Something I don't understand about PnS cameras

[Michele]

I know that PnS cameras have problems with low light, nighttime shots because of their sensor size.

But here is my question.....why were we able to get good quality nighttime pictures with the old film compact cameras? When everyone was shooting with film we didn't have problems getting these shots. My last film camera was very comparable in size to my first digital, so I don't think camera size alone is the problem.

I look back at some of the pictures in my photo album and know that I couldn't get those shots today with my PnS. It seems picture quality in general (for regular people without SLRs, such as, my relatives) has really gone down since the digital age began.

 

[zackiedawg]

Have you tried comparing prints from a digital P&S in the same size as prints from a film P&S?

I think often the problem is that people compare the results from their P&S camera by viewing shots on their monitor, then getting disappointed when they see flaws. But a monitor would be a heck of a large print, and I'd venture a guess that the P&S photo blown up to the size of a monitor would look just as bad as one from a digital.

I personally find P&S results in low light and night to be superior to anything I ever got from a P&S film camera. Sometimes, a decent digital P&S can compete surprisingly well with a film SLR, if you compare something like ISO400 film to a 1/1.8" sensor compact at ISO400...again, comparing print to print.

Sometimes, folks expect too much from compacts too - I have an ultra-compact that if I viewed all my shots at 100% viewable on my monitor would look horrible - even at ISO100 I'd find flaws like noise reduction smearing or fringing. But with an 8MP resolution, 100% is something like a 4-foot by 3-foot print. Reduce the shots to monitor size (1280x1024) and they look very nice - that still exceeds the dimensions of an 8x10 print. I've got 8x10s hanging on the wall taken with a 1/2.5" sensor ultracompact, and most friends and family assume I took it with my DSLR. Only camera enthusiasts and the ultra-picky can really point out any differences.

And even considering how bad digital P&S cams seem when you push them to ISO800...Compare that back to my results with ISO800 film even in a consumer SLR, and the digital ends up looking much better than you think, especially for smaller prints.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm pretty happy with my ultra-compact digital, and shoot often with it alongside my DSLR, or when I don't want to take my DSLR...and I enjoy photography and the results I get from it much more than I did in the film days.

 

[bob100]

It seems picture quality in general (for regular people without SLRs, such as, my relatives) has really gone down since the digital age began.

I actually find it just the opposite, my current digital camera is superior to my old Minolta X700 SLR in so many ways. I can take low light pics, telezoom, extremely close macro, video, etc. all with excellent quality. Night time pics are not much of a problem, using flash or not. Even action shots at night.
could it be the camera you are using?

 

[cmwade77]

I find the right P&S camera for night shots is essential, in addition you need to really know your camera and what it can and can't do and what settings needed to be used.

 

[seashoreCM]

A lot to do with low light photography centers around a fast lens. Even an SLR when fitted with a not-so-fast lens will run into the same problems. Whenever zoom is used, the same lens yields a smaller available aperture.

The DSLR's larger sensor (compared with a PnS) on average also gives better quality at higher ISO; raising ISO is one way to get more out of a camera when the lens is maxed out.

If you see flaws when viewing pictures casually on your monitor, you'll definitely see those flaws when the picture is printed.

Did your older film camera have a lens of f/2.8 or faster? Most film PnS's had somewhat slower lenses while the typical digital PnS has an f/2.8 lens. Hence the poorer overall performance of film PnS cameras as seen in hindsight.

I've used a number of high end film PnS's in years past (never wanted to lug around an SLR). I estimate using photo-shoots of test patterns that the lens quality of the best one was about the same as 8 megapixels digitally.

 

[The Grays]

I know that PnS cameras have problems with low light, nighttime shots because of their sensor size.

But here is my question.....why were we able to get good quality nighttime pictures with the old film compact cameras? When everyone was shooting with film we didn't have problems getting these shots. My last film camera was very comparable in size to my first digital, so I don't think camera size alone is the problem.

I look back at some of the pictures in my photo album and know that I couldn't get those shots today with my PnS. It seems picture quality in general (for regular people without SLRs, such as, my relatives) has really gone down since the digital age began.

As with the P&S film cameras not all cameras are the same. There are a number of P&S digital cameras that do a good job in low light. Some have a broader ISO range, and a faster lens that will help with the low light shots. I have gotten some great night and low lights shots from my digital P&S.

 

[Anewman]

Not camera vs camera...

Sensor vs film, 400 ISO film has less grain than noise produced on tiny sensored PnS cameras. Grain in general is more pleasing to the eye than digital noise.

 

[handicap18]

I always go back to Groucho's image example that shows the sizes of various digital camera's compared to a frame of film.

(again, this is Groucho's image):

Most PnS camera's have the 1/2.5" CCD sensor. Which as you can see is about the size of a stamp compared to the frame of film which you could consider the size of a post card (for this example).

So, its more like Anewman said. ISO 400 film on an older PnS style film camera will do better than the digital version of ISO400 on a digital PnS camera.

I didn't use a lot of PnS film camera's, but looking at family member pictures that were taken with PnS film camera's they didn't do a great job with low light. Probably better than the digital equivalent though.

 

[boBQuincy]

The old film P&S used the same "sensor" (film) as the 35mm SLR, giving identical noise (grain). We also typically viewed the images as a 4x6" print instead of looking at them full size on a monitor.

 

[bob100]

I didn't use a lot of PnS film camera's, but looking at family member pictures that were taken with PnS film camera's they didn't do a great job with low light. Probably better than the digital equivalent though.

I am putting old family photos on a digital picture frame for my mother and it seems digital photos are better in low light, particularly if you rework the shadows it in photoshop. I suppose if you had the old film negatives something better could be done but today's digital just looks better with low light.