Night Work--"...the enemy of the good (enough)."

I was going to bed and noticed snow plowing at a neighbor's house. I grabbed the camera nearest me, the SX720HS and took some shots. Are they perfect? of course not. The 720 is not made for night work. Are they good enough? You be the judge.

Snowplow lighting up the end of the block with his work lights. Notice the star high up. Not quite pinpoint, but not bad for a hand-held normal exposure.

Zoomed in a little. The funky tree shadows are from the streetlight, which has 3 LED emitters.

I have seldom tried this with a 1/2.3" sensor. I had an ideal vantage point with a solid window frame to brace the camera. I didn't feel like walking downstairs for my G95.

Jack Tingle wrote:

I was going to bed and noticed snow plowing at a neighbor's house. I grabbed the camera nearest me, the SX720HS and took some shots. Are they perfect? of course not. The 720 is not made for night work. Are they good enough? You be the judge.

Snowplow lighting up the end of the block with his work lights. Notice the star high up. Not quite pinpoint, but not bad for a hand-held normal exposure.

All dependent on how you want to use the image; i.e., not great for doing large prints.

With a little PP to taste/ downsizing, be fine for display resolution size for sharing online; or small 6x4 inch snapshot prints.

IMO the 'overall' optimum pixel resolution for 1/2.3" sensor is 12 MP. Anything above the 12 MP is increasing diminishing returns due to the smaller pixel area size/ increased image noise.

Note that older Olympus TG-4 had 16 MP and overall IQ poor. With the newer Olympus TG-5 and TG-6 are back to 12 MP and much better overall IQ.

I give KUDOS to Nikon for keeping their newer 1/2.3" sensor cameras to 16 MP.

Still keeping/ using my SX50HS, ZS50, FZ200, and other 12MP 1/2.3" sensor cameras.

Cheers,
Jon

Jon_T wrote:

Jack Tingle wrote:

I was going to bed and noticed snow plowing at a neighbor's house. I grabbed the camera nearest me, the SX720HS and took some shots. Are they perfect? of course not. The 720 is not made for night work. Are they good enough? You be the judge.

Snowplow lighting up the end of the block with his work lights. Notice the star high up. Not quite pinpoint, but not bad for a hand-held normal exposure.

All dependent on how you want to use the image; i.e., not great for doing large prints.

With a little PP to taste/ downsizing, be fine for display resolution size for sharing online; or small 6x4 inch snapshot prints.

IMO the 'overall' optimum pixel resolution for 1/2.3" sensor is 12 MP. Anything above the 12 MP is increasing diminishing returns due to the smaller pixel area size/ increased image noise.

Agreed, although a bit of testing may knock that down to 6-8 if you're very particular about sharp edges.

I did a set of comparisons on the similar ZS70 & the 20 Mpx setting had a very slight edge over the 10 Mpx, mainly due to better shading. I eventually left my P&Ss at 20, mainly because 64 GB cards are dirt cheap. If I needed space, I'd switch to 10 without a qualm.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66190793

Note that older Olympus TG-4 had 16 MP and overall IQ poor. With the newer Olympus TG-5 and TG-6 are back to 12 MP and much better overall IQ.

I give KUDOS to Nikon for keeping their newer 1/2.3" sensor cameras to 16 MP.

Still keeping/ using my SX50HS, ZS50, FZ200, and other 12MP 1/2.3" sensor cameras.

Jack Tingle wrote:

... Agreed, although a bit of testing may knock that down to 6-8 if you're very particular about sharp edges. ...

IMO downsizing more about reducing the affects of image noise; which helps with "appearance" of being sharper. downsizing IQ results will vary with the app and filter/ method used.

... I did a set of comparisons on the similar ZS70 & the 20 Mpx setting had a very slight edge over the 10 Mpx, ....

Been using various (Kodak, Olympus, Canon. Panasonic, etc.) small compacts since 1998.

Over the years I've read numerous full reviews, done my own tests with images from the cameras I've owned, and downloaded images (JPG, TIF, RAW) from online reviews.

I mainly shoot RAW for the better highlights/ shadows recovery, and noise reduction as I do fair amount of shooting in low light/ adverse lighting conditions.

I've bought the Panasonic compacts (e.g., ZS50) for the EVF and RAW; rather than Canon compacts.

Cheers,
Jon

The Canon SX720HS's advantage is its pocketability. The lack of a flip screen & EVF make it very compact. Which is why it was the closest camera.

Jack Tingle wrote:

The Canon SX720HS's advantage is its pocketability. The lack of a flip screen & EVF make it very compact. Which is why it was the closest camera.

To each his/ her own needs/ preferences.

For me no RAW = NO GO.

Camera pictured not ZS50, though dimensions are right. ZS50 does not have the flip rear display either.

if needed the ZS50's PP iZoom images can provide good enough IQ.

1462mm EFL

1322mm EFL

ZS50 1600 ISO PP RAW. In the original image was unable to distinguish the pizza in the foreground. The booth behind the girl was complexity dark/ no details—exposure set to prevent highlights being blown-out.

When pocket size a higher priority I'll use my S110.

Jon

Jack Tingle wrote:

I was going to bed and noticed snow plowing at a neighbor's house. I grabbed the camera nearest me, the SX720HS and took some shots. Are they perfect? of course not. The 720 is not made for night work. Are they good enough? You be the judge.

Snowplow lighting up the end of the block with his work lights. Notice the star high up. Not quite pinpoint, but not bad for a hand-held normal exposure.

Zoomed in a little. The funky tree shadows are from the streetlight, which has 3 LED emitters.

I have seldom tried this with a 1/2.3" sensor. I had an ideal vantage point with a solid w

indow frame to brace the camera. I didn't feel like walking downstairs for my G95.

"If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing badly" G.K. Chesterton. That's my guiding principle for snapshots!

Cyril Catt wrote:

"If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing badly" G.K. Chesterton. That's my guiding principle for snapshots!

Yep there are numerous variations of that quote. "IMO" that one has a "defeatist attitude"; i.e., set your goal low enough so you'll never be disappointed.

I prefer the (most likely the original):
"Whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well."
Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield, in a letter to his son back in 1774

As to "doing well" I've previously posted:
"... All dependent on how you want to use the image ..."
"... To each his/ her own needs/ preferences ..."

Jack Tingle wrote:

I was going to bed and noticed snow plowing at a neighbor's house. I grabbed the camera nearest me, the SX720HS and took some shots. Are they perfect? of course not. The 720 is not made for night work. Are they good enough? You be the judge.

Snowplow lighting up the end of the block with his work lights. Notice the star high up. Not quite pinpoint, but not bad for a hand-held normal exposure.

Zoomed in a little. The funky tree shadows are from the streetlight, which has 3 LED emitters.

I have seldom tried this with a 1/2.3" sensor. I had an ideal vantage point with a solid window frame to brace the camera. I didn't feel like walking downstairs for my G95.

I like the first one best and think it's lovely.  I like the blue sky (looks blue to me) and the clouds.   I think you and your camera did a great job with a not so easy shot.

Mina J

Jon_T wrote:

Cyril Catt wrote: "If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing badly" G.K. Chesterton. That's my guiding principle for snapshots!

Yep there are numerous variations of that quote. "IMO" that one has a "defeatist attitude"; i.e., set your goal low enough so you'll never be disappointed.

I prefer the (most likely the original): "Whatever is worth doing at all, is worth doing well." Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield, in a letter to his son back in 1774

As to "doing well" I've previously posted:
"... All dependent on how you want to use the image ..."
"... To each his/ her own needs/ preferences ..."

I agree. The bare Chesterton quotation is certainly open to interpretation as "If it's worth doing - anyhow will do, whilst the Earl's is "If you can't do a good job - don't bother doing it".   When I first started photography, with costly film and processing, and little pocket money, I favoured the Earl's attitude.

But now, with much more automated imaging equipment, and almost costless 'snaps'. I prefer to interpret Chesterton's maxim as "If it's an interesting / unusual / amusing / rare subject, or likely to only be available for a brief instant; or the lighting's not right / or you don't have time to set up your camera properly, or the camera's quality's not suitable - at least make your best attempt."