Can someone highlight inherent problems in a pic, that stem from it being taken on a compact?

dug777

Lifer
Oct 13, 2004
24,778
4
0
I picked a random shot from our trip to the zoo today, and I've uploaded it as it came off the camera, so it's about 3mb (I assume that's the only way to really consider it properly?)

It's not a great shot at all, but what I'm interested in is having the technical shortcomings of compact's rather small and reasonably high mp sensors exposed by those who actually have have an understanding of this area, in a real live photo :)

Taken with the gf's Sony DSC-W35 (7.2mp).

http://pics.bbzzdd.com/users/dug777/WhiteRhino.JPG

From my fairly uninformed viewpoint, it doesn't seem as nearly as punchy and crisp as the stuff my D80 puts out, but that doesn't surprise me, as the D80 has much larger sensor, and the 18-135mm Nikkor would be vastly better optically than the 'Zeiss' :)P) optics on the W-35 ;)

EDIT: I've also noticed some kinda orange fringing on the edge of dark objects that have a light background behind them, when looking the pic at 100% zoom...
 

OdiN

Banned
Mar 1, 2000
16,431
3
0
Well the optics is a major drawback. You are going to get more artifacts such as purple fringing and other chromatic abberations than with a more professional lens and camera. A lot of this has to do with the coatings on higher end glass, and just better design. But you definitely pay for it. Also many compacts use CMOS sensors which are more prone to noise, and are also less sensitive to light. However, Canon still uses CMOS sensors for their pro cameras and they do very well, but I imagine are higher quality CMOS sensors than are in compacts. Nikon uses CCD sensors.

Some compacts use a smaller sensor and run some processing on the image to double the size. So with a 3MP sensor you get a 6MP image. I know some of the Fuji cameras do this as Fuji developed this sensor (SuperCCD). I don't know how many and what cameras still do.

Also anytime that you shrink the size of a sensor and still keep it's output at a higher MP level, you are going to lose resolution. More, smaller pixels crammed closer together, vs. larger pixel sizes, but on a larger surface area. By resolution I'm not talking MP's here. If you take a photo from an 8MP pro-level camera and take the same photo at the same settings with a compact, zoom in and you will see that the pro camera can capture more detail.

Hopefully this will explain some things...I'm definitely no expert on the technological aspect of sensors though.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
The closer the photoreceptors are on the sensor, the more ISO matters. A smaller sensor means much, much, more noise than a larger sensor at the same ISO.

That being said, I don't know why people rip on point and shoots so much. There are absolutely horrible cameras out there (both slr and non-slr), but some point and shoots can take truly spectacular images. Nobody 'needs' a DSL with $5,000 worth of gear to take gorgeous pictures. Sigh, ignore me.
 

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
35
91
Like Odin said, there are a bunch of problems with the optics. It's hard to economically create such small lenses that have the high level of optical quality as bigger SLR lenses. In the picture you took above you'll notice fringing and a loss of detail as you move closer to the edges of the frame, which shows the limitations of the glass. With these cameras being just $300-400 a pop and considering their class and intended target market, manufacturers aren't going to go all out on optical quality.

On top of the noise issue, smaller sensors also have less dynamic range than larger sensors.

There's also the in-camera processing of some cameras that effect images. Many manufacturers go way overboard with noise reduction, with Panasonic being notorious for this.

While I have seen great photos taken with point and shoots, I have never seen said photos in their original size. They're always at some small resolution lower than 1024 x whatever, and frankly, LOTS of things can look sharp, detailed, and flawless at that resolution. A 3MP camera can look good at that resolution. It's essentially forcing the viewer to step back and look at the picture from a distance.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,414
8,356
126
Originally posted by: OdiN
Well the optics is a major drawback. You are going to get more artifacts such as purple fringing and other chromatic abberations than with a more professional lens and camera. A lot of this has to do with the coatings on higher end glass, and just better design. But you definitely pay for it. Also many compacts use CMOS sensors which are more prone to noise, and are also less sensitive to light. However, Canon still uses CMOS sensors for their pro cameras and they do very well, but I imagine are higher quality CMOS sensors than are in compacts. Nikon uses CCD sensors.

Some compacts use a smaller sensor and run some processing on the image to double the size. So with a 3MP sensor you get a 6MP image. I know some of the Fuji cameras do this as Fuji developed this sensor (SuperCCD). I don't know how many and what cameras still do.

Also anytime that you shrink the size of a sensor and still keep it's output at a higher MP level, you are going to lose resolution. More, smaller pixels crammed closer together, vs. larger pixel sizes, but on a larger surface area. By resolution I'm not talking MP's here. If you take a photo from an 8MP pro-level camera and take the same photo at the same settings with a compact, zoom in and you will see that the pro camera can capture more detail.

Hopefully this will explain some things...I'm definitely no expert on the technological aspect of sensors though.

iirc, pretty much all compacts use CCD sensors.


the biggest problem with digital is that it has far lower exposure latitude than negative film. even SLRs have just barely more exposure latitude than positive film. compact cameras are well behind that, iirc. you can do some pretty amazing things with color negative film when you harness the exposure latitude (say, perfectly exposed sky and subject). digital cameras usually have to manipulate the colors to try to achieve the same result.
 

soydios

Platinum Member
Mar 12, 2006
2,708
0
0
Odin is right about resolution != megapixels. The Nikon D2Hs, with only 4.1MP, produces some impressively sharp images.

About the small camera, a portion of it is the sensor, but a lot is also the optics. Just look at the corners of that picture: they're noticeably blurry compared to the center.