Sensor size - optical zoom question / Bridge camera

[Michael Fryd]

My take away message posted earlier is not just from that surfer shot.

The flaws in all your posted photos were highlighted earlier by ausjena and are consistent with comments posted by FingerPainter and others in other threads where you post the same group of photos.

I am puzzled as to why someone with supposedly the amount of experience you claim to have, those images are the best you can come up with to support your opinions of your preferred camera's image quality.

But if you are happy with the quality of the sooc jpegs from your camera, all well and good and so just keep doing what works best for you. No-one is telling you to do anything differently.

I can produce higher quality images than the sooc jpegs you post by manually post processing my camera's raw image data and so I will keep doing what works best for me.

I do not doubt that "you" can.

But this is a beginners forum, often questions about "first" camera, often for basic family/travel, and obviously not experienced w/ PS/LR.

In today's world, the "first" camera most people have is built into their smart phone.

Today's smart phones have far more processing power than most bridge or interchangeable lens cameras. Smart phones have amazing image processing capabilities and can produce some good looking JPEG images, without additional processing.

To be fair, if you start pixel peeping, or want to make large prints, the image processing artifacts may become quite noticeable.

And everyone has a budget.

Yes, many people have a budget. For many, the cost of a smart phone is zero, as they will be buying a smart phone whether or not they get a traditional camera.

However most are not familiar w/ "bridge" cameras and I feel a responsibility to FULLY inform them of options they not only don't know, but ANY MENTION of them will get a negative response as I ALWAYS do here.I keep asking the question, (and never get an answer), as to what is better ...1.) A FEW images of optimum IQ, taken with a camera w/ fewer options & features ...

If your goal is to "fully inform" beginners, then you should present the facts, rather than conclusions.

It is informative to tell a beginner what bridge cameras can and cannot do. It is s hard sales pitch to make the claim that they should buy a bridge camera because of the false claim that the images presented could not be taken with a full frame camera.

or ...

2.) 10X more images because of available speed & convenience and additional options & features, (than otherwise possible at a TOTAL budget price of $500/$800) ???

Your point seems to be that if their total budget is in that range, and if these are the features that are important to them, then they should buy a bridge camera.

However, you have failed to make the case that these are the needs of every beginner.

Furthermore, you have neglected to make the case as to why the bridge camera is a better choice than the smart phone they already have. Not everyone needs to shoot photos of surfers a mile away.

I submit the photos are good examples to beginners as to what the camera is capable of , w/out PP skills.

I still maintain that presenting SOOC is the only way to compare "cameras", (not PP skills).

That's an interesting claim. When you compare Straight Out Of the Camera (SOOC) images, you are comparing the underlying image quality of the capture, the quality of the image processing, and the appropriateness of the camera settings to the scene being shot.

It seems to me, that this is only applicable to someone who is not interested in ever processing their images, and also is not interested in every changing camera settings.

I would expect that such a person would be far happier with a good smart phone camera.

But in any case, you have made an excellent point that your recommendations are only applicable to people who will never process their images, and have no interest in adjusting camera settings, yet don't want to use the amazing image processing capabilities of their smart phone camera.

I have also mentioned that most all of my photos were from the first two months after its purchase because my life-situation changed and I have not traveled (much) since, so all my shooting now is more local.

Yes. You have made an excellent case that after two months of learning to use a bridge camera, even a highly experienced, and competent photographer such as yourself, will not be able to get great image quality out of a bridge camera.

I also still work 2-jobs, and simply don't have time to PP.

Again, not everyone is in your position. Some people enjoy processing their photos to get the images they want.

It is a mistake to assume that all beginner photographers are as good as you, yet don't want to process their images.

I also point out that most of my photos were indeed approximately 1.5 miles away, (and some 6.5-miles w/ digital-zoom).

The 1.5 mile shots include the Capitol/Moon @ 800mm, the volcano/fire, the church, and waterfall, etc.

Yes, your examples have made it clear that bridge camera don't produce high quality images under these circumstances.

I show both (25-400/800mm extremes), and it may not be obvious but some were only (easily/fast) possible with Fully-Articulating LCD, (which is more common now on cameras but was unique when the FZ1000 was released), and SUN-light fill-flash only possible w/ "LEAF" shutter.

You clearly are a big fan of fully articulating LCDs. However you have yet to make the case why that is an important feature for a beginner photographer.

Are you suggesting that a beginner photographer taking portraits, or family photos, should be holding the camera high above their head, down low to the floor, or at arms length? Standard practice is to hold the camera up to your eye. This reduces camera shake. Why do you think beginners should avoid holding the camera to their eye? Why should they operate the bridge camera as if it were a smart phone?

I challenge anyone to reproduce equivalent SOOC shots from a "$500" camera/lens.

And I have no-doubt they indeed could be improved w/ PP, but if I am able to sell them as-is for $700, (and NEVER had anyone comment negatively about them), then why-not ???

I have friends that sell their smart phone images in galleries, and get good money for them. Thank you for reminding us that high image quality is not important for producing marketable images. You are correct in that the image quality from smart phones, bridge cameras, etc., can be good enough to produce a marketable image. You have also made the case that it isn't as good as what one can get from other cameras.

But you do have a point. One can carefully pick images to show that any camera is the right choice. My smart phone can take images that a bridge camera won't. In a low light environment, my smart phone will automatically shoot multiple images, and use sophisticated image processing to produce a good looking SOOC image. That's something your bridge camera simply cannot do.

My smart phone has a very close minimum focus distance, and the flash works at these short distances. If we make the assumption that this is something very important to beginners, then we would come to the conclusion that bridge cameras are a bad choice. Of course, in the real world, not every beginner is interested in macro photography.

Now, I am not saying that a smart phone is the best choice for every beginner. I am saying that we can craft situations where the smart phone is going to be the best match for our carefully chosen criteria.

.

Again, I am not saying bridge cameras are bad. I am saying that there are a lot of choices out there. Each of those choices will have various strengths and weaknesses. The best choice for a photographer (beginner or experienced) will be the one that is the best match for his/her individual needs. Sometimes that will be a bridge camera. Sometimes it will be an interchangeable lens camera. Sometimes it will be a smart phone.

There is no single camera (or class of camera) that is best for everyone's needs.

 

[pdggp]

Let’s go easy here guys. Nothing to be gained from open and somewhat useless arguments on open forum. I would hate to have to step in with bans…..

 

[Bob A L]

If you really believe your posted sooc jpeg images are high quality, then why not post links to their original raw files and I am certain that people will be able to show you how to output better quality images than the sooc jpegs by processing the raw data.

On this particular point, I don't understand how this would be possible.

I am also a died in the wool jpeg shooter who wishes people would quit running this method down just because they can't get jpegs out of their camera that satisfy them. But don't care how you process your photos and wish you didn't care how I set my camera up to produce jpegs.

But back to the point about how I could post original raw files of my images when I do not have my camera record raw images, that is part of the value of in camera jpegs to me. I can't post a link to something I don't have.

 

[Michael Fryd]

If you really believe your posted sooc jpeg images are high quality, then why not post links to their original raw files and I am certain that people will be able to show you how to output better quality images than the sooc jpegs by processing the raw data.

On this particular point, I don't understand how this would be possible.

The implication here is that if someone is posting images for the purpose of demonstrating camera quality, they should post raw files. If they don't have the raw files, perhaps they should pick different images to demonstrate image quality.

SOOC Jpegs are the results of many factors (including the currently selected image processing parameters), therefore it is hard to judge camera quality based on those images.

For instance, selecting inappropriate processing settings on a high end full frame camera, can easily produce low quality SOOC results.

My camera allows me to select various tone curves, different levels of sharpening, noise reduction, saturation, etc. A SOOC JPEG is as much a demonstration of the processing choices I made, as of the camera's capabilities.

I am also a died in the wool jpeg shooter who wishes people would quit running this method down just because they can't get jpegs out of their camera that satisfy them. But don't care how you process your photos and wish you didn't care how I set my camera up to produce jpegs.

There is nothing wrong with shooting JPEG and using the SOOC images. If you are happy with the results, then there is no need to change your workflow.

Using SOOC images requires a slightly different skill set than post processing raw. For instance, a SOOC photographer needs to make sure the white balance is appropriately set before they press the shutter button. A raw shooter can play around with finding the right white balance when processing the raw.

Similarly, someone who uses SOOC images has to be more careful with lighting. A SOOC shooter is limited in how much he can lift the shadows with camera processing settings. This means he may need to resort to additional lighting where a raw shooter would be able to lift the shadows when processing the image.

I am not suggesting that one is right and the other wrong, just the skill set needed is different for the two.

I think it's also fair to say that there are some situations that are quite challenging to a SOOC shooter, but are much easier for someone processing raw files. For instance, if the white balance is varying across the frame, this is adjustable when processing. I

With SOOC shooters, you may be limited the available graduated neutral density filters. Raw shooters have the option of using a custom gradation that matches their image contents.

Of course, not everyone has the same needs. Many people don't need/want the flexibility of shooting raw.

But back to the point about how I could post original raw files of my images when I do not have my camera record raw images, that is part of the value of in camera jpegs to me. I can't post a link to something I don't have.

Yes. But if you wanted to demonstrate the level of quality that your camera can achieve, then you might want to consider taking a few shots in raw to post online. While your SOOC jpegs can demonstrate your artistic skill, they are not the best choice for showing the camera's capabilities.

 

[Danno B]

Spot on