Minimum aperture specifications
Mar 30, 2012 08:08:21 #
rayford2
Loc: New Bethlehem, PA
There are a lot of fixed lens cameras out there for sale.
What bothers me is most of them will list the maximum aperture such as f/2.8, but never the minimum aperture such as f/11 in their specifications.
This doesn't apply to separate lenses, but to fixed lenses as found on "bridge" cameras.
You have to weed this number out in the owners manuals.
It looks like a marketing thing to keep a person in the dark about the cameras limitation.
...Is there a better answer?
What bothers me is most of them will list the maximum aperture such as f/2.8, but never the minimum aperture such as f/11 in their specifications.
This doesn't apply to separate lenses, but to fixed lenses as found on "bridge" cameras.
You have to weed this number out in the owners manuals.
It looks like a marketing thing to keep a person in the dark about the cameras limitation.
...Is there a better answer?
Mar 31, 2012 09:36:04 #
rayford2: Yes, look to camera review Web sites for that specification among others.
As always, the marketers want to sell the product, and will offer popular information and hyperbole about it, to make a sale.
In turn, as always, the smart consumer has to do some homework and comparison to learn factual material regarding a given product.
As always, the marketers want to sell the product, and will offer popular information and hyperbole about it, to make a sale.
In turn, as always, the smart consumer has to do some homework and comparison to learn factual material regarding a given product.
Mar 31, 2012 09:38:20 #
On a lot of those bridge cameras the minimum aperture is limited due to the small physical size of the lens and would degrade the image even more because of diffraction.
Mar 31, 2012 13:50:32 #
rayford2
Loc: New Bethlehem, PA
anotherview wrote:
rayford2: Yes, look to camera review Web sites for that specification among others.
As always, the marketers want to sell the product, and will offer popular information and hyperbole about it, to make a sale.
In turn, as always, the smart consumer has to do some homework and comparison to learn factual material regarding a given product.
As always, the marketers want to sell the product, and will offer popular information and hyperbole about it, to make a sale.
In turn, as always, the smart consumer has to do some homework and comparison to learn factual material regarding a given product.
I read DPReview quite often and there are no specs for min. aperture on bridge cameras.
Is there a review site that does?
Mar 31, 2012 14:09:03 #
rayford2: Here's one Web site:
http://www.manualsonline.com/
There, you can select the camera of interest. I followed several links after selecting Canon. I randomly picked the PowerShot G1 X. The links eventually took me to the purchase page, where I clicked on the camera image. A tabbed information area showed. I clicked on the Specifications tab, and found this information regarding the camera's aperture:
Maximum Aperture
f/2.8 (W) - f/5.8 (T)
- The following f/numbers are available in Av or M:
W: f/2.8, 3.2, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.6, 6.3, 7.1, 8.0, 9.0, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16
T: f/5.8, 6.3, 7.1, 8.0, 9.0, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16
- Differs depending on the zoom position
====
Obviously, this process takes a couple minutes to drill down to the desired information. But an interested buyer will want to know more about a given camera before buying it.
http://www.manualsonline.com/
There, you can select the camera of interest. I followed several links after selecting Canon. I randomly picked the PowerShot G1 X. The links eventually took me to the purchase page, where I clicked on the camera image. A tabbed information area showed. I clicked on the Specifications tab, and found this information regarding the camera's aperture:
Maximum Aperture
f/2.8 (W) - f/5.8 (T)
- The following f/numbers are available in Av or M:
W: f/2.8, 3.2, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.6, 6.3, 7.1, 8.0, 9.0, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16
T: f/5.8, 6.3, 7.1, 8.0, 9.0, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16
- Differs depending on the zoom position
====
Obviously, this process takes a couple minutes to drill down to the desired information. But an interested buyer will want to know more about a given camera before buying it.
Yard Corner, Backyard Series (2011)
Mar 31, 2012 14:27:55 #
rayford2
Loc: New Bethlehem, PA
anotherview wrote:
rayford2: Here's one Web site: br http://www.ma... (show quote)
Thank you, anotherview.
I'm one of those that can't get into DSLR financially so I'm constantly looking at what newer bridge cameras offer.
Here's a case in point:
I have a Panasonic FZ-50. I'm looking at FZ-100 specs and on paper it outdoes the camera I own.
Mine has 12x that will go to 21x using a lower resolution setting that crops out part of the sensor. The FZ-100 has 24x.
Now here's where it gets funny to me. The FZ-50 has a 1/1.8 size sensor, The FZ-100 has a 1/2.33 sensor. This must mean that the minimum aperture size must also decrease, leaving us to play with speed and ISO to make up for it. This sure doesn't help the depth of field issue if you want to photograph scenery...or does it?
If I'm full of prunes please correct me on this.
...I don't like prunes, anyway.
Mar 31, 2012 16:02:02 #
rayford2: Join the club of those picture-takers who see doing photography as expensive.
As to the difference in sensors, the larger one, in general, will contain more pixels, and presumably will gather more photons. This fact means more information contributing to the photographic image.
I say "presumably" because lately some cameramakers have begun increasing the size of the pixel-sites (photon-buckets, if you will), in order to capture more photons per pixel, adding to the data gathered.
As best I can tell from your comment, you use the two ways point-and-shoot cameras zoom in to enlarge the subject. One way happens optically, and the other happens digitally. The digital way simply enlarges part of the sensor, amplifying any natural spurious data like electronic noise in that part.
The optical way enlarges the subject via telescoping means.
I advise picture-takers never to use digital zoom if interested in maximizing image quality. I believe cameramakers offer digital zoom as a selling point in order to boost sales to buyers who do not yet know the difference between the two kinds of zoom.
You write: "The FZ-50 has a 1/1.8 size sensor, The FZ-100 has a 1/2.33 sensor. This must mean that the minimum aperture size must also decrease, leaving us to play with speed and ISO to make up for it. This sure doesn't help the depth of field issue if you want to photograph scenery...or does it?"
By the "the minimum aperture size," I suppose you mean a smaller physical size of the iris. In any event, aperture size serves as "a dimensionless number." But enough.
Wikipedia has an informative write-up of the subject of aperture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
As to the difference in sensors, the larger one, in general, will contain more pixels, and presumably will gather more photons. This fact means more information contributing to the photographic image.
I say "presumably" because lately some cameramakers have begun increasing the size of the pixel-sites (photon-buckets, if you will), in order to capture more photons per pixel, adding to the data gathered.
As best I can tell from your comment, you use the two ways point-and-shoot cameras zoom in to enlarge the subject. One way happens optically, and the other happens digitally. The digital way simply enlarges part of the sensor, amplifying any natural spurious data like electronic noise in that part.
The optical way enlarges the subject via telescoping means.
I advise picture-takers never to use digital zoom if interested in maximizing image quality. I believe cameramakers offer digital zoom as a selling point in order to boost sales to buyers who do not yet know the difference between the two kinds of zoom.
You write: "The FZ-50 has a 1/1.8 size sensor, The FZ-100 has a 1/2.33 sensor. This must mean that the minimum aperture size must also decrease, leaving us to play with speed and ISO to make up for it. This sure doesn't help the depth of field issue if you want to photograph scenery...or does it?"
By the "the minimum aperture size," I suppose you mean a smaller physical size of the iris. In any event, aperture size serves as "a dimensionless number." But enough.
Wikipedia has an informative write-up of the subject of aperture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture
Vertical Fractures, Capitol Reef National Park (2009)
Mar 31, 2012 18:51:45 #
rayford2
Loc: New Bethlehem, PA
Thanks, anotherview.
By the way, that's a nice picture you posted, another thanks.
By the way, that's a nice picture you posted, another thanks.
Mar 31, 2012 21:12:38 #
Thanks for kind words re picture. Hadn't looked at this one in a while. Decided to develop it again, for better control of the highlights and contrast. CRNP full of striking natural beauty.
rayford2 wrote:
Thanks, anotherview.
By the way, that's a nice picture you posted, another thanks.
By the way, that's a nice picture you posted, another thanks.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.