Limits of photography with compact digital cameras

Funkstard

So as my first camera I've gotten a Canon Ixus 800. Love the camera so far, but as I begin to learn more about photography, I've began to wonder what boundaries exist with mostly automatic, compact digital cameras compared to SLR's. Take this example; I've been learning about HDR imaging. I've tried it a few times with my camera, but I don't have the ability to alter the aperture with my camera. I can take a shot with an exposure of up to 15s, but at the other end of the scale it's not so manual. I have no option for a remote control either. Now I know I can alter the white balance, ISO, exposure etc. with my camera, but obviously it's worlds away from Digital SLR photography.

Or is it? Do I have the ability to take professional shots with my camera? I know my way around Photoshop which is a help, but when I look at some stunning HDR pictures I can't help but feel that that sort of imagery is out of my grasp until I get a better camera. I would love to start using fisheye lenses etc. and that side of things also. However I can't with the model I have

What do you think?

JMcL

I don't know the specific camera, but you'll probably have difficulty doing multiple exposures for HDRs on it.

If you're doing multiple exposures, you really need to be able to bracket your exposure (ie set the camera up to take say 3 shots in sequence, one at the "correct" exposure, one underexposed by a fixed amount, and one overexposed by the same amount). It's also very important that the camera doesn't move during these, which would be difficult with a compact even on a tripod if you have to go back to make adjustments to take the next shot, which I assume you'll have to do if there's no auto exposure bracketing feature. The problem would be made worse since the small scale of the sensor will magnify any movement.

Since Canon have baninshed RAW in all but SLRs, you unfortunately won't have access to shooting RAW and then processing it multiple times, which would probably help.

I'm sounding very pessimistic for your chances here, but Canon seem to be dumbing down their compact cameras over the past couple of years, even the higher end ones. They want to nudge people who might settle for a well specced prosumer towards an SLR, so they can then sell them loads of lenses

digitalbeginner

The aperture range on compact cameras is very small. Typically the smallest aperture you'll get is f5.6, maybe f8 if you're lucky.

On a Canon 350/400D with a 17-55mm zoom lens you get get as small as f36. This makes a huge difference to depth of field. The smaller the aperture the greater the possible depth of field.

Dave

digitalage

Digitalbegginer, at f8 the DOF on a small compact sensor (11mm diagonal at 5megapixel) would be equivalent too f/32 on an slr. In the compact camera, sensors less than 11mm diffraction severely degrades the image sharpness, thats why they set the aperature above f8. Heres a good link to explain.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

B0rG

digitalage wrote:

Digitalbegginer, at f8 the DOF on a small compact sensor (11mm diagonal at 5megapixel) would be equivalent too f/32 on an slr. In the compact camera, sensors less than 11mm diffraction severely degrades the image sharpness, thats why they set the aperature above f8. Heres a good link to explain.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

f/32? Are you sure? "f" letter there is the focal length btw...

311

Digitalage is right ,the stops are multiplied the same as the lens size is.
This is a quote from a book of mine
"An aperture of 2.8 on a fixed lens digital camera is the same as f11 on an SLR camera." Bryan Peterson ,understanding exposure.

digitalbeginner

digitalage wrote:

Digitalbegginer, at f8 the DOF on a small compact sensor (11mm diagonal at 5megapixel) would be equivalent too f/32 on an slr. In the compact camera, sensors less than 11mm diffraction severely degrades the image sharpness, thats why they set the aperature above f8. Heres a good link to explain.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

Thanks for that. You learn something new every day I have noticed though that many compacts bottom out at less than f5.6 (some even as high as f4) so I assume that we are now talking around f16 in a equivalent SLR.

Of course one of the benefits of an SLR is that you can change the lens if you do need smaller apertures, but with the compacts you're stuck.

B0rG

_Brian_ wrote:

Digitalage is right ,the stops are multiplied the same as the lens size is.
This is a quote from a book of mine
"An aperture of 2.8 on a fixed lens digital camera is the same as f11 on an SLR camera." Bryan Peterson ,understanding exposure.

The quote is useless without additional data: sensor size, focal length, lens to sensor ratio etc etc etc.

Use your brains after all - take your 17-55 at f/32 for ISO 400 (this will be typical on digisoap) and check how big the exposure is going to be. All lenses I have only go up to f/22 and measuring the sky now gives me 1/80 - 1/100 @ f/22 ISO 400.

There is a physics model with f stops (aperture size relative to focal range) but this only works as a model, real lenses compensate for that by using complex optical schemes.

311

B0rG wrote:

The quote is useless without additional data: sensor size, focal length, lens to sensor ratio etc etc etc.

Use your brains after all - take your 17-55 at f/32 for ISO 400 (this will be typical on digisoap) and check how big the exposure is going to be. All lenses I have only go up to f/22 and measuring the sky now gives me 1/80 - 1/100 @ f/22 ISO 400.

There is a physics model with f stops (aperture size relative to focal range) but this only works as a model, real lenses compensate for that by using complex optical schemes.

Would you ever get the boat!

digitalage

Borg I would return your russian to english translator program you have, keeps comming out with garbage . Have'nt got a clue what your trying to say in your last post. If you want figures, scroll down the link I provided and put in all the figures you like under the headin "Depth of Field Equivalents", it alows you to compare dof on different camera types.

JMcL

There was a good article published here on the Luminous Landscape a few days ago, which discusses all this in great detail, hard sums included.

magicbastarder

_Brian_ wrote:

"An aperture of 2.8 on a fixed lens digital camera is the same as f11 on an SLR camera." Bryan Peterson ,understanding exposure.

not for exposure, though, it should be pointed out.
edit: this is based on the assumption that he is talking about depth of field - otherwise ambient lightmeters would have another variable, which would be format; i.e. you'd have to configure it for small, medium, or large format, and all the subdivisions within the latter two.

magicbastarder

digitalbeginner wrote:

On a Canon 350/400D with a 17-55mm zoom lens you get get as small as f36.

serious?
i've never used a lens which goes smaller than f22 on a 35mm lens, due mainly to diffraction effects, and only on long lenses; and since f22 on a 350D lens is bloody small, i'd have thought that you'd have quite noticeable degradation there.

only large format lenses would typically be able to go to something like f64, due to the larger format dictating longer lenses.

Funkstard

Eh folks....

JMcL

Funkstard wrote:

Eh folks....

Errr... your thread has taken a tangent, which while not totally off-topic, is very much not really answering your question in an awful lot of words, formulas, truths, and half truths. I basically stick by my previous post from this morning, that you most probably won't be able to do the muliple exposures for HDRs with the IXUS, and it probably won't give you enough control to do stuff like that.

Since it's your first camera, don't worry about the physics, or diving straight into stuff like HDR, just go out and take photos with it and have fun. No you won't be able to do all the stuff you could do with an SLR, but you can still take good photos. Learn what the various modes do, and how they affect aperture, shutter speed etc, and you'll be able to get some nice creative effects. Use the self timer it it has one. For example, digicams can be great for macros as they have great depth of field

Funkstard

/\ Less of the jargon, more clear advice. Thank you!

Peteee

magicbastarder wrote:

serious?
i've never used a lens which goes smaller than f22 on a 35mm lens, due mainly to diffraction effects, and only on long lenses; and since f22 on a 350D lens is bloody small, i'd have thought that you'd have quite noticeable degradation there.

Just went to f36 on my 300D kit lens there, so it's very possible.

t-stop

magicbastarder wrote:

serious?
i've never used a lens which goes smaller than f22 on a 35mm lens, due mainly to diffraction effects, and only on long lenses; and since f22 on a 350D lens is bloody small, i'd have thought that you'd have quite noticeable degradation there.

only large format lenses would typically be able to go to something like f64, due to the larger format dictating longer lenses.

Yep, I have a 70-300mm that does f/40 at 300mm, and a Tamron 90mm macro lens that stops down to f/64 at 1:1. And I've used those apertures too.

melekalikimaka

...off topic... optical engineers please keep it simple for the plebs..., join us in the engineering forum to discuss this properly

Roen

There was a documentary on C4 where three pro snappers were given cameras. One was given a camera phone, one a point and shoot, and one a pro slr. They all came out with great stuff, even the camera phone guy. A professional photographer gets paid for his/her work. Nothing to do with quality. And trust me I've seen some brutal muck fetch a lot of money.
Sure you'll hit the limits of a phone a lot quicker than a slr but it just goes to show it's the photographer that gets the results.

So to answer your question (and I think you already answered it yourself). Yep get a digital slr, you've obviously outgrown your P&S and know the type of thing you want to get into. And you're at a distinct advantage too, in that you know where you want to go.
Best of luck!






ƒ96 on my 5x4"

Funkstard

Roen wrote:

There was a documentary on C4 where three pro snappers were given cameras. One was given a camera phone, one a point and shoot, and one a pro slr. They all came out with great stuff, even the camera phone guy. A professional photographer gets paid for his/her work. Nothing to do with quality. And trust me I've seen some brutal muck fetch a lot of money.
Sure you'll hit the limits of a phone a lot quicker than a slr but it just goes to show it's the photographer that gets the results.

So to answer your question (and I think you already answered it yourself). Yep get a digital slr, you've obviously outgrown your P&S and know the type of thing you want to get into. And you're at a distinct advantage too, in that you know where you want to go.
Best of luck!

All in good time...I've had my camera for........er...a week. This is definitely something I want to pursue though. I still have a lot to learn with just the basics, stuff like HDR imaging is a 'bit' ahead of me.

And also, it's a bit annoying when everyone goes off into micro detail about the technicals of photography - you should be trying to encourage me, not shut me out!!

311

sorry funkstard for going OT.

Best of luck with the new camera.