Are Small sensor Compact Cameras a waste of time/money?

[Hamish Gill]

I have in the past 5 years had so many compact cameras i can hardly dare to imagine how much money i have spent on them
I have had a
ricoh of some sort
a panasonic fx35
one of the olympus tough cameras
a few sonys
and a few others i cant think of ...
they all shared one attribute that i feel is a fairly major flaw in their design

they all took bad photos!

terible in low light, loads of noise, especially bad chroma noise causing blotches of colours that arnt supposed to be there
even in broad daylight they were flawed by the poor dynamic range

this is all because of the tiny sensors

back in the days of film compact cameras were perfectly capable beasts ... cameras like the olympus mjuii with its excellent 35mm 2.8 lens could take images almost indistinguishable from that of a dslr

when digital came along we had to make do with tiny sensors, this was, and probably still is, down to 2 things

1.cost
2.the way a sensor works differers from film meaning if you were to put a "full frame" sensor in place of the film in (for eg) a mjuii the light hitting the sensor at the edge of the frame wouldnt make it to the light sensitive part causing a heavy vignette ...

the second is obviously a fairly major flaw in sensor design and has held back compacts from having large sensors in all but the most expensive models ... even now the larger sensored (more expensive) "compact" cameras are much bigger because of this ...

so to have a small camera, we are stuck with crap photos ... for me this is no longer a sacrifice i am willing to make ... and is exactly why the panasonic gf1 and now fuji x100 were and are such an attractive option for me ...

but what about you ... are you willing to loose image quality to gain pocket-ability?

as i said, i am not ... and this is why these days my carry everywhere camera is my iphone ... im happy with the compromise in image quality because the camera is just a bonus feature of the phone!

is the life of truly compact cameras limited?
are we just more likely to see phones get such "good" cameras that they make compacts redundant ...
or are compact cameras good enough for the average consumer and im just a snob?

what do you think?

 

[Pete Askew]

I saw a nice quote / question the other day on Luminous Landscaper, "When is an iPhone better than a Hasselblad? When it the only camera you have with you!). I adopted the Ricoh GR Digitals as a camera you could stuff in your pocket a while back and, under non-difficult lighting, they do a great job. However, like you I hanker after something more. Something that can handle low light and has a real viewfinder. The X100 seemed to tick all those boxes except for size. It is a bit smaller than an M9 but is a lot lighter. Not quite as pocketable as the GR III (I do literally stuff it in a jacket pocket) but, having seen the images coming out of the X100, and hearing the praise I suspect I will relent. But I am keen to handle one first, just to make sure.

I don't use an iPhone (or any smart phone for that matter) but, if I did and I wasn't passionate about image making, I suspect that this would do me. In this case, for me then the small sensor compact camera would be redundant and I suspect we are beginning to see that in the market.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I think for 80%+ of people, cr@p image quality is quite acceptable

It's like sound systems - most people listen to cr@p and think it 'sounds great'

The general public has low expectations, and low standards - and they like 'cheap' and they like 'easy'.

I do see more people with some form of DSLR these days - but I'm sure 80%+ of people still reply on snappy cams to record their lives - keeps certain companies in business I guess, and gives the market what it wants.

 

[Ralph Thornton]

This shot was made with a 7-8 year old 3 MP Olympus. It's little built in flash was used to fill in the foreground.

As Pete says, "When it's the only camera you have with you!"
When I took this shot I had just come down that rope and was removing some protection we had placed during the ascent. The little Oly was the only camera I could carry on that little expedition so it definitely was worth having. I processed the image with PS and it sure made a nice 8 x 10 inch print for my son-in-law Ron (the guy hanging on the rope).

So I think having a small sensor compact camera is a great idea!

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Ralph - you are indeed the exception to the rule in this case - great point!

 

[Darren Bradley]

I've also had a variety of compact point&shoot cameras in the past, but their slow lag times, poor DOF, and other issues have always frustrated me to the point that I now just usually carry my DSLR everywhere instead. However, I do still use my Canon D10 underwater camera quite a bit. It's great for vacation pics because I don't worry about it getting wet (in fact, I use it for snorkeling and skiing), and it has enough options that I can manually tweak it to do my bidding - more or less and with lots of limitations, of course. I'd love an X100 or a mirrorless of some sort, but whenever I weigh the cost of one of those vs. buying a new lens or other piece of kit for my DSLR, the latter always seems to win...

 

[Pete Askew]

Actually Darren, you just reminded me of the major irritation I have with most P&S cameras. It is not the image quality / light limitation, it is the lag in the focus / shutter response. What's the point of a P&S camera if when you point it, its shoots the picture just after the one you actually wanted. The Ricoh is no better in this respect. What's the X100 like?

 

[Hamish Gill]

Ralph - you are indeed the exception to the rule in this case - great point!

But of course a big sensor compact (actually compact) would be better ... If only the tech was there to do it and do it well... And for sensible cash ...

 

[Hamish Gill]

I've also had a variety of compact point&shoot cameras in the past, but their slow lag times, poor DOF, and other issues have always frustrated me to the point that I now just usually carry my DSLR everywhere instead. However, I do still use my Canon D10 underwater camera quite a bit. It's great for vacation pics because I don't worry about it getting wet (in fact, I use it for snorkeling and skiing), and it has enough options that I can manually tweak it to do my bidding - more or less and with lots of limitations, of course. I'd love an X100 or a mirrorless of some sort, but whenever I weigh the cost of one of those vs. buying a new lens or other piece of kit for my DSLR, the latter always seems to win...

I have a Sony Tx5 for it's waterproofing ... Don't use it ... Crap image quality ...

 

[Hamish Gill]

Do you know what... I could forgive the lack of control of dof in return for decent image quality ...

My perfect compact (actually small) would be a low res ... Maybe 4mp ... That was awesome in low light - similar noise levels to d3 ... And had decent dynamic range ... With a 28-70 equiv 2.8 lens ...
This is another problem ... The pixel wars continue ... And sensors don't get bigger ... It's madness!

 

[Hamish Gill]

I've put my tx5 batt in charge... Gonna take it to the pub tonight and I'm gonna squeeze some good shots out of it if it kills me!

 

[Larry Bolch]

Phones are chewing on the feet and mirrorless cameras on the heads of P&S cameras. They are if not endangered as a species at least threatened.

Pixel density is a pretty good indicator of a camera's potential, specially in high ISO/low light situations. The lower the density the better.
D700 - 1.4 MP/cm² pixel density
D3x - 2.8 MP/cm²
D300 - 3.3 MP/cm² (X100 as well)
Olympus E3 - 4.2 MP/cm²
Panasonic Lumix G1 - 5 MP/cm²
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ18 - 32 MP/cm²

Compact camera with super-zooms are in the 50 32 MP/cm² range and they have to be. Sony has a camera with an equivalent rage of 27-810mm. With a full-frame or even half frame sensor, the result would be a monster. In a store, numbers sell. A 16MP camera must be at least twice as good as an 8MP camera, right? A 27-810mm zoom range must be at least ten times a good as a 27-85mm range. "Mine is much bigger than yours!"

For many, it is memorializing the moment—and it is not about photography. Scan the galleries of friends on Facebook and marvel at the under-exposed fuzzygraphs of nights in bars that are proudly displayed. These serve as symbols of happy times. Image quality is simply not a consideration. As long as those mugging into the camera are vaguely discernible, the picture is a success. Whether phone or P&S, for this purpose either is good enough.

None the less with a bit of effort, quality images can be produced. The Nevada Bureau of Reclamation requested a portfolio of my desert shots from 2002. These were shot with a Nikon Coolpix 5000—technology nearly ten years old. RAW came along later with a firmware upgrade, so I had to shoot JPEG. With Photoshop CS5, one can open and process JPEGs in Adobe Camera RAW giving a whole lot of control. I would love to have the chance to revisit these scenes with my D700 and X100, but I think the results from nearly a decade back are not bad, all things considered. Please view:

http://www.larry-bolch.com/laughlin/

 

[Ralph Thornton]

The lag between decision to shoot and the actual capture is definitely a problem. Many people who have never used a DSLR complain about the lag on a point and shoot saying how hard it is to get just the right moment.

As far as having a photog join me on me adventures? The images would probably be much better and I'd get more of them. The cost might be a little steep for this poor man's pocket.

 

[Darren Bradley]

The lag between decision to shoot and the actual capture is definitely a problem. Many people who have never used a DSLR complain about the lag on a point and shoot saying how hard it is to get just the right moment.

I wonder why camera manufacturers have never been able to solve that problem. As processors become faster and more compact (Moore's Law), it seems every camera company to the last one has decided to spend the extra processing power they've got on adding more features rather than improving the lag time of the shutter. And yet, this is the one thing everyone complains about. Strange... But camera companies have always been a bit deaf and blind in responding to customer demands or trends.

 

[Larry Bolch]

The lag between decision to shoot and the actual capture is definitely a problem. Many people who have never used a DSLR complain about the lag on a point and shoot saying how hard it is to get just the right moment.

None the less back in Nikon Coolpix 5000 days—nearly a decade ago when lag was far worse—I was very successful in shooting action.
http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/rocketry/
http://www.larry-bolch.com/ephemeral/volleyball/

The lag was not in any way random, in fact digital devices tend to be extremely consistent. Anticipating the shot, a half-press on the shutter button focused and locked the focus. As the peak of action approached, pressing the rest of the way made the exposure with relatively little lag.

In the case of the rocket launches, the cue was the first visible fire or smoke. They did the typical count-down so that was the cue to focus. I pressed the rest of the way and nailed ignition after ignition. Shooting on continuous, I was able to get two or three shots of each launch. As you can see—even with the slowness of a very early digital compact—I got a LOT of keepers.

With volleyball there was just enough time to judge the trajectory of the ball and focus on the player who would interact with it. It only took half-a-dozen shots initially to get the feel for timing, and after that no problem nailing the peak of action.

Anticipation is the key word. My D700 is almost violently fast, but still one can not see the peak of action and then capture it. If you see it—it is already history. The lead time is just somewhat shorter.

 

[Larry Bolch]

I wonder why camera manufacturers have never been able to solve that problem. As processors become faster and more compact (Moore's Law), it seems every camera company to the last one has decided to spend the extra processing power they've got on adding more features rather than improving the lag time of the shutter. And yet, this is the one thing everyone complains about. Strange... But camera companies have always been a bit deaf and blind in responding to customer demands or trends.

The problem has been contrast detection focusing. With most lenses, focus with my D700 is extremely fast, using phase detection. However, if i set it to LiveView in tripod mode—which uses contrast detection—it is glacial. So far, no one has found a way to do phase detection without a mirror.

That said, the Fuji X100—which necessarily uses contrast detection—reacts acceptably fast. None the less, as with all cameras, anticipation is key. You can not take a picture of a moment that you have already seen. No camera can roll back time, but a lot of people with P&S cameras seem to think that it should be possible.

 

[Darren Bradley]

The Nevada Bureau of Reclamation requested a portfolio of my desert shots from 2002. These were shot with a Nikon Coolpix 5000—technology nearly ten years old. RAW came along later with a firmware upgrade, so I had to shoot JPEG. With Photoshop CS5, one can open and process JPEGs in Adobe Camera RAW giving a whole lot of control. I would love to have the chance to revisit these scenes with my D700 and X100, but I think the results from nearly a decade back are not bad, all things considered. Please view:

http://www.larry-bolch.com/laughlin/

Those are great pics, Larry, and certainly prove the rule once again that a good photographer is more important than a good camera, and with the right skills you can make anything work. Nicely done. But I have to say you can still certainly tell that those were shot with a point & shoot, for the lack of DOF and noise...

 

[Paul Lange]

I think the nail was hit on the head when the issue of pixel wars was mentioned. Manufacturers just want to be able to claim bigger numbers while producing more cheaply. My wife has a small Sony 7MP camera which actually has quite good image quality. When away for work I needed a camera to document something. I happened upon the Sony camera that had replaced the model my wife had so I bought that. It was 10MP, almost the same design but also obviously had much cheaper build quality. The imagine quality is really quite bad!

I think it very likely that a really good compact could be made but I don't think it's high on manufactures agendas. Most people want bum, tit and willy cameras to take down the pub so they can splash their drunken exploits on FB.