question a
It's been said that compact digitals don't give such good results as DSLRs in low light conditions. What is the reason for this? Is it really a failure of the camera or more a failing in technique. It is true that most budget compact digital cameras don't allow for manual control over ISO.. but using a high ISO setting can cause problems in picture quality due to noise. But on a basic compact I can set the camera on a tripod with a slower shutter speed and normal ISO. This should give almost as good results as a DSLR? All other conditions being equal? Or is there something intrinsic to the DSLR (other than the ability to control the ISO) that makes it better suited for low light photography?
Answer
Point and shoots have much smaller sensors than DSLRs (Digital SLR). They're made smaller so that the actual P&S cameras could be made much smaller. Smaller sensors mean smaller individual photo-lenses, and that means they collect less light than bigger ones. Less light means more amplification is needed. More amplification means more noise.
This problem is pixel density.
Let's take a 10 megapixel point and shoot.
The average P&S has a 1 1/6" image sensor. 1 1/6" sensors are approximately 7.5 mm x 5.5 mm. That means the sensor has roughly 41.25 square millimeters in which to fit small photo-lenses. When you try to stick 10 million pixels into an area of 41.25 mm^2 you end up with a pixel density of approximately 242,500 individual pixels per square millimeter of sensor area.
Compare this with a popular DSLR sensor format. The Canon 40D has an APS-C sized sensor with 10.1 megapixels. Its sensor is 22.2 mm x 14.8 mm, which makes 328.56 mm^2. This gives this camera a pixel density of just 30,438 pixels per square millimeter.
So, imagine how having eight times the pixel density in the point and shoot affects its image quality.
The pixel density argument also leads to the fact that in order to fit all of those pixels into that small of a space, camera manufacturers have to make the actual photo-lenses smaller. This is what leads to noise problems.
The smaller the photo-lenses, the less light they can collect. This leads to the camera having to significantly amplify the signals coming from the sensor.
We all know what happens when you have an over-amplified guitar right? That's what creates distortion. Now, in music it can be very desirable, but not in photography.
Another thing that comes with point and shoot cameras is the lack of bokeh. With a P&S you won't be able to get that great blurry background that we all love.
So, in my mind, that's the main disadvantage of point and shoots.
If you're a visual learner like me, this should help.
These are from http://imaging-resource.com/
10 megapixel Canon 40D
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E40D/FULLRES/E40DINI0100.HTM
10 megapixel Canon SD900 P&S
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SD900/FULLRES/SD900INI0080.HTM
Open both pictures (they're the same scene) and move the windows to where you can see the top left corner of both pictures at the same time.
You'll see the degradation of the P&S image when compared to the DSLR.
Hope this helps!
Point and shoots have much smaller sensors than DSLRs (Digital SLR). They're made smaller so that the actual P&S cameras could be made much smaller. Smaller sensors mean smaller individual photo-lenses, and that means they collect less light than bigger ones. Less light means more amplification is needed. More amplification means more noise.
This problem is pixel density.
Let's take a 10 megapixel point and shoot.
The average P&S has a 1 1/6" image sensor. 1 1/6" sensors are approximately 7.5 mm x 5.5 mm. That means the sensor has roughly 41.25 square millimeters in which to fit small photo-lenses. When you try to stick 10 million pixels into an area of 41.25 mm^2 you end up with a pixel density of approximately 242,500 individual pixels per square millimeter of sensor area.
Compare this with a popular DSLR sensor format. The Canon 40D has an APS-C sized sensor with 10.1 megapixels. Its sensor is 22.2 mm x 14.8 mm, which makes 328.56 mm^2. This gives this camera a pixel density of just 30,438 pixels per square millimeter.
So, imagine how having eight times the pixel density in the point and shoot affects its image quality.
The pixel density argument also leads to the fact that in order to fit all of those pixels into that small of a space, camera manufacturers have to make the actual photo-lenses smaller. This is what leads to noise problems.
The smaller the photo-lenses, the less light they can collect. This leads to the camera having to significantly amplify the signals coming from the sensor.
We all know what happens when you have an over-amplified guitar right? That's what creates distortion. Now, in music it can be very desirable, but not in photography.
Another thing that comes with point and shoot cameras is the lack of bokeh. With a P&S you won't be able to get that great blurry background that we all love.
So, in my mind, that's the main disadvantage of point and shoots.
If you're a visual learner like me, this should help.
These are from http://imaging-resource.com/
10 megapixel Canon 40D
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E40D/FULLRES/E40DINI0100.HTM
10 megapixel Canon SD900 P&S
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/SD900/FULLRES/SD900INI0080.HTM
Open both pictures (they're the same scene) and move the windows to where you can see the top left corner of both pictures at the same time.
You'll see the degradation of the P&S image when compared to the DSLR.
Hope this helps!
What is the best compact digital camera for low light situations?
Q. Looking for the best compact (non-SLR) digital camera for shooting in low light without a flash. Needs to have a street price of less than $500. I've seen the Lumix DMC-LX5 which has an f2.0 lens. Is there anything comparable to this or better on the market? Thanks.
Answer
I would suggest the Canon S95. f/2 lens, pocketable, very good image quality, and it costs about $450-$470.
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_s95
I would suggest the Canon S95. f/2 lens, pocketable, very good image quality, and it costs about $450-$470.
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/digital_cameras/powershot_s95
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Why is a compact digital camera not so good in low light conditions?
Rating: 94% based on 99768 ratings. 4,5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thank FOr Coming TO My Blog
Rating: 94% based on 99768 ratings. 4,5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thank FOr Coming TO My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment