The Digital Compacts Achilles Heel

R

ruben

Guest
Yeap, it is not the long zooming Powershot SD10, nor the Raw power G-10, nor the Lumixes, nor whatever new discovery that is not a DSLR: there is no single compact or medium compact, or rather biggie not dslr digital producing anything that nears Neopan 1600 film resolution. I have read already too many reviews to clearly understand the message, and I am not going to sacrifice five hundred bucks for the real life dennial of something being repeated at every single camera review.

Near 1600 Neopan ?, well this is a great condescending wording. The line of fire where most compact digitals are fighting for a "decent" resolution is located by all reviews at ISO 400...

That seems to be the situation as far as I have checked it from all my possibilities, unless some folk here stands up and preach of a digital compact camera producing ISO 800 images comparable to Tri-X, the grainy Tri-X, at the same ISO level.

So where this leaves you ? I would like to hear. But so far this leaves me with my small and powerfull digi for sunlight situations, and flash light parties, and my loyal Kiev with three lenses (28-50-135) and my recently CLA-ed mini Pilot light meter: all the gang, including the digi tourist = less than, or slightly over 2 kilo. Not that bad.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ruben said:
So where this leaves you ? I would like to hear.
Click to expand...
My digi P&S is used when I need a compact and self-contained camera, usually when I'm traveling or on a bicycle. There is no film to carry, no additional lenses, and a battery that lasts over a week if I mind the ON/OFF switch. This just makes more sense to me for a P&S. I find the limitations acceptable considering the advantages.
 
Be quiet, Ruben! Talk like that and pretty soon there'll be a knock on your door one Sunday morning, a woman in a modest dress and little make-up together with a man in an ill fitting cheap polyester suit and necktie, eager to convince you that Digital is The One True Answer.
 
I doubt most digi owners ever heard of 1600 neopan. He**, I've never used the stuff myself. Most digi shooters use auto anyway. It's an ongoing argument, Ruben, and I agree it is a silly argument. My minivan is no BMW either, but I already knew that when I bought it ten years ago.
My Fuji J10 @ 8megs is handy and takes a nice pix and @ <$100 fits in my pocket. I have it set on auto.
 
Last edited:
Al Kaplan said:
Be quiet, Ruben! Talk like that and pretty soon there'll be a knock on your door one Sunday morning, a woman in a modest dress and little make-up together with a man in an ill fitting cheap polyester suit and necktie, eager to convince you that Digital is The One True Answer.
Click to expand...

... or two young men in white shirts and black trousers!
 
Ducky said:
I doubt most digi owners ever heard of 1600 neopan. He**, I've never used the stuff myself. Most digi shooters use auto anyway. It's an ongoing argument, Ruben, and I agree it is a silly argument. My minivan is no BMW either, but I already knew that when I bought it ten years ago.
My Fuji J10 @ 8megs is handy and takes a nice pix and @ <$100 fits in my pocket. I have it set on auto.
Click to expand...

seriously, where do you guys come up with this stuff.

"most digi shooters use auto anyway"?!?!
 
Ruben, I will agree with you conclusion on most of digicams, though do also all those Fuji F30 and similar with little larger sensor are so useless?

Well, I can understand that 1600 BW film is class itself, though. Today received my first Neopan in three speeds, 1600 including :)
 
um, isn't the main issue with compact cameras the lens PLUS the sensor? This applies to both digital and film in my experience. When your lens is smaller than a dime and costs approximately that, it doesn't matter what the sensor - film or digital - your pictures will not stand up to a comparison with a $100 used 35mm rf, as far as I've seen.

I'm not saying people shouldn't use compact cameras, but the issue is hardly restricted to digital, and it doesn't matter how much time goes by and how much technology is thrown at it, tiny lenses take tiny pictures. Marketers can say anything they want, magazines can gush as much as they like, and forum users can repeat what they read in the ads, physics won't change. You are giving up quality all aloong the chain if you use a compact digital, but it's not like compact fixed-focus or autofocus film cameras are much better if they were designed with compactness and convenience as the main imeptus.

I have a compact digital I use at times "just to get a picture." I have a very compact APS Canon Elph for the same usage, and IMHO the APS image is technically superior but the digital image costs me nothing. And we all know you get what you pay for :) If the images aren't worth further investment, they go on the digital camera. That's just me, perhaps.

It is a good observation that a "strength" of digital is the ability to "instantly" change the ISO to suit the environment, but it's not like the quality doesn't degrade quickly as the ISO is turned up. The ISO flexibility of digital is a fallacy, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
there are a few Fuji digital P&S cameras that perform remarkably well at high ISO. Sorry, I don't know the model numbers from memory, but Ampguy knows a lot about this. He's done some extensive shooting with them, and has gotten great results. I don't know if it approaches your stated standard of 1600 film, but from the samples I've seen by Ampguy, the Fuji digicams do pretty well.

--Warren
 
film is film - and not digital. Its atmosphere is different.
Analog and digital are two systems. (It's the same with meat and soya: you will never eat any soya "meat" that feels, tasts, is like meat. - One should stop comparing and replacing one for another.)

But, if you look for a minicam that produces good images at ISO 1600 - only one will do it: Sigma DP2.

Cheers,
dacaccia
 
Hallo Ruben,

Could you show some samples of your Neopan1600 shots? This film is different for everyone, depending upon what developer they use, how they expose it, how long they develop and how much they agitate.

I develop it in DD-X and give it 1/2 stop more light than 1600. Of course, my thermometer is probably not the same as yours and neither is my lightmeter.

Apologies for rambling, but if you can show what you are looking for, then people can give better advice.

I've been moving from film to digital since December, I have learnt that you cannot think about film A or film B that you used to use, but rather look at the prints you get at the end and make a list of things which 'define' that look. Then, work out how to get each of those points from a digital file.

I did this with Neopan1600 and realised I cannot get it with a digital compact.

- When I use Neopan1600 it is dark and I use a wide aperture. I can't get the OOF effect with digi-compact lenses.
- Neopan1600 in DD-X gives lovely dramatic tones, but there are also nice gradations from white. I am too stupid to get this from a digi-compact.

Perhaps make a list of things you like about Neopan1600?
 
steve kessel said:
I heard that Fuji were discontinuing Neopan 1600.
Click to expand...

That is nothing more than a rumour that has surfaced numerous times due to some stockists instead of saying Out of Stock, saying discontinued.

Fuji have on numerous occassions repeated there are currently no such plans.

They have however been discontinuing 24exp rolls which leaves pretty much Ilford as one of the remaining producers of 24exp rolls.

Vicky
 
Lilserenity said:
That is nothing more than a rumour
....
They have however been discontinuing 24exp rolls which leaves pretty much Ilford as one of the remaining producers of 24exp rolls.

Vicky
Click to expand...

Good if this is just rumour!

Again, think about 36exp roll as 24+12 spares for bracketing each second shot :)
 
ruben said:
You are displaying as examples dark patched images. Had you shown well lighted images they would better show the limitations.
Click to expand...

The question is do you want to just find pictures showing you limitations or do you want some real world samples of ISO 1600 on a compact digital camera?

Here some more samples in case these are better suited for what you are looking for (ISO 1600 and ISO 800):

http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/2009/06/sliding-doors.html
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cristiansorega/2652304957/
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/2008/07/headlines.html
http://ricoh-gr-diary.blogspot.com/2009/02/bus-stop-c.html

More see here: http://www.getdropbox.com/gallery/289725/1/Hong Kong?h=a5c86c

I can't help you out more because I only use ISO 1600 if it's dark, otherwise I stick with ISO 400 or 200, which are excellent on the GRD I.
 
VladimirV, I think Ruben's point is there is a difference between evenly lit scenes and scenes of very high contrast, i.e. deep black shadows making up half the frame. It's not about wanting to se only shots that turn out badly, but about seeing shots similar to the kind he wants to take. I think the moral of the story is that there isn't a compact digital that will take the pictures he wants to take :shrug:
 
This is a thread that is sillier than usual. But what the hell, here is a Neopan 1600 picture followed by GRD2 pcitures at ISO 400, 800 and 1600:


DR Summicron | Neopan 1600
535769873_ae1368ebc1_o.jpg




GRD2 + 40mm Tele-converter | ISO 400
2289152354_050d76d39f_o.jpg




GRD2 + 40mm Tele-converter | ISO 800
2327232158_1906630d7d_o.jpg




GRD2 + 40mm Tele-converter | ISO 1600
2326462219_c208f7c0fc_o.jpg




—Mitch/Paris
Bangkok Hysteria© Book Project
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom