Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Aperture limits with high shutter speeds in Panasonic FZ20

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:58:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recently bought a Panasonic FZ20, which I, by and large, am very
pleased with. (Blown highlights seem much more of a problem than with
my CP995, but they seem to be minimised by setting "Contrast" to low,
and exposure compensation to -2/3 when photographing essentially any
subject in sunlight.)

But one remaining peeve is that my camera behaves in a way that seems
illogic to me at high shutter speeds. Maximal shutter speed in all
modes other than shutter priority is 1/1000. In shutter priority, one
can go up to 1/2000.

However, as one decreases the shutter time beyound 1/1000, an aperture
limit is introduced. At 1/1300, the widest accepted aperture is f4.0,
at 1/1600, it is f5.6, and at 2000, it is f8.0, the minimal aperture
of the camera. The manual - at least my Swedish version - doesn't say
a word about any such aperture limitations when it discusses the
shutter priority mode, though.

To me, this means that two of the three possible uses for high shutter
speeds are disabled. You can´t use it to get a shallow DOF at high
light intensity, and you can't use it to stop a very fast movement in
less-than-very-intense light. The only thing that remains is the
capacity to take properly exposed photos in very intense light - which
would have been equally well catered for by instead including an f11
aperture and doing away with the 1/1000+ shutter times altogether.

Is this the way the camera is supposed to work - which means that I
basically should regard it as a camera with 1/1000 as its fastest
shutter speed and some limited additional capacity to expose properly
in very intense light - or should I complain to the vendor?

And if it is the intended way it works, does anyone kow why on earth
this is so? Is it there in the FZ5? And is there, by any chance,
hacked firmwares around also for the Panasonic FZ series? :-)

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:58:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:58:45 +0200, Jan Böhme <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:
>
> However, as one decreases the shutter time beyound 1/1000, an aperture
> limit is introduced. At 1/1300, the widest accepted aperture is f4.0,
> at 1/1600, it is f5.6, and at 2000, it is f8.0, the minimal aperture
> of the camera. The manual - at least my Swedish version - doesn't say
> a word about any such aperture limitations when it discusses the
> shutter priority mode, though.

[...]

> And if it is the intended way it works, does anyone kow why on earth
> this is so? Is it there in the FZ5? And is there, by any chance,
> hacked firmwares around also for the Panasonic FZ series? :-)

I have an FZ5, and it behaves the same way. The behavior is documented
in the manual (English version), which has a table of allowed apertures
for a given shutter speed, and also a somewhat redundant second table of
allowed shutter speeds for a given aperture.

I don't know why it was designed that way, but my guess is that there's
a limit to the cycle speed of the shutter mechanism, and that speed is
insufficient to mask the larger apertures in the shorter exposure times.

-dms
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 5:58:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

Jan Böhme wrote:
> I recently bought a Panasonic FZ20, which I, by and large, am very
> pleased with. (Blown highlights seem much more of a problem than with
> my CP995, but they seem to be minimised by setting "Contrast" to low,
> and exposure compensation to -2/3 when photographing essentially any
> subject in sunlight.)
>
> But one remaining peeve is that my camera behaves in a way that seems
> illogic to me at high shutter speeds. Maximal shutter speed in all
> modes other than shutter priority is 1/1000. In shutter priority, one
> can go up to 1/2000.
>
> However, as one decreases the shutter time beyound 1/1000, an aperture
> limit is introduced. At 1/1300, the widest accepted aperture is f4.0,
> at 1/1600, it is f5.6, and at 2000, it is f8.0, the minimal aperture
> of the camera. The manual - at least my Swedish version - doesn't say
> a word about any such aperture limitations when it discusses the
> shutter priority mode, though.
>
> To me, this means that two of the three possible uses for high shutter
> speeds are disabled. You can´t use it to get a shallow DOF at high
> light intensity, and you can't use it to stop a very fast movement in
> less-than-very-intense light. The only thing that remains is the
> capacity to take properly exposed photos in very intense light - which
> would have been equally well catered for by instead including an f11
> aperture and doing away with the 1/1000+ shutter times altogether.
>
> Is this the way the camera is supposed to work - which means that I
> basically should regard it as a camera with 1/1000 as its fastest
> shutter speed and some limited additional capacity to expose properly
> in very intense light - or should I complain to the vendor?
>
> And if it is the intended way it works, does anyone kow why on earth
> this is so? Is it there in the FZ5? And is there, by any chance,
> hacked firmwares around also for the Panasonic FZ series? :-)

I think the FZ5 is similar. My guess is that there is a physical limit to
how fast the aperture can be stopped down, which can limit the shutter
speed with small apertures (where the aperture has its greatest movement
from fully open to stopped down). Won't a neutral-density filter help
with the DoF issue? The problem with including apertures lower than f/8
is that diffraction starts to be an issue, and the resulting image will be
less sharp.

I think you can get an English language manual here:
http://panasonic.com.au/content/library/files/F000741.p...

Does the camera work as described in the specifications? If so, it's not
faulty.

I haven't heard of any hacked firmware.

Cheers,
David
Related resources
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:35:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If this causes a problem should I more strongly consider buying a Canon
S2 over a Pan FZ5?

Jan Böhme wrote:

>I recently bought a Panasonic FZ20, which I, by and large, am very
>pleased with. (Blown highlights seem much more of a problem than with
>my CP995, but they seem to be minimised by setting "Contrast" to low,
>and exposure compensation to -2/3 when photographing essentially any
>subject in sunlight.)
>
>But one remaining peeve is that my camera behaves in a way that seems
>illogic to me at high shutter speeds. Maximal shutter speed in all
>modes other than shutter priority is 1/1000. In shutter priority, one
>can go up to 1/2000.
>
>However, as one decreases the shutter time beyound 1/1000, an aperture
>limit is introduced. At 1/1300, the widest accepted aperture is f4.0,
>at 1/1600, it is f5.6, and at 2000, it is f8.0, the minimal aperture
>of the camera. The manual - at least my Swedish version - doesn't say
>a word about any such aperture limitations when it discusses the
>shutter priority mode, though.
>
>To me, this means that two of the three possible uses for high shutter
>speeds are disabled. You can´t use it to get a shallow DOF at high
>light intensity, and you can't use it to stop a very fast movement in
>less-than-very-intense light. The only thing that remains is the
>capacity to take properly exposed photos in very intense light - which
>would have been equally well catered for by instead including an f11
>aperture and doing away with the 1/1000+ shutter times altogether.
>
>Is this the way the camera is supposed to work - which means that I
>basically should regard it as a camera with 1/1000 as its fastest
>shutter speed and some limited additional capacity to expose properly
>in very intense light - or should I complain to the vendor?
>
>And if it is the intended way it works, does anyone kow why on earth
>this is so? Is it there in the FZ5? And is there, by any chance,
>hacked firmwares around also for the Panasonic FZ series? :-)
>
>Jan Böhme
>Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
>Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
>
>
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 12:39:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

measekite wrote:
> If this causes a problem should I more strongly consider buying a
> Canon S2 over a Pan FZ5?

In real life this is not a problem. I am sure that the Canon will also
have quirks.

David
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 1:32:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:35:21 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
> Jan Böhme wrote:
>>
>>However, as one decreases the shutter time beyound 1/1000, an aperture
>>limit is introduced. At 1/1300, the widest accepted aperture is f4.0,
>>at 1/1600, it is f5.6, and at 2000, it is f8.0, the minimal aperture
>>of the camera. The manual - at least my Swedish version - doesn't say
>>a word about any such aperture limitations when it discusses the
>>shutter priority mode, though.

> If this causes a problem should I more strongly consider buying a Canon
> S2 over a Pan FZ5?


The S2 IS does the same thing, at least according to some of the reviews
I saw.

<Looks up S2 IS manual on web>
Yep.

From pg 86 of the Canon manual:
Aperture Fastest Shutter
f/2.7-3.5 1/1600
f/4.0-5.0 1/2000
f/5.6-7.1 1/2500
f/8.0 1/3200

That's at the wide end of the zoom. At maximum telephoto, it slows down:
Aperture Fastest Shutter
f/3.5-4.5 1/1600
f/5.0-6.3 1/2000
f/7.1-8.0 1/2500

The Panasonic has a slower shutter speed (maxing out at 1/2000), but the
speed limitations are independent of the zoom setting.

-dms
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 4:31:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

It appears, unless I do not have all of the information that the S2 and FZ5
are close. Some people have stated that the skin tones on the Canon are
better and more realistic while the FZ5 may be better on scenery. I
would like to know if that is true since skin tones are very important
to me.

Other than that I think I am going to choose the one that just feels
better in my hand. If they are the same then I need to choose between
an all black one or a swivel LCD.

I know the FZ5 is lighter but will that make that much of a difference
when comparted with the S2.

I do here that the FZ5 is faster in burst mode, exposure bracketing, and
auto focusing. That would see to be an advantage but I do not know how
much importance to give that.

If I opt for the FZ5 I will get it at the end of the summer. But if I
opt for the Canon I will probably wait until the end of the year when
the price may come down.

Your comments are welcome.







Daniel Silevitch wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 20:35:21 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Jan Böhme wrote:
>>
>>
>>>However, as one decreases the shutter time beyound 1/1000, an aperture
>>>limit is introduced. At 1/1300, the widest accepted aperture is f4.0,
>>>at 1/1600, it is f5.6, and at 2000, it is f8.0, the minimal aperture
>>>of the camera. The manual - at least my Swedish version - doesn't say
>>>a word about any such aperture limitations when it discusses the
>>>shutter priority mode, though.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>>If this causes a problem should I more strongly consider buying a Canon
>>S2 over a Pan FZ5?
>>
>>
>
>
>The S2 IS does the same thing, at least according to some of the reviews
>I saw.
>
><Looks up S2 IS manual on web>
>Yep.
>
>From pg 86 of the Canon manual:
>Aperture Fastest Shutter
>f/2.7-3.5 1/1600
>f/4.0-5.0 1/2000
>f/5.6-7.1 1/2500
>f/8.0 1/3200
>
>That's at the wide end of the zoom. At maximum telephoto, it slows down:
>Aperture Fastest Shutter
>f/3.5-4.5 1/1600
>f/5.0-6.3 1/2000
>f/7.1-8.0 1/2500
>
>The Panasonic has a slower shutter speed (maxing out at 1/2000), but the
>speed limitations are independent of the zoom setting.
>
>-dms
>
>
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 8:14:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 13:58:45 +0200, Jan Böhme <jan.bohme@sh.se> wrote:

>I recently bought a Panasonic FZ20, which I, by and large, am very
>pleased with. (Blown highlights seem much more of a problem than with
>my CP995, but they seem to be minimised by setting "Contrast" to low,
>and exposure compensation to -2/3 when photographing essentially any
>subject in sunlight.)
>
>But one remaining peeve is that my camera behaves in a way that seems
>illogic to me at high shutter speeds. Maximal shutter speed in all
>modes other than shutter priority is 1/1000. In shutter priority, one
>can go up to 1/2000.
>
>However, as one decreases the shutter time beyound 1/1000, an aperture
>limit is introduced. At 1/1300, the widest accepted aperture is f4.0,
>at 1/1600, it is f5.6, and at 2000, it is f8.0, the minimal aperture
>of the camera. The manual - at least my Swedish version - doesn't say
>a word about any such aperture limitations when it discusses the
>shutter priority mode, though.
>
>To me, this means that two of the three possible uses for high shutter
>speeds are disabled. You can´t use it to get a shallow DOF at high
>light intensity, and you can't use it to stop a very fast movement in
>less-than-very-intense light. The only thing that remains is the
>capacity to take properly exposed photos in very intense light - which
>would have been equally well catered for by instead including an f11
>aperture and doing away with the 1/1000+ shutter times altogether.
>
>Is this the way the camera is supposed to work - which means that I
>basically should regard it as a camera with 1/1000 as its fastest
>shutter speed and some limited additional capacity to expose properly
>in very intense light - or should I complain to the vendor?
>
>And if it is the intended way it works, does anyone kow why on earth
>this is so? Is it there in the FZ5? And is there, by any chance,
>hacked firmwares around also for the Panasonic FZ series? :-)
>
>Jan Böhme
>Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
>Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.

I saw this idea done back in 1960 with the Minolta "V2" which
was a leaf shutter camera with a top speed of 1/2000. Four
times as fast as other leaf shutter cameras could do at the
time. At 1/1000 the maximum aperture was F4. At 1/2000 it
was F8. Smaller diameter opening allowing higher speeds.
There's nothing really "new" about it. As a matter of fact two
of my digital cameras do something like this with the maximum
aperture allowing only a lesser shutter speed. So Panasonic
isn't the only camera maker that does this sort of thing... And
if you want a laugh, I have two Kodak (cheap, fixed focus, F4.5)
digitals that have a maximum shutter speed of 1/3200 of a second!

Jerome Bigge
Photographer and Astronomer
Author of the "Warlady" & "Wartime" series.
Download at "http://members.tripod.com/~jbigge"
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 11:27:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

measekite wrote:
[]
> If I opt for the FZ5 I will get it at the end of the summer. But if I
> opt for the Canon I will probably wait until the end of the year when
> the price may come down.
>
> Your comments are welcome.

Go and get something now!

If you wait until the end of the year there will undoubtedly be even more
similar cameras to confuse the choice further! Why miss out on your
summer pictures?

David
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 6:38:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jan Böhme <jan.bohme@sh.se> writes:

>However, as one decreases the shutter time beyound 1/1000, an aperture
>limit is introduced. At 1/1300, the widest accepted aperture is f4.0,
>at 1/1600, it is f5.6, and at 2000, it is f8.0, the minimal aperture
>of the camera. The manual - at least my Swedish version - doesn't say
>a word about any such aperture limitations when it discusses the
>shutter priority mode, though.

Some of the Canon P&S cameras (e.g. G2) have a similar limitation. It's
because a single mechanism is used as the shutter and aperture. The
blades take a certain amount of time to reach full opening, and that
limits the full-aperture shutter speed. If you're willing to accept a
smaller aperture, you can get a shorter exposure too. This helps the
camera deal with very bright lighting, but doesn't let you use full
aperture at maximum speed.

The alternative, with that shutter mechanism, is to limit the highest
speed to 1/1000. Would that make you happier? Probably not. (Canon
does document these limits in the manual).

>To me, this means that two of the three possible uses for high shutter
>speeds are disabled. You can´t use it to get a shallow DOF at high
>light intensity, and you can't use it to stop a very fast movement in
>less-than-very-intense light.

If you want very fast shutter speeds at full aperture, you need a focal
plane shutter and separate aperture mechanism. In other words, you need
a SLR. This limitation of leaf shutters is not unique to digital
cameras.

>The only thing that remains is the
>capacity to take properly exposed photos in very intense light - which
>would have been equally well catered for by instead including an f11
>aperture and doing away with the 1/1000+ shutter times altogether.

No, because at f/8 the image is already losing sharpness due to
diffraction in any of the small-sensor P&S cameras. A higher shutter
speed at f/8 will give you a sharper image. You've already got enormous
DOF at f/8, so there's no reason at all to want f/11.

>Is this the way the camera is supposed to work - which means that I
>basically should regard it as a camera with 1/1000 as its fastest
>shutter speed and some limited additional capacity to expose properly
>in very intense light - or should I complain to the vendor?

It's limited by some basic physics applying to that type of camera, with
a small in-the-lens shutter and small sensor.

Dave
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 8:11:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>[]
>
>
>>If I opt for the FZ5 I will get it at the end of the summer. But if I
>>opt for the Canon I will probably wait until the end of the year when
>>the price may come down.
>>
>>Your comments are welcome.
>>
>>
>
>Go and get something now!
>
>If you wait until the end of the year there will undoubtedly be even more
>similar cameras to confuse the choice further! Why miss out on your
>summer pictures?
>
>David
>
>

Even though I do not like it I have the use of a Sony 4mp digital camera
that does produce reasonable results. I also have a Nikon system.

>
>
>
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 8:18:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The Minolta Dimage A2 will set to 1/2000 sec at f3.2
Anonymous
July 19, 2005 8:23:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

measekite wrote:
[]
> Even though I do not like it I have the use of a Sony 4mp digital
> camera that does produce reasonable results. I also have a Nikon
> system.

Ah, so not so much rush, then! It will be interesting to see how things
develop over the summer.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 3:14:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:38:10 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

>Jan Böhme <jan.bohme@sh.se> writes:
>
>>However, as one decreases the shutter time beyound 1/1000, an aperture
>>limit is introduced. At 1/1300, the widest accepted aperture is f4.0,
>>at 1/1600, it is f5.6, and at 2000, it is f8.0, the minimal aperture
>>of the camera. T

>Some of the Canon P&S cameras (e.g. G2) have a similar limitation. It's
>because a single mechanism is used as the shutter and aperture. The
>blades take a certain amount of time to reach full opening, and that
>limits the full-aperture shutter speed.

The way you describe the mechanism, it sounds as if the center of the
image would be considerably more exposed than the edges at high
shutter speeds, giving rise to vignetting. But maybe this only would
occur significantly at the disabled ccombinations of shutter speed and
aperture.

>If you're willing to accept a
>smaller aperture, you can get a shorter exposure too. This helps the
>camera deal with very bright lighting, but doesn't let you use full
>aperture at maximum speed.
>
>The alternative, with that shutter mechanism, is to limit the highest
>speed to 1/1000. Would that make you happier? Probably not.

No, but not all that much less happy either. If one needs a ND filter
to get shallow DOF in bright light anyway, then of course one can use
the same ND filter under conditions of extremely bright light.

>(Canon
>does document these limits in the manual).

So do Panasonic, I've discovered, only not at all at place where I
expected it.

>If you want very fast shutter speeds at full aperture, you need a focal
>plane shutter and separate aperture mechanism. In other words, you need
>a SLR.

Wouldn't an electronic shutter do the trick, or are there other
limitations in that case?

>>The only thing that remains is the
>>capacity to take properly exposed photos in very intense light - which
>>would have been equally well catered for by instead including an f11
>>aperture and doing away with the 1/1000+ shutter times altogether.
>
>No, because at f/8 the image is already losing sharpness due to
>diffraction in any of the small-sensor P&S cameras. A higher shutter
>speed at f/8 will give you a sharper image. You've already got enormous
>DOF at f/8, so there's no reason at all to want f/11.

I suppose not. It might have been more clever to say that it would
have been equally well catered for by including an ISO40 sensitivity.

BTW - is there some table of most favorable apertures for different
sensor sizes, i.e which apertures are the equivalents of f8 for an SLR
for different small-sensor digital cameras?

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 3:14:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:14:51 +0200, Jan Böhme wrote:

>> Some of the Canon P&S cameras (e.g. G2) have a similar limitation. It's
>> because a single mechanism is used as the shutter and aperture. The
>> blades take a certain amount of time to reach full opening, and that
>> limits the full-aperture shutter speed.
>
> The way you describe the mechanism, it sounds as if the center of the
> image would be considerably more exposed than the edges at high
> shutter speeds, giving rise to vignetting. But maybe this only would
> occur significantly at the disabled ccombinations of shutter speed and
> aperture.

No. Assuming that there's little to no vignetting at small
apertures at slow shutter speeds, the fastest shutter speeds won't
introduce more vignetting. The center of the lens isn't used just
for the center of the image. All parts of the lens's surface
contribute. Cover all of the lens with an opaque covering except
for a small region near the outer edge and it will still record the
entire image, although with very little light so that you'll need a
long shutter speed. Otherwise at f8, even with long exposures all
cameras would have severe vignetting, not just at high shutter
speeds.
July 20, 2005 4:39:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jan Böhme" <jan.bohme@sh.se> skrev i meddelandet
news:b8qqd19rmq2qtofhujiier3ovc1o684hkh@4ax.com...
> BTW - is there some table of most favorable apertures for different
> sensor sizes, i.e which apertures are the equivalents of f8 for an SLR
> for different small-sensor digital cameras?
>
> Jan Böhme

There is nothing equivalent at other scales. F8 is equvalent to F8 for light
inlet, but something else for depth of field, and still something else for
best resolution.
You should try that out yourself with your camera, which aperture is the
sharpest at different zoom lengths.
The new Canon 350 lens (18-55), eg, is sharper at larger apertures and the
old 300 lens, also18-55, is sharper at smaller apertures, so there is really
no rule of thumb.
/per
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 5:47:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>[]
>
>
>>Even though I do not like it I have the use of a Sony 4mp digital
>>camera that does produce reasonable results. I also have a Nikon
>>system.
>>
>>
>
>Ah, so not so much rush, then! It will be interesting to see how things
>develop over the summer.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>

I do not know if this is relevant but I have downloaded various photos
(that I like for many reasons) that were taken with various cameras with
similar metadata. I then printed 4x6 photos on my IP4000. Maybe I am
having difficulty seeing what I need to see but all of the photos looked
good and there was not that much difference between them. On some
photos I liked the colors of camera x better than y while on others I
thought y was better than x.

What is even more strange was in a 4x6 I compared Pan FZ5, Nikon Cool
Pix 4200 against DRXT, Canon D20, and the Nikon D70 (all of which cost
more than PS) and I was astounded in what I did not see. That is
dramatic differences. I am sure that in an 8.5x11 and up I will see
differences.

I am also wondering how much difference one can see in an 11x14 print
between a Canon 20D and the Canon $8,000 sibling.

>
>
>
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 6:18:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jan Böhme <jan.bohme@sh.se> writes:

>The way you describe the mechanism, it sounds as if the center of the
>image would be considerably more exposed than the edges at high
>shutter speeds, giving rise to vignetting. But maybe this only would
>occur significantly at the disabled ccombinations of shutter speed and
>aperture.

Not at all. If the shutter were a focal plane shutter, then it could
expose some portions of the image and not others. But being located
right inside the lens, even the tiniest shutter opening passes light to
the entire image area.

And what you call the "disabled combinations" are not disabled in the
sense of the firmware not allowing them. The firmware simply knows that
the shutter *physically cannot open and close fast enough* to provide
full aperture at the highest shutter speeds. It takes a finite amount
of time for the shutter to open to f/2 (or whatever max aperture is) and
then close down again.

>No, but not all that much less happy either. If one needs a ND filter
>to get shallow DOF in bright light anyway, then of course one can use
>the same ND filter under conditions of extremely bright light.

You'll probably find that you cannot get a shallow DOF at all, under any
conditions, with this camera. The G2 (which is what I'm familiar with)
has a sensor about 1/5 the dimensions of 35 film. Thus, when the lens
is set to f/2 (wide open), the DOF provided by the camera is equivalent
to a full-frame 35 camera with a lens having the same angle of view set
to f/10, assuming equal print sizes. In other words, the shallowest DOF
available from the G2 is only slightly less than the largest DOF
available on the 35 camera with the lens stopped down to f/16.

>>If you want very fast shutter speeds at full aperture, you need a focal
>>plane shutter and separate aperture mechanism. In other words, you need
>>a SLR.

>Wouldn't an electronic shutter do the trick, or are there other
>limitations in that case?

Well, what technology of electronic shutter? The LCD and PLZT
electronic shutters I know of aren't actually fully opaque when off -
they need a supplementary mechanical shutter. Nor are they transparent
when on - they eat a lot of light. Not really suitable for a still
camera. Some video cameras have electronically-controlled shutter
speed, but those only have to handle 1/30 second and faster - and
require a CCD designed to do this.

>>No, because at f/8 the image is already losing sharpness due to
>>diffraction in any of the small-sensor P&S cameras. A higher shutter
>>speed at f/8 will give you a sharper image. You've already got enormous
>>DOF at f/8, so there's no reason at all to want f/11.

>I suppose not. It might have been more clever to say that it would
>have been equally well catered for by including an ISO40 sensitivity.

You wouldn't want to reduce the fundamental sensitivity of the sensor,
or you'd always have to shoot at ISO 40 for maximum quality, and without
losing a couple of stops at the high end of the ISO range. You can't
just "turn down the gain" electronically, because the lowest ISO is
determined by the point at which the sensor pixel wells overflow. So an
ND filter is actually a pretty good way to handle high brightness in a
small-sensor camera.

>BTW - is there some table of most favorable apertures for different
>sensor sizes, i.e which apertures are the equivalents of f8 for an SLR
>for different small-sensor digital cameras?

You can straightforwardly calculate the amount of diffraction to expect,
and it's proportional to the sensor size ratio. But the optimum
aperture is determined by balancing diffraction and lens aberrations,
and the aberrations do not necessarily scale down at the same rate. So
it depends on each lens.

Dave
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 11:21:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

measekite wrote:
[]
> I do not know if this is relevant but I have downloaded various photos
> (that I like for many reasons) that were taken with various cameras
> with similar metadata. I then printed 4x6 photos on my IP4000. Maybe I
> am having difficulty seeing what I need to see but all of the
> photos looked good and there was not that much difference between
> them. On some photos I liked the colors of camera x better than y
> while on others I thought y was better than x.

Colour is subjective, and all of the current systems (including film) are
an approximation. Even if the colour wasn't "perfect" on a camera all the
time, tweaking after taking is possible.

> What is even more strange was in a 4x6 I compared Pan FZ5, Nikon Cool
> Pix 4200 against DRXT, Canon D20, and the Nikon D70 (all of which cost
> more than PS) and I was astounded in what I did not see. That is
> dramatic differences. I am sure that in an 8.5x11 and up I will see
> differences.
>
> I am also wondering how much difference one can see in an 11x14 print
> between a Canon 20D and the Canon $8,000 sibling.

Some people have a rule of thumb for printing that you need about 300
pixels per inch, so a 4x6 would need 1200 x 1800 pixels to be resolution
limited (2.16MP). Not surprising that you can't see the resolution
differences.

The DSLR cameras differ in having a physically larger sensor, and can
therefore produce lower noise images at higher ISO settings. They also
have interchangeable lenses, dust problems, and are bigger and heavier. A
good point and shoot camera can often equal the quality of a DSLR image,
but it's not as versatile. There are probably a lot of point-and-shoots
at the lower end of the quality range which could never equal a DSLR,
though.

Cheers,
David
July 20, 2005 4:06:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jan Böhme wrote:

> BTW - is there some table of most favorable apertures for different
> sensor sizes, i.e which apertures are the equivalents of f8 for an SLR
> for different small-sensor digital cameras?
>
There is a table to calculate diffraction here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-...

There is also a link on that page to a DOF calculator, with a dropdown
box to select the common sensor sizes.

Some high mp cameras with small sensors probably have detail loss
starting to occur at close to maximum (widest available) aperture, or at
least some fall-off in contrast will have started. Combine this with
the expectation that most lenses are not sharp at widest aperture -
especially at extremes of the zoom range, and then it seems that often
the high pixel count is wasted.
For high mp small sensor cameras, very fast wide aperture lenses are not
a luxury - they are an absolute necessity - and even then only a few
stops are available with maximum sharpness.

For DOF, you can see that a Canon G6 at f2.8 (one stop off maximimum
wide) at 35mm equivalent has a hyperfocal distance of 2.5 metres.
This is approximately the same as f22 on a typical dslr (and a stop
higher on 35mm). It is a very big difference.
For a hypothetical photo of a person 2.5 metres away from you, with a
background vista, taken at 35mm (equiv focal length) and an expectation
that everything in the frame will be 100% pin-sharp, then it is likely
that a Canon G6 or similar will be able to provide exactly the result
that you want. A dslr will probably not satisfy your expectations - as
at the f22 the image resolution will be well and truly diffraction
limited (but then again maybe not so much that it isn't still quite
acceptable as a 6x4 snapshot).

There is a lot of discussion and arguments about sensor size and noise.
To me, the effect of sensor size on DOF is more important.
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 7:32:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:

>measekite wrote:
>[]
>
>
>>I do not know if this is relevant but I have downloaded various photos
>>(that I like for many reasons) that were taken with various cameras
>>with similar metadata. I then printed 4x6 photos on my IP4000. Maybe I
>>am having difficulty seeing what I need to see but all of the
>>photos looked good and there was not that much difference between
>>them. On some photos I liked the colors of camera x better than y
>>while on others I thought y was better than x.
>>
>>
>
>Colour is subjective, and all of the current systems (including film) are
>an approximation. Even if the colour wasn't "perfect" on a camera all the
>time, tweaking after taking is possible.
>
>
>
>>What is even more strange was in a 4x6 I compared Pan FZ5, Nikon Cool
>>Pix 4200 against DRXT, Canon D20, and the Nikon D70 (all of which cost
>>more than PS) and I was astounded in what I did not see. That is
>>dramatic differences. I am sure that in an 8.5x11 and up I will see
>>differences.
>>
>>I am also wondering how much difference one can see in an 11x14 print
>>between a Canon 20D and the Canon $8,000 sibling.
>>
>>
>
>Some people have a rule of thumb for printing that you need about 300
>pixels per inch, so a 4x6 would need 1200 x 1800 pixels to be resolution
>limited (2.16MP). Not surprising that you can't see the resolution
>differences.
>
>The DSLR cameras differ in having a physically larger sensor, and can
>therefore produce lower noise images at higher ISO settings. They also
>have interchangeable lenses, dust problems,
>

Are the dust problems on the sensor so bad and so difficult to get rid
of that one does not really want to change lenses? I understand that
you cannot use a can of compressed air. What if you get a stubborn spot?

>and are bigger and heavier. A
>good point and shoot camera can often equal the quality of a DSLR image,
>but it's not as versatile. There are probably a lot of point-and-shoots
>at the lower end of the quality range which could never equal a DSLR,
>though.
>
>Cheers,
>David
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 8:21:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.zlr (More info?)

measekite wrote:
[]
> Are the dust problems on the sensor so bad and so difficult to get rid
> of that one does not really want to change lenses? I understand that
> you cannot use a can of compressed air. What if you get a stubborn
> spot?

Different people seem to report different levels of DSLR dust problem, and
it does seem to depend on both the user and the environment. At least one
camera has a sensor-shaker to remove dust each time the camera is switched
on.

Ask in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems and get a whole set of answers!

Cheers,
David
!