Capture Methods. . .
100% Crops REVEAL the ACTUAL PIXEL Quality . . . The ACTUAL Captured Pixels are After-All the SOURCE of Original Image Information - ANY Construct is USING this as SOURCE Image Information. . . Scaling ALWAYS includes Data Translation & Osculation of Original Information. . .
BUT Will Often Make LOWER Quality Pixel Captures LOOK BETTER. . . That's MOSTLY an Apparent Increase in CONTRAST that Causes that Effect. . . Their is NO TRUE Substitute for CLEAN Pixel Capture. . .

Exactly. That's what I've done and the L size pixels produce slightly greater resolution 100% crops than 100% crops of S size photos.

I NOW Use Direct Pixel Mapped "S" Files because this is the Technique that I've Found Produces the CLEANEST Images for DISPLAY on 2-MP Optical Devices. . . Which is MY Target Media.

Try to think this through. Nasa gives you their highest resolution, 48mp LCD display (just guessing) and it any 16mp L size HS50 photo should have more detail than an HS50's 4mp S size photos when both are viewed on this really neat but expensive display. The same thing applies if you're making 48" prints from both photos. You're than trying to convincingly say that the higher resolution L size photo will actually look better when viewed on a 2mp display, or when use to make 48" prints?

I think that you're making a mistake by reasoning that a downsampled 4mp photo has larger, more noise free pixels so S size photos must be superior. That may be true comparing larger pixels, but a 16mp photo shot in low light will look just as good if it's also downsized to 4mp, and if shot in bright light, at low ISO it will also have a big edge over S size photos.

I believe the Fuji Engineers will NOT Agree with you on this. . .

WHY Do You Think THEY Named the EXR : SN Mode . . . "HIGH ISO & LOW NOISE" ?

It's Because the DOUBLE-SIZED Pixel Sites of that Mode DO Have Lower Noise and Higher Sensitivity ALL Without Additional Filtering ! It's Simply CLEANER OUTPUT on the Individual Pixel Level. . .

NOW - IF - You Don't NEED 16-Mp for Driving a Printer or Something Like that and Let's Say You're ONLY INTERESTED in Getting a 2-Mp FINAL OUTPUT. . . Then Building that Output Frame with the Cleanest & Most Accurate Pixels You Can Get - Makes Sense. . . Doesn't It ?

Also, are you sure that the "pixels" are really larger? Four L size pixels may be processed to produce a single S size pixel but a pixel really has no size, it only has a certain number of R, G and B bits, 8 per channel. Because they're 'averaged', the noise per pixel can be lower than the noise per pixel of 16mp pixels, but the noise per picture remains the same, and if you make prints of both 16mp and 4mp photos, the 4mp photo won't appear less noisy.

The "Pixels" themselves are "Larger" it's that the "Pixel-Sites" that Collect Light for Forming the Pixels are "Larger" they can Simply Collect Light Faster & With Less Filtering so their Output is Cleaner or CLOSER in Accuracy to the Original Image being Captured. . .

In any case I've shot several photos of the same subjects using L size and S size and the L size photos have more detail that's almost impossible not to notice. I can post them if you'd like to compare them. And no, IDZ wasn't used. That's just a form of in-camera post processing and if comparisons are to be fair, the non-IDZ photos would require equivalent sharpening in post processing.

Let's Don't get SideTracked on this "Resolution" Topic - From a Pure Mathematics Perspective 16-Mp is ALWAYS MORE than 8-Mp and WILL Contain MORE BITS of Information !

A Basic Question to Ask Here is HOW MANY Pixels will fit into a 2-Mp Image ?

Well ONLY 2-Mp Of Course ! So WHERE Do the REMAINING 14-Mp from a 16-Mp Capture Go ?

THEY Get THROWN AWAY Don't They ?

So IF - Your TARGET is a 2-Mp Display / 2-Mp is ALL You can USE !

In this Case You Simply Want the Most Accurate 2-Mp of Original Image Pixels WITHOUT Distortions.

And That LEADS Back to the EXR : SN Mode which DELIVERS this Result OVER the Widest Range of Shooting Conditions . . .

This Directly Relates to WHY Sony's NEWEST FULL FRAME - PROFESSIONAL Camera is ONLY 12-Mp
THEY Fully Realize the Importance of Pixel-Quality Verses Pixel-Quanity ( Sony Alpha a7S 12.2-megapixel interchangeable lens digital camera / $ 2,400 Body ONLY )

Cheers from Orion

 

[photoreddi]

The Raynox is terrific Orion, the Olympus C-180 though does cause 1.5-2 stops of light loss as exposures are typically that much longer with it than without it. If this is because of a decrease in aperture, I wonder if it will also cause unacceptable diffraction even with the camera "wide open."

If this is the case, then I fear that 1.5x TC may be the highest to go with this camera.

That's a Good Question . . . Raynox handled the Light Reduction Problem EVEN with a 2.2x TC BUT the Image Quality Sucks in Comparison with their 1.54x TC . . . That's ALL I'm 100% Certain of. . .

Teleconverters that fit between the lens and the camera obey optical laws. A 1.4x TC loses 1 stop of light (the square root of 2 is 1.414....). A 2x TC loses 2 stops of light (the square root of 4 is 2).

The 2x TC brings subjects twice as close making them appear 4 times larger in area, just as the 1.4x TCs bring them in 1.4x times as close, making the subjects appear 2 times larger in area. Light (brightness) is reduced because the lens's front element remains the same size when this type of TC is used.

The Raynox type teleconverters don't work the same way but they don't lose light (reduce the aperture that is) because they NORMALLY have a much greater front lens element that lets in a sufficiently greater amount of light that the effective aperture for the exposure remains the same. If a TC that's screwed onto a camera's lens has a sufficiently small front element, not as much light will reach the lens and while I don't think that the actual aperture will change, the effective aperture for the exposure (like a T-stop) will be less, producing darker photos.

A lens's iris is smaller than the lens's large front element although sometimes the rear element is the largest, such as with the X100, but I don't know how much smaller. I haven't had much luck finding photos of actual lens irises to see how large or small they usually are in relation to the lens's largest elements. Smaller might be better as a design goal since some cameras limit the highest shutter speeds when large apertures are used.

Here's one photo that I found showing the iris used by a Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens.

 

[alexisgreat]

Orion, I think you're sayinbg that taking a picture at S size with the camera is different than taking an L size picture and then downsampling it to S size on the computer?

 

[photoreddi]

...

I think that you're making a mistake by reasoning that a downsampled 4mp photo has larger, more noise free pixels so S size photos must be superior. That may be true comparing larger pixels, but a 16mp photo shot in low light will look just as good if it's also downsized to 4mp, and if shot in bright light, at low ISO it will also have a big edge over S size photos.

I believe the Fuji Engineers will NOT Agree with you on this. . .

WHY Do You Think THEY Named the EXR : SN Mode . . . "HIGH ISO & LOW NOISE" ?

It's Because the DOUBLE-SIZED Pixel Sites of that Mode DO Have Lower Noise and Higher Sensitivity ALL Without Additional Filtering ! It's Simply CLEANER OUTPUT on the Individual Pixel Level. . .

Yes At the cost of reduced resolution.

.

NOW - IF - You Don't NEED 16-Mp for Driving a Printer or Something Like that and Let's Say You're ONLY INTERESTED in Getting a 2-Mp FINAL OUTPUT. . . Then Building that Output Frame with the Cleanest & Most Accurate Pixels You Can Get - Makes Sense. . . Doesn't It ?

Sure, but then why buy a 16mp HS50 when by your own admission you only need a 2mp camera, and you can buy older 2mp cameras with very large sensors?

You might be happy with cameras that only produce 2mp or 4mp images but I'm not. I used to be quite pleased with the resolution of my Nikon 6mp DSLRs. Now I compare what current APS-C cameras produce compared with older 12mp cameras like the D90 and I can assure you that much less fine detail is seen in 12mp D90 and D300 photos, and that's not looking all the way at the pixel level. What you're arguing is like what someone might say about old film cameras, that photos shot using a Minox's tiny film frames is just as detailed as the photos shot with 35mm rangefinder and SLR cameras, or 70mm Linhofs because they might say "But all I ever get from the photo lab are 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" prints. And your Leica or Nikon's tiny prints really don't look any better.

.

Also, are you sure that the "pixels" are really larger? Four L size pixels may be processed to produce a single S size pixel but a pixel really has no size, it only has a certain number of R, G and B bits, 8 per channel. Because they're 'averaged', the noise per pixel can be lower than the noise per pixel of 16mp pixels, but the noise per picture remains the same, and if you make prints of both 16mp and 4mp photos, the 4mp photo won't appear less noisy.

The "Pixels" themselves are "Larger" it's that the "Pixel-Sites" that Collect Light for Forming the Pixels are "Larger" they can Simply Collect Light Faster & With Less Filtering so their Output is Cleaner or CLOSER in Accuracy to the Original Image being Captured. . .

In any case I've shot several photos of the same subjects using L size and S size and the L size photos have more detail that's almost impossible not to notice. I can post them if you'd like to compare them. And no, IDZ wasn't used. That's just a form of in-camera post processing and if comparisons are to be fair, the non-IDZ photos would require equivalent sharpening in post processing.

Let's Don't get SideTracked on this "Resolution" Topic - From a Pure Mathematics Perspective 16-Mp is ALWAYS MORE than 8-Mp and WILL Contain MORE BITS of Information !

A Basic Question to Ask Here is HOW MANY Pixels will fit into a 2-Mp Image ?

Well ONLY 2-Mp Of Course ! So WHERE Do the REMAINING 14-Mp from a 16-Mp Capture Go ?

THEY Get THROWN AWAY Don't They ?

You might throw them away. I don't. That's the point. You've turned your 16mp or 8mp HS50 into a 2mp camera and if that makes you happy, I can't say that you would be better off shooting 8mp or 16mp photos, because the way you view them, your tiny images really would look just as good. But if you believe that you'll convince more than one or two fringe characters that turning a modern camera into a 2mp photo machine is a wise choice, good luck with that.

.

So IF - Your TARGET is a 2-Mp Display / 2-Mp is ALL You can USE !

Exactly, but don't expect too many others to join you with such as tiny TARGET.

.

This Directly Relates to WHY Sony's NEWEST FULL FRAME - PROFESSIONAL Camera is ONLY 12-Mp

THEY Fully Realize the Importance of Pixel-Quality Verses Pixel-Quanity ( Sony Alpha a7S 12.2-megapixel interchangeable lens digital camera / $ 2,400 Body ONLY )

NON-sense.

Sorry, Sony wasn't going for high pixel quality or high image quality for still photos. They were going for a high quality VIDEO camera, that can produce 4K video that is able to "utilize the entire width of a full-frame image sensor in 4K video acquisition, and does this without cropping or line skipping as it can read and process data from every one of the sensor's pixels. This allows 4K video shooters to utilize all of the artistic and creative benefits provided by the unique sensor."

http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7s

.

As a side benefit the A7s is also very good for shooting in low light, but as you should also realize, Sony's higher resolution full frame cameras are just about as good shooting in low light with the proviso that extra processing is needed to downsize their high resolution photos to the same 12mp size as the A7s. This is precisely what you say you're doing with the HS50, but the difference is that a 12mp A7s photo still has amazing detail, whereas a 2mp HS50 photo doesn't and never will.

Nikon shooters are mostly aware that the D800 (now the D810) is about as good as the D4 in low light, especially below ISO 1600 or ISO 3200, but it requires downsizing to the D4's 16mp resolution.

I've been using my old 4mp S5100 off and on during the last week or so and with its 4mp sensor it produces nice photos, but compared with HS35, HS50, D90 or D7100 images, there's little reason to use it other than nostalgia. At least it's far smaller than the HS50 and it costs far less. So why aren't you using one of these 4mp gems? So be an iconoclast. See if I care.

.

Cheers from Orion

Right back atcha, Cheerio!

 

[Orion12]

Thanks for the Detailed Write-up PhotoReddi + The Applied Math Model for the Rear TC Converters . . . Nice Pic too. . .

Cheers from Orion

 

[Orion12]

Orion, I think you're sayinbg that taking a picture at S size with the camera is different than taking an L size picture and then downsampling it to S size on the computer?

YES that's part of the Method to My "S" File Size Madness ( lol ) . . .

When you Select "S" File Sizes IN-CAMERA this Grantees EXACT Alignment of Captured Pixels into Specific Pixel Locations in their "Fuji Formulated" Direct Pixel Sensor Mapping Schema. This also allows Pixels to be SUMMED or BIN ( Averaged ) In-Camera into their Respective Locations from Sensor Outputs into their "S" File Size representation WITHOUT ANY SCALING Functions.

The Over-All Method Includes (3) Advantages for Increasing Final Image Output Quality @ ~ 2-Mp

1. The Use of EXR : SN Sensor Mode Captures ( High ISO & Low Noise ) Gets CLEANEST Sensor Pixels for Image Building.

2. Uses Direct Mapped Pixel Output from Sensor to Final Output File which includes In-Camera Pixel Binning into Formulated Image Pixel Positions. ( No Chance of Random Translations via Software )

3. Translation to Reduced Size ( To FIT 2-Mp Display Devices ) WITHOUT Scaling Functions.

If you think about it an 8-Mp Image Capture has 4-Pixels Captured for EACH Single Pixel of Final Output into a 2-Mp "S" Size Image File. . . ( 4:3 Format as the Sensor is a 4:3 Format )
This Factor ALLOWS those 4-Pixels to get BINN Averaged into that SINGLE Output Pixel. . .

For me it's Become a No-Brainer for Coping with the Limitations of the Otherwise HIGHER Noise Level-Output from that 1/2" Sensor and the EXTRA Noise that Would Accompany "L" Size Captures.

This WORKS Well for 2-Mp SCREEN Output which is ALL I'm Typically Concerned with. . .

Cheers from Orion

 

[Orion12]

...

I think that you're making a mistake by reasoning that a downsampled 4mp photo has larger, more noise free pixels so S size photos must be superior. That may be true comparing larger pixels, but a 16mp photo shot in low light will look just as good if it's also downsized to 4mp, and if shot in bright light, at low ISO it will also have a big edge over S size photos.

I believe the Fuji Engineers will NOT Agree with you on this. . .

WHY Do You Think THEY Named the EXR : SN Mode . . . "HIGH ISO & LOW NOISE" ?

It's Because the DOUBLE-SIZED Pixel Sites of that Mode DO Have Lower Noise and Higher Sensitivity ALL Without Additional Filtering ! It's Simply CLEANER OUTPUT on the Individual Pixel Level. . .

Yes At the cost of reduced resolution.

Correct Per the Definition of Resolution . . . BUT Additional IMAGE Resolution or Information is POINTLESS. . . UNLESS You Can USE or VIEW IT !

NOW - IF - You Don't NEED 16-Mp for Driving a Printer or Something Like that and Let's Say You're ONLY INTERESTED in Getting a 2-Mp FINAL OUTPUT. . . Then Building that Output Frame with the Cleanest & Most Accurate Pixels You Can Get - Makes Sense. . . Doesn't It ?

Sure, but then why buy a 16mp HS50 when by your own admission you only need a 2mp camera, and you can buy older 2mp cameras with very large sensors?

I'd LOVE to HAVE a 2Mp or 4Mp Camera with a 1,000mm Lense System like the HS50EXR Has. . .

I'd TRADE my 16-Mp Sensor in a HEART BEAT for a 4-Mp Sensor - NO ONE to my Knowledge Makes one . . . HOPEFULLY ONE DAY - SOMEONE WILL !

You might be happy with cameras that only produce 2mp or 4mp images but I'm not. I used to be quite pleased with the resolution of my Nikon 6mp DSLRs. Now I compare what current APS-C cameras produce compared with older 12mp cameras like the D90 and I can assure you that much less fine detail is seen in 12mp D90 and D300 photos, and that's not looking all the way at the pixel level. What you're arguing is like what someone might say about old film cameras, that photos shot using a Minox's tiny film frames is just as detailed as the photos shot with 35mm rangefinder and SLR cameras, or 70mm Linhofs because they might say "But all I ever get from the photo lab are 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" prints. And your Leica or Nikon's tiny prints really don't look any better.

.

This is an Interesting ASPECT of the Sensor Industry as the "COMMERCIAL TREND" is to Make Sensors with MORE Pixels and Make them CLEANER than Older Style LESS DENSE Sensors. . .

SONY is the ONLY Company I'm Aware of that is Putting Marketing Money into a 12.2 Mp FULL FRAME Sensor Camera Designed for PROFESSIONALS. . . It Has EXTREME Low Light Capability.

Also, are you sure that the "pixels" are really larger? Four L size pixels may be processed to produce a single S size pixel but a pixel really has no size,

Exactly Right - Pixels Themselves have NO SIZE and are ONLY a Packet of Information.

it only has a certain number of R, G and B bits, 8 per channel. Because they're 'averaged', the noise per pixel can be lower than the noise per pixel of 16mp pixels, but the noise per picture remains the same, and if you make prints of both 16mp and 4mp photos, the 4mp photo won't appear less noisy.

It's NOT that the "Pixels" themselves are "Larger" it's that the "Pixel-Sites" that Collect Light for Forming the Pixels are "Larger" they can Simply Collect Light Faster & With Less Filtering so their Output is Cleaner or CLOSER in Accuracy to the Original Image being Captured. . .

In any case I've shot several photos of the same subjects using L size and S size and the L size photos have more detail that's almost impossible not to notice. I can post them if you'd like to compare them. And no, IDZ wasn't used. That's just a form of in-camera post processing and if comparisons are to be fair, the non-IDZ photos would require equivalent sharpening in post processing.

Let's Don't get SideTracked on this "Resolution" Topic - From a Pure Mathematics Perspective 16-Mp is ALWAYS MORE than 8-Mp and WILL Contain MORE BITS of Information !

A Basic Question to Ask Here is HOW MANY Pixels will fit into a 2-Mp Image ?

Well ONLY 2-Mp Of Course ! So WHERE Do the REMAINING 14-Mp from a 16-Mp Capture Go ?

THEY Get THROWN AWAY Don't They ?

You might throw them away. I don't. That's the point. You've turned your 16mp or 8mp HS50 into a 2mp camera and if that makes you happy, I can't say that you would be better off shooting 8mp or 16mp photos, because the way you view them, your tiny images really would look just as good. But if you believe that you'll convince more than one or two fringe characters that turning a modern camera into a 2mp photo machine is a wise choice, good luck with that.

So IF - Your TARGET is a 2-Mp Display / 2-Mp is ALL You can USE !

Exactly, but don't expect too many others to join you with such as tiny TARGET.

This Directly Relates to WHY Sony's NEWEST FULL FRAME - PROFESSIONAL Camera is ONLY 12-Mp

THEY Fully Realize the Importance of Pixel-Quality Verses Pixel-Quanity ( Sony Alpha a7S 12.2-megapixel interchangeable lens digital camera / $ 2,400 Body ONLY )

NON-sense.

If that's Non-Sense - Why Didn't Sony Use a 24 or 36 Mp Sensor in this Camera ?

I'll Answer that. . . They WANTED LARGE Photon Collection ( Pixel-Sites ) for Better Performance.

Sorry, Sony wasn't going for high pixel quality or high image quality for still photos. They were going for a high quality VIDEO camera, that can produce 4K video that is able to "utilize the entire width of a full-frame image sensor in 4K video acquisition, and does this without cropping or line skipping as it can read and process data from every one of the sensor's pixels. This allows 4K video shooters to utilize all of the artistic and creative benefits provided by the unique sensor."

http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7s

.

As a side benefit the A7s is also very good for shooting in low light, but as you should also realize, Sony's higher resolution full frame cameras are just about as good shooting in low light with the proviso that extra processing is needed to downsize their high resolution photos to the same 12mp size as the A7s. This is precisely what you say you're doing with the HS50, but the difference is that a 12mp A7s photo still has amazing detail, whereas a 2mp HS50 photo doesn't and never will.

I've NEVER Said a HS50EXR COMPETES with a FULL Frame Sensor Camera - I just Pointed Out MY Observations & Methods for Getting the "Best" Output from that Little 1/2" EXR Sensor. . . For Display on a 2-Mp Display Device. . . Which is What MOST of Us Have. . .

I will be Happy to Compare SIDE by SIDE my "S" File Size Moon Captures with ANY Other Methods of HS50EXR Moon Shot Captures - I've Done So MANY Times . . . Post Your BEST and I'll POST My BEST and LET the Photo Community CAST THEIR Opinions. . .

Nikon shooters are mostly aware that the D800 (now the D810) is about as good as the D4 in low light, especially below ISO 1600 or ISO 3200, but it requires downsizing to the D4's 16mp resolution.

I've been using my old 4mp S5100 off and on during the last week or so and with its 4mp sensor it produces nice photos, but compared with HS35, HS50, D90 or D7100 images, there's little reason to use it other than nostalgia. At least it's far smaller than the HS50 and it costs far less. So why aren't you using one of these 4mp gems?

1. It's Using Relatively OLD Sensor Technology. . . It's NOT Just a Matter of Pixel Count. . . It's Also Low Light Capability ect . . .

2. It's ONLY a 5x Optical Lens System NOT a 42x 1,000mm Lens System - Really Not Comparable.

So be an iconoclast. See if I care.

Cheers from Orion

Right back atcha, Cheerio!

btw - What's Your Take on the Pentax K3 ?

Cheers from Orion

 

[photoreddi]

...

I think that you're making a mistake by reasoning that a downsampled 4mp photo has larger, more noise free pixels so S size photos must be superior. That may be true comparing larger pixels, but a 16mp photo shot in low light will look just as good if it's also downsized to 4mp, and if shot in bright light, at low ISO it will also have a big edge over S size photos.

I believe the Fuji Engineers will NOT Agree with you on this. . .

WHY Do You Think THEY Named the EXR : SN Mode . . . "HIGH ISO & LOW NOISE" ?

It's Because the DOUBLE-SIZED Pixel Sites of that Mode DO Have Lower Noise and Higher Sensitivity ALL Without Additional Filtering ! It's Simply CLEANER OUTPUT on the Individual Pixel Level. . .

Yes At the cost of reduced resolution.

Correct Per the Definition of Resolution . . . BUT Additional IMAGE Resolution or Information is POINTLESS. . . UNLESS You Can USE or VIEW IT !

This discussion is what's rapidly becoming pointless. The reason why you can't use additional resolution is only because you REFUSE to use it.

Point. I often pull out a small camera to read distant menus that have text too small to read even wearing glasses. If I zoom in, I can easily read tiny text on the camera's LCD display. But I couldn't if I didn't zoom pretty far in, and at that point text is clearly legible without seeing "pixels", but with the magnification equal to a 16mp display. By design, Fuji's cameras don't zoom in nearly as far as Nikon's, but Fuji's LCD displays still display images way beyond the 2k resolution that you say is all you need. Good for you. Bad for me and bad for most people.

.

NOW - IF - You Don't NEED 16-Mp for Driving a Printer or Something Like that and Let's Say You're ONLY INTERESTED in Getting a 2-Mp FINAL OUTPUT. . . Then Building that Output Frame with the Cleanest & Most Accurate Pixels You Can Get - Makes Sense. . . Doesn't It ?

Sure, but then why buy a 16mp HS50 when by your own admission you only need a 2mp camera, and you can buy older 2mp cameras with very large sensors?

I'd LOVE to HAVE a 2Mp or 4Mp Camera with a 1,000mm Lense System like the HS50EXR Has. . .

I'd TRADE my 16-Mp Sensor in a HEART BEAT for a 4-Mp Sensor - NO ONE to my Knowledge Makes one . . . HOPEFULLY ONE DAY - SOMEONE WILL !

You almost have that camera. B&H sells a "Hello Kitty" camera that has a 2mp sensor. Now all you have to do is stack several 2.2x Raynox TCs in front of its lens.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...Hello_Kitty.html?node14686revisions144286view

.

As far as resolution goes, 2MP should suffice if the user is very young. If you want to view images on a large computer or TV, or enlarge them in prints, a higher resolution is recommended for larger image sizes. Another advantage to having a greater file size is that it makes cropping easier. Most of B&H’s Sakar cameras have 2.1MP resolution, though there is a 7.1MP Hello Kitty among the racks.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guides/cameras-kids

.

You might be happy with cameras that only produce 2mp or 4mp images but I'm not. I used to be quite pleased with the resolution of my Nikon 6mp DSLRs. Now I compare what current APS-C cameras produce compared with older 12mp cameras like the D90 and I can assure you that much less fine detail is seen in 12mp D90 and D300 photos, and that's not looking all the way at the pixel level. What you're arguing is like what someone might say about old film cameras, that photos shot using a Minox's tiny film frames is just as detailed as the photos shot with 35mm rangefinder and SLR cameras, or 70mm Linhofs because they might say "But all I ever get from the photo lab are 2 1/2" x 3 1/2" prints. And your Leica or Nikon's tiny prints really don't look any better.

.

This is an Interesting ASPECT of the Sensor Industry as the "COMMERCIAL TREND" is to Make Sensors with MORE Pixels and Make them CLEANER than Older Style LESS DENSE Sensors. . .

SONY is the ONLY Company I'm Aware of that is Putting Marketing Money into a 12.2 Mp FULL FRAME Sensor Camera Designed for PROFESSIONALS. . . It Has EXTREME Low Light Capability.

Professional VIDEOGRAPHERS, as I already pointed out.

.

Also, are you sure that the "pixels" are really larger? Four L size pixels may be processed to produce a single S size pixel but a pixel really has no size,

Exactly Right - Pixels Themselves have NO SIZE and are ONLY a Packet of Information.

Hallelujah!

.

So IF - Your TARGET is a 2-Mp Display / 2-Mp is ALL You can USE !

Exactly, but don't expect too many others to join you with such as tiny TARGET.

This Directly Relates to WHY Sony's NEWEST FULL FRAME - PROFESSIONAL Camera is ONLY 12-Mp

THEY Fully Realize the Importance of Pixel-Quality Verses Pixel-Quanity ( Sony Alpha a7S 12.2-megapixel interchangeable lens digital camera / $ 2,400 Body ONLY )

NON-sense.

If that's Non-Sense - Why Didn't Sony Use a 24 or 36 Mp Sensor in this Camera ?

You were given the answer. It was just a couple of lines below. It still is. See?

.

Sorry, Sony wasn't going for high pixel quality or high image quality for still photos. They were going for a high quality VIDEO camera, that can produce 4K video that is able to "utilize the entire width of a full-frame image sensor in 4K video acquisition, and does this without cropping or line skipping as it can read and process data from every one of the sensor's pixels. This allows 4K video shooters to utilize all of the artistic and creative benefits provided by the unique sensor."

http://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/slrs/sony_a7s

Yet. There it is. I guess that you missed it.

.

.

As a side benefit the A7s is also very good for shooting in low light, but as you should also realize, Sony's higher resolution full frame cameras are just about as good shooting in low light with the proviso that extra processing is needed to downsize their high resolution photos to the same 12mp size as the A7s. This is precisely what you say you're doing with the HS50, but the difference is that a 12mp A7s photo still has amazing detail, whereas a 2mp HS50 photo doesn't and never will.

I've NEVER Said a HS50EXR COMPETES with a FULL Frame Sensor Camera - I just Pointed Out MY Observations & Methods for Getting the "Best" Output from that Little 1/2" EXR Sensor. . . For Display on a 2-Mp Display Device. . . Which is What MOST of Us Have. . .

But most of us don't limit our cameras' usability to only 2 megapixel images. If that's all you want, I've already said, that's fine. For you. But it's not fine for most people. And in this respect the HS50 isn't being outperformed by full frame sensor cameras. The HS50 as YOU use it is outperformed by your own HS50 as most other people use their HS50s.

.

I will be Happy to Compare SIDE by SIDE my "S" File Size Moon Captures with ANY Other Methods of HS50EXR Moon Shot Captures - I've Done So MANY Times . . . Post Your BEST and I'll POST My BEST and LET the Photo Community CAST THEIR Opinions. . .

You have a short attention span. I already said that the moon photos that I shoot and that you shoot (probably) are resolution limited by the atmosphere, so unless you time it perfectly for an extremely rare great "seeing" condition, L size images won't show more detail that S size photos. But if you take photos that don't have to wade through the Earth's entire atmosphere blanket, such as shooting close objects, trees, buildings, people, test charts, etc., L size photos will ALWAYS show more detail than S size images. Take your photos from the top of Pike's Peak on a cold, clear night with little turbulence in the air and you'll probably see a difference between S size photos and L size moon photos. Where are you shooting your photos anyway? You can't be in a location as poor for shooting the moon as my location, where I have the addition sky glow of NYC to contend with.

.

Nikon shooters are mostly aware that the D800 (now the D810) is about as good as the D4 in low light, especially below ISO 1600 or ISO 3200, but it requires downsizing to the D4's 16mp resolution.

I've been using my old 4mp S5100 off and on during the last week or so and with its 4mp sensor it produces nice photos, but compared with HS35, HS50, D90 or D7100 images, there's little reason to use it other than nostalgia. At least it's far smaller than the HS50 and it costs far less. So why aren't you using one of these 4mp gems?

1. It's Using Relatively OLD Sensor Technology. . . It's NOT Just a Matter of Pixel Count. . . It's Also Low Light Capability ect . . .

But for shooting in bright daylight it doesn't need a modern, more efficient sensor. Your arguments so far have only really been about needing cameras with no more than 2mp resolution. Your HS50 isn't a great camera for shooting in low light. It might be slightly better in low light than some other P&S cameras but in daylight I'll take the S5100's 4mp photos over 2mp photos from the HS50 or a 2mp Hello Kitty camera. Well, I suspect that the Kitty camera's lens isn't all that great but I think you got my point.

.

So be an iconoclast. See if I care.

Cheers from Orion

Right back atcha, Cheerio!

btw - What's Your Take on the Pentax K3 ?

It's an excellent camera but as I have a lot of lenses that don't mount on a K3 I have no take on it. It's probably a very nice camera for someone that wants to advance beyond P&S cameras.

Cheers from Orion

Greetings from Ganymede, the largest moon in the Solar System.

 

[alexisgreat]

PR, I think Orion should get an astronomical camera and telescope and be done with it They have extreme low light sensitivity, because of their low pixel count, built in cooling, low dark noise, and high quantum efficiency, in spite of the small sensor size, I would bet any amount of money that a small sensor astronomical camera with real binning capability will trounce ANY full frame sensored camera out there for low noise, high dynamic range, etc. Not for resolution. In this kind of set up, resolution comes from the telescope in front of the sensor, not from the amount of pixels in the sensor. The sensor can automatically take a bunch of small images (for instance 640x480) and combine them into one large image.

The pleasure of building the perfect astroimaging system from scratch is that you get to pick your own sensor, own lens, own filters (whether to use an IR blocking filter or not, color filter array or not, thermoelectric cooling or not)......you dont get this kind of flexibility in even the most complex dslr system. That's why I posted a long time ago that we should be allowed to build our own cameras from scratch (like you build a computer), and have a modular system using whatever sensor, filters, color filter array or lens that we want and build our own personalized system for our needs, rather than buy a system that someone else has already built for us. I remember you said Ricoh is the closest to making this dream a reality.

 

[photoreddi]

PR, I think Orion should get an astronomical camera and telescope and be done with it They have extreme low light sensitivity, because of their low pixel count, built in cooling, low dark noise, and high quantum efficiency, in spite of the small sensor size, I would bet any amount of money that a small sensor astronomical camera with real binning capability will trounce ANY full frame sensored camera out there for low noise, high dynamic range, etc. Not for resolution. In this kind of set up, resolution comes from the telescope in front of the sensor, not from the amount of pixels in the sensor. The sensor can automatically take a bunch of small images (for instance 640x480) and combine them into one large image.

You may be right, but I'd guess that such a camera would have an atrociously long minimum focus distance and wouldn't have a macro mode.

.

The pleasure of building the perfect astroimaging system from scratch is that you get to pick your own sensor, own lens, own filters (whether to use an IR blocking filter or not, color filter array or not, thermoelectric cooling or not)......you dont get this kind of flexibility in even the most complex dslr system. That's why I posted a long time ago that we should be allowed to build our own cameras from scratch (like you build a computer), and have a modular system using whatever sensor, filters, color filter array or lens that we want and build our own personalized system for our needs, rather than buy a system that someone else has already built for us. I remember you said Ricoh is the closest to making this dream a reality.

Ricoh's menu system is the most powerful, flexible I've ever seen and unlike other companies that never issue firmware updates that add features (only bug fixes), Ricoh perpetually adds useful features. Their GXR cameras also have no sensors. The sensors are built into the lens modules that slide into the body and click in place. The body is also fairly small, so a wide range zoom lens module can be tiny because it uses a tiny sensor, but several lens modules include large APS-C sensors. One "lens" module doesn't even include a lens. It puts a very nice 12mp sensor (that doesn't have an AA filter) behind a Leica mount, and the sensor's microlenses are carefully designed to be a perfect match for Leica and Leica compatible lenses such as those made by Voigtlander and other brands. So where extremely wide angle Leica M-mount lenses produce CA near the borders of the frame when mounted on Fuji's APS-C cameras, the same lenses on the GXR's M-mount don't produce the same CA.

 

[alexisgreat]

I'm thinking my next camera will be a Ricoh :-D I checked out their forum last week, they seem to be pretty helpful there too.

Funny you mentioned the macro thing, if you can couple one of these small sensor cameras to a microscope you will have your macro and super macro mode, but I'm not sure how useful it would be to take pictures of insects landing on flowers and that sort of thing...typically when you look at something with a microscope it's dead (unless it's some kind of microbe.)

There's a few things I just cant get used to with those cameras. For one there isn't an ISO setting, there's a gain slider which is supposed to do the same thing, but I dont know the equivalence between it and ISO. You can adjust the shutter speed but not the aperture, I think the aperture is fixed with whatever lens you are using and that cannot be changed unless you use a reducer or barlow lens (the one doubles it the other halves it, and thus does the same to exposure times and focal length.) You can adjust the shutter speed from one millionth of a second to several hours and thermoelectric cooling of the sensor keeps noise low. I hope they put this technology in digital cameras one day, it'll remove a lot of our noise problems. One of the things I find inconvenient about these cameras is they have to be tethered to a laptop to do all the adjusting, acquisition and storage of images, but on the plus side you can also broadcast a live feed on the internet. I calculated that the 1/3" (8x crop factor) and 1/2" (5.4x crop factor) cameras I have give me anywhere from a 945mm focal length to almost 17,000mm focal length with different scope combos I have. I also have different usb microscopes that have 1/3" or 1/2" sensors on them and up to 3 MP resolution and from 10x to 900x power and powered by LED lights, I haven't used them much but if I ever wanted to know what the vein stucture of a leaf looks like up close, it would be fun to see it on a computer screen. I got them pretty inexpensively (all under 100, some around 50 dollars.)

I like the Orion 180 degree all sky camera, it would be nice to keep outside on a cold night and I could monitor what it sees from a nice warm room inside :-D From what I've been reading you can also do interval shooting with this and record cloud movements, weather changes and meteors in "fast" mode (like you see on tv cameras.) It could capture satellites and who knows what else moving across the sky, too.

http://www.telescope.com/Astrophoto...AllSky-Camera-II/pc/-1/c/4/sc/58/p/101918.uts

Whether used during the day or at night, our Orion StarShoot AllSky Camera II will show you everything in the sky from horizon to horizon with its 180° "fisheye" view.

At night, the StarShoot AllSky II provides a live view of the entire starry sky, which can easily be broadcasted over the internet. Watch the constellations as they appear to move across the sky on their perpetual dance around Polaris. See bright planets as they orbit, and watch the Moon rise, set and change phases night to night. The StarShoot AllSky Camera II can also catch passing meteors, satellites, aircraft, and other celestial phenomena thanks to its 180° view. If you're lucky enough to live in aurora country, the Orion StarShoot AllSky II includes software to make stunning time-lapse movies of the beautiful northern lights.

During daylight hours, the full-color StarShoot AllSky Camera II becomes a real-time window for watching sunrises, sunsets, cloud activity, lightning and other atmospheric phenomena such as aurorae, rainbows, sundogs, crepuscular rays and more! Unlike similar competing models, the StarShoot AllSky Camera II provides a clean, clear view during the day with no blooming, or CCD overload, in direct sunlight (blooming causes a distracting swath of hot pixels to display, ruining daytime views in other cameras).

This second generation AllSky Camera II includes upgraded Orion HandyAVI Special Edition software with convenient computer controls that make setup and adjustment of settings easy from even long distances. The upgraded software makes it easy to share all of your sky online with the world (requires internet connection and standard FTP capabilities) while easy-to-use meteor detection and time lapse tools let you get the most out of this versatile camera. The included software is compatible with Windows XP, Vista (32 bit and 64 bit), 7, and Windows 8 Operating Systems. A 50' dual-purpose RCA/power cable is included.

The rugged weatherproof and tamper-resistant housing of the StarShoot AllSky Camera II features small rubber feet for portable use, and permanent mounting brackets are available (sold separately) for outdoor installations. Set one up at your favorite observing site or home observatory to see if seeing conditions are worthwhile, before you pack up all your gear!

Footage from the StarShoot AllSky Camera can be recorded using the included Orion Video Capture Device and included software to make time lapse images, detect and send meteor images via email or FTP to a website, broadcast your sky live over the internet, and more! With its sensitive, low-lux color CCD imaging sensor and f/1.4 lens housed in a robust, certified weatherproof and tamper-resistant domed housing, the StarShoot AllSky II has a fast 30 fps frame rate to catch even fleeting moments of activity in the sky.

Find out how much fun it can be to see the sky - all of it - with this fun and versatile camera.

The Orion StarShoot AllSky Camera II is compatible with the National Television System Committee (NTSC) standard only, which is used throughout the U.S., Canada, Mexico, South America (excluding Brazil and Argentina), Burma, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Republic of the Philippines, and many Pacific island nations and territories.

Hey, it has an f/1.4 180 degree field of view lens, now that really sounds interesting.....

Some of their other cameras:

http://www.telescope.com/Astrophoto...otography-Camera/pc/-1/c/4/sc/58/p/103030.uts

http://www.telescope.com/Astrophoto...tem-Color-Camera/pc/-1/c/4/sc/58/p/103029.uts

http://www.telescope.com/Astrophoto...r-Imaging-Camera/pc/-1/c/4/sc/58/p/101351.uts

http://www.telescope.com/Astrophoto...e-Imaging-Camera/pc/-1/c/4/sc/58/p/101473.uts

 

[dick52717]

You guys have Diarrhea of the keyboard. Why don't you use e-mail for your rants.?

 

[photoreddi]

You guys have Diarrhea of the keyboard. Why don't you use e-mail for your rants.?

Wow, such ignorance mr. ****. Don't you know the difference between Logorrhea and Diarrhea? Someone that didn't know better might think that you have a bad case of PottyMouth.