In available light situations I have been taking pictures with my
FujiFilm E900 set at 5 megapixels. I can go up to a maximum of 9.1
megapixels or down to lower values. I know that higher settings
generate a larger image on the card. But is there any effect, positive
or negative, on the available light situation? Is vulnerablitity to
camera shake increased, decreased or stay the same with higher pixel
density?
I have years with film cameras but this is my first digital. I can set
shutter speed and/or aperture manually but I have been using the
automatic settings.
Probably not - I say "probably" because I don't know this particular
camera. But in general when you use a lower resolution setting, the
sensor image is cropped - that is, you only use part of the sensor.
And that part of the sensor is recording the same number of megapixels
it would if you were at full resolution. The pixels are the same size
in other words.
So there is no advantage to this in most cameras. Better (imho) to go
for full resolution and downsize if you need a smaller image; the
downsizing (if done properly) will result in some improvement in
perceived noise. There would be no effect on camea shake at all.
I know of no reason not to shoot at full resolution other than to
aqueeze more shots on a card. If that is not a concern then shoot at
full res and downsize in post.
Ken
On Apr 23, 7:31 am, "j...@wexfordpress.com" <j...@wexfordpress.com>
wrote:
> In available light situations I have been taking pictures with my
> FujiFilm E900 set at 5 megapixels. I can go up to a maximum of 9.1
> megapixels or down to lower values. I know that higher settings
> generate a larger image on the card. But is there any effect, positive
> or negative, on the available light situation? Is vulnerablitity to
> camera shake increased, decreased or stay the same with higher pixel
> density?
>
> I have years with film cameras but this is my first digital. I can set
> shutter speed and/or aperture manually but I have been using the
> automatic settings.
>
> John Culleton
On 23 Apr 2007 05:50:07 -0700, in rec.photo.digital KenS
<ksargent@uwf.edu> wrote:
>Probably not - I say "probably" because I don't know this particular
>camera. But in general when you use a lower resolution setting, the
>sensor image is cropped - that is, you only use part of the sensor.
>And that part of the sensor is recording the same number of megapixels
>it would if you were at full resolution. The pixels are the same size
>in other words.
I would tend to say the opposite. That lower resolutions are not
cropped but down sampled over the whole sensor. Works this way with my
three P&S cameras, as well as my two dslrs.
-
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardG.Ruf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
On Apr 23, 7:31 am, "j...@wexfordpress.com" <j...@wexfordpress.com>
wrote:
> In available light situations I have been taking pictures with my
> FujiFilm E900 set at 5 megapixels. I can go up to a maximum of 9.1
> megapixels or down to lower values. I know that higher settings
> generate a larger image on the card. But is there any effect, positive
> or negative, on the available light situation? Is vulnerablitity to
> camera shake increased, decreased or stay the same with higher pixel
> density?
>
> I have years with film cameras but this is my first digital. I can set
> shutter speed and/or aperture manually but I have been using the
> automatic settings.
>
> John Culleton
Higher noise can result, because in some cases when the camera
downsamples, this tends to average the noise a bit.
Same thing for camera shake. The motion blur can be more noticable at
the higher resolution- BUT, if you downsample in an editor, you will
get the same thing as in the camera downsampled image.
So there is no advantage to shooting in the downsampled mode. You can
always do the same thing yourself afterwords, and compare. If the
high res shot is okay, fine. Otherwise you can downsample and use
that.
Well different cameras do different things I guess. My primary
experience is with Panasonics and Leicas small sensor cameras and they
work as I described.
On Apr 23, 8:23 am, Ed Ruf <"Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)"
<egruf_usen...@cox.net>> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 05:50:07 -0700, in rec.photo.digital KenS
>
> <ksarg...@uwf.edu> wrote:
> >Probably not - I say "probably" because I don't know this particular
> >camera. But in general when you use a lower resolution setting, the
> >sensor image is cropped - that is, you only use part of the sensor.
> >And that part of the sensor is recording the same number of megapixels
> >it would if you were at full resolution. The pixels are the same size
> >in other words.
>
> I would tend to say the opposite. That lower resolutions are not
> cropped but down sampled over the whole sensor. Works this way with my
> three P&S cameras, as well as my two dslrs.
> -
> Ed Ruf (Usen...@EdwardG.Ruf.com)http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
ksargent@uwf.edu (KenS) wrote in
news:1177332607.020306.69230@b75g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com:
> Probably not - I say "probably" because I don't know this
> particular camera. But in general when you use a lower resolution
> setting, the sensor image is cropped - that is, you only use part
> of the sensor. And that part of the sensor is recording the same
> number of megapixels it would if you were at full resolution. The
> pixels are the same size in other words.
Wait; if they worked that way, wouldn't the image scale change as you
changed resolution?
Since the lens is still projecting the image over the full sensor,
the technique you're talking about would result in taking only part
of the image.
Looks like I may have been wrong - I was actually thinking about the
extended optical zoom the FZ cameras offer (which does work as I
described) and the aspect ratio change on the D-Lux 3 - which also
involves a resolution change, and, once again, is a crop of the
sensor.
Sorry about the confusion.
Ken
On Apr 23, 9:50 am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> ksarg...@uwf.edu (KenS) wrote innews:1177332607.020306.69230@b75g2000hsg.googleg roups.com:
>
> > Probably not - I say "probably" because I don't know this
> > particular camera. But in general when you use a lower resolution
> > setting, the sensor image is cropped - that is, you only use part
> > of the sensor. And that part of the sensor is recording the same
> > number of megapixels it would if you were at full resolution. The
> > pixels are the same size in other words.
>
> Wait; if they worked that way, wouldn't the image scale change as you
> changed resolution?
>
> Since the lens is still projecting the image over the full sensor,
> the technique you're talking about would result in taking only part
> of the image.
>
> --
> Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN | b...@iphouse.com
On 23 Apr 2007 07:46:14 -0700, in rec.photo.digital KenS <ksargent@uwf.edu>
wrote:
>Well different cameras do different things I guess. My primary
>experience is with Panasonics and Leicas small sensor cameras and they
>work as I described.
>
Care to give a model #? I've heard of cameras that crop using digital zoom,
but not different sized images. If this is truly the case are there crop
marks in the viewfinder for each resolution?
--
Ed Ruf (Usenet2@EdwardGRuf.com) http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
Well as you see in my previous posting, I said that I was in error.
Regarding the Leica D-Lux - the camera does crop to produce the 3:2
and 4:3 aspect ratios - which also result in a smaller MP count as
well. Given that particular camera has no OVF, there are no framing
marks. One sees the result on the LCD monitor.
The extended optical zoom of the Panasonics is a crop and does result
in a lower MP value (hence my original statement) - and is not the
same as a digital zoom. Once again - an EVF rather than an OVF - so
no crop marks there either.
Sorry for the confusion.
Ken
On Apr 23, 3:48 pm, "Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)"
<egruf_usen...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 23 Apr 2007 07:46:14 -0700, in rec.photo.digital KenS <ksarg...@uwf.edu>
> wrote:
>
> >Well different cameras do different things I guess. My primary
> >experience is with Panasonics and Leicas small sensor cameras and they
> >work as I described.
>
> Care to give a model #? I've heard of cameras that crop using digital zoom,
> but not different sized images. If this is truly the case are there crop
> marks in the viewfinder for each resolution?
> --
> Ed Ruf (Usen...@EdwardGRuf.com)http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photog...ral/index.html
"Don Stauffer in Minnesota" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:1177335328.515505.317990@n59g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> On Apr 23, 7:31 am, "j...@wexfordpress.com" <j...@wexfordpress.com>
> wrote:
>> In available light situations I have been taking pictures with my
>> FujiFilm E900 set at 5 megapixels. I can go up to a maximum of 9.1
>> megapixels or down to lower values. I know that higher settings
>> generate a larger image on the card. But is there any effect, positive
>> or negative, on the available light situation? Is vulnerablitity to
>> camera shake increased, decreased or stay the same with higher pixel
>> density?
>>
>> I have years with film cameras but this is my first digital. I can set
>> shutter speed and/or aperture manually but I have been using the
>> automatic settings.
>>
>> John Culleton
>
> Higher noise can result, because in some cases when the camera
> downsamples, this tends to average the noise a bit.
>
> Same thing for camera shake. The motion blur can be more noticable at
> the higher resolution- BUT, if you downsample in an editor, you will
> get the same thing as in the camera downsampled image.
>
> So there is no advantage to shooting in the downsampled mode. You can
> always do the same thing yourself afterwords, and compare. If the
> high res shot is okay, fine. Otherwise you can downsample and use
> that.
>
Actually that seems to be opposite from what I have read elswhere, do you
have a reference?
Megapixel setting for available light. 
Linear Mode
