Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Compact travel camera + raw picture mode

  • 18-04-2008 3:47pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭


    I'm looking for a new camera, generally for travel, so I've been browsing the compact and ultra-compact cameras.

    I would prefer a camera that could save the images in a lossless format, but as far as I can tell, this just doesn't happen in the compact to ultra-compact range. If anyone knows any different I would love to know about it. I did find the odd one using www.dpreview.com comparison page, but they were all <4MP cameras, and pretty old.

    If I want a very small tidy camera for travelling (i.e. not much bigger than the casio exilim series), should I just abandon trying to get one which can save to RAW, and just look for one that produces a good image and convert that to a lossless format on the PC before making any changes?

    The other thing that has become apparent to me is that more mega-pixels doesn't necessary guarantee a good picture, in general you need to combine it with a larger sensor. Does the quality tend to be about the relative size of pixels to sensor size? Is there any kind of guide out there to explain what the effects of the sensor size v's pixels are on image quality/noise?

    *I just spotted the Cannon PowerShot G9 has the raw mode feature, so that might just be the one for me, given that it's also in a compact size. Don't know how I missed that on the dpreview comparison web page.


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 39,900 ✭✭✭✭Mellor


    The other thing that has become apparent to me is that more mega-pixels doesn't necessary guarantee a good picture, in general you need to combine it with a larger sensor. Does the quality tend to be about the relative size of pixels to sensor size? Is there any kind of guide out there to explain what the effects of the sensor size v's pixels are on image quality/noise?

    I've said that for ages,
    10 MP is great, but when you are only ever viewing it on a 2MP screen, then its a bit pointless. Except of course for the "eat up memory on card feature".
    I've take a larger sensor over more pixels any day, with the tiny sensors in compacts, each pixel isn't likely to be "optimised"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    I tell my friend to shoot at 4-6mp on her compact cameras unless she really wants to print big (at which point the noise/blurring will probably make the print look mediocre at best).

    As for the OP's question:
    I shoot jpeg almost exclusively on my dSLR (except when the lighting condition is so so horrible that I can't recover it in CS2 later - I even shot a gig with jpeg and crazy lighting).

    So RAW isn't really necessary unless you really want to painstakingly go over every photo to eek out the best from the image (in my opinion).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,843 ✭✭✭Arciphel


    I shoot exclusively in RAW and I love it. I don't understand why anyone would buy a DSLR that can shoot in RAW and then shoot in JPEG?

    If you don't want to tweak each image then you don't have to, you can develop them all a standard way. But if you are printing large and you want to have good quality, i think you are hindering yourself by sticking to JPEG.

    I know RAW takes up more space, but delete as you go, or better yet buy another memory card! :p Better to have the RAW image somewhere if you need it, rather than be stuck with a lossy JPEG.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Fionn


    i sometimes shoot in RAW and jpeg just in case i need the extra that RAW will afford although most times the jpegs are sufficient.

    on the compact camera thing - the Sigma offering is interesting, it has a large APS sensor http://www.sigma-dp1.com/
    I'm wondering will any of the other manufacturers consider this as a market worth going into. Wouldn't mind a good compact myself


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    The OP is probably looking for a Canon G9.

    ___________________________________

    On the wider debate of RAW versus JPG it is not that straightforward. A lot depends on what you want to do.

    EG:

    40D fps 6.5 maximum burst 17 shots RAW which is less than 3 seconds shooting time
    40D fps 6.5 maximum burst 75 shots jpg Fine which is a bit mroe than 3 seconds. I need the fps and I need the camera to record past 3 seconds and I don't need the camera to cost me 4000 by way of a 1D Mk III. I will be shooting these things in jpg going forward because the maximum burst limits wrecked several shots on me yesterday.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    ....

    The other thing that has become apparent to me is that more mega-pixels doesn't necessary guarantee a good picture, in general you need to combine it with a larger sensor. Does the quality tend to be about the relative size of pixels to sensor size? Is there any kind of guide out there to explain what the effects of the sensor size v's pixels are on image quality/noise?...

    Theres more to it than just the sensor. Theres the quality of the lense and also the quality of the electronics aswell. The only way to know whats a good camera is to read reviews and forums to see what people are using.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 273 ✭✭electrofelix


    Arciphel wrote: »
    If you don't want to tweak each image then you don't have to, you can develop them all a standard way. But if you are printing large and you want to have good quality, i think you are hindering yourself by sticking to JPEG.

    Storage is really cheap these days, which is why I can't justify buying a half-decent camera and not having a RAW mode. As well as the ability to do a lot more with bad lighting, being able to print certain pictures at A4, or even just expanding a few smaller sections of a picture and printing them at normal size hugely benefits from RAW from what I can tell. I'm found image manipulation to be much harder to get good results with using pictures in jpeg than RAW, although I've never had the same scene in both to do a proper comparison.
    Fionn wrote: »
    on the compact camera thing - the Sigma offering is interesting, it has a large APS sensor http://www.sigma-dp1.com/
    I'm wondering will any of the other manufacturers consider this as a market worth going into. Wouldn't mind a good compact myself

    It's nice to see that some manufactures are realising that just because people want a compact due to the size, doesn't mean they don't want top quality pictures. Unfortunately the expected prices look to be a little outside my range. Will probably be more interesting to have a closer look in a couple of years from now.
    Calina wrote: »
    The OP is probably looking for a Canon G9.

    It's certainly looking that way :). It's a bit bigger than the exilim's I first started looking at, but I'm happy enough with sacrificing a little of the convenience for the extra features.
    BostonB wrote: »
    Theres more to it than just the sensor. Theres the quality of the lense and also the quality of the electronics as well. The only way to know whats a good camera is to read reviews and forums to see what people are using.

    I was hoping for some way to narrow the list of reviews to read. If I decide to stick with having the RAW mode, I don't really have than many reviews to read. But it would be useful to have some quantifiable numbers that all camera specs use to be able to filter out the poor candidates.

    I assumed that if the mega-pixels/sensor size was a core component to the quality of the images it would be unlikely that a good lens + electronics could sufficiently compensate for a bad combination of those.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    ...I assumed that if the mega-pixels/sensor size was a core component to the quality of the images it would be unlikely that a good lens + electronics could sufficiently compensate for a bad combination of those.

    I would agree with that. I tried some of the Panasonics and found that noise was a significant problem, a lot more than I'd had with other cameras. That said I'm not a serious photographer, just like to get a nice picture now and then.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭mathias


    Heres some info on sensor size and image quality ,

    http://6mpixel.org/en/

    In a nutshell , the minimum size for a single pixel is 3um , after this picture quality suffers and no amount of electronics or lens combinations can fix it.

    This means that as far as compact cameras go , unless they up the size of the sensors , they are as good as they are ever going to get !


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭feileacan


    ive just ordered a Canon G9 from Digital-Rev on Ebay, hopefully it'll arrive near the end of this week.

    Having RAW was the main reason for purchasing and the numerous reviews complementing it.

    Ill let you know how it is when it arrives.

    The reviews however say it is not a compact and is slightly larger and heavier than most compacts.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 246 ✭✭Hearvee


    You could have a look here:
    http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_in_Brief

    "CHDK is a firmware enhancement that operates on a number of Canon Cameras. CHDK gets loaded into your camera's memory upon bootup (either manually or automatically). It provides additional functionality beyond that currently provided by the native camera firmware."

    One of the added functions is to save files as RAW.

    I loaded it onto a Canon A570 a while back, seems to work, although I haven't
    really tested it out.


Advertisement