For serious photography, I prefer a big, heavy digital SLR. But where my goal is not photography, but I want a camera for snapshots, I use it here.
I expected to buy a Lumix LX series or the Canon S95 - both attempts to match the capabilities of an SLR as much as possible in an easy-pocket camera. But when I read the reviews, I was more confused, until I remembered the basic physical laws are not repealed.
For roughly summarize camera review sites, all major brands subcompact does a good job in bright light. The differentiators are low light, flash, performance, and manual control. And when you read carefully, you realize that there are a lot of practical difference here either. But there is no way to compare them but to exaggerate the differences that make them sound more important than they really are.
Low Light
In low light, increasing digital cameras, ISO, which means that the weak signal from the sensor is amplified. This also increases the noise, causing an overall grainy look and the dark areas, colored confetti. I do not expect a camera to work well in low light, and this also applies to pro-digital SLR cameras and film as well. So pay extra for a camera that is really bad in low light instead of the horrible little sense to me. There's a lot to choose sunglasses based on their performance in low light, or a screwdriver to his ability to drive a nail.
FLASH
For flash, usually a commercial photographer with a power supply that can draw 15 amps AC and power multiple heads that range in size from 4 "diameter to over 36". Subcompact cameras are ridiculously small batteries and small tubes flash (usually less than 0.2 sq inches) located at the worst possible place: close to the lens. It amazes me that any of them work so well as they do. Do I really care that extends to 13 feet and another just 11.75? There have been times when I wanted a more powerful flash, but I think an extra 30 feet, I would not notice an extra 2 or 3
The A3000 flash sync a regular slave flash, if you turn off the red eye feature in the camera. It will not measure it, however, so it is easy to wash out the picture. I think this is true for all Canon subcompact.
PERFORMANCE
When prefocused shot to image processing time is barely noticeable - less than half a second. When you include focusing time, less than 2.5 seconds. It is faster continuous shooting option that does not focus between exposures. This is respectable, and more than enough for my needs. To keep up with a very active children or pets can speed up performance. Tested with 4 GB Lexar Platinum II SDHC 9MB/sec.
MANUAL button
I use the manual controls on my SLR for the most part. I had it on my last two subcompact, and rarely use it. The A3000 has not. The only time I missed it used slave flash. If I am out with my family, I do not think like a photographer so the camera will probably make better decisions. And manual control are less comfortable in a subcompact because of the ergonomic compromises required for such a small camera. Nice to have, but as processors become more intelligent, less important.
Megapixels
The best professional printers print 90,000 dots per square inch. This means that it takes 4 x 6 x 90 000 = 2.2 megapixels with a 4 x 6 Print. 5 x 7 = 3.2 megapixels. 8 x 10 = 7.2 megapixels. Higher megapixels enlarge photo and shot to shot delay (while the camera compresses the image and print it to the card). The only advantage of that "higher resolution" than is required for your final output: you can crop the image a bit without losing image quality. The A3000 is 10 megs, if they had a 6 MEG version, it would be a better camera. Canon knows this and they also know megapixels is much easier to sell.
Sensor size
Bigger is better, but more important than the sensor size, pixel size - the larger the pixels, the higher dynamic range, which means more detail in very bright and very dark areas. This usually means better performance in low light and less noise due to other technological possibilities because of the larger pixels.
The difference in sensor size between this and some of the more expensive small cameras (S95) seem significant until you put it in perspective. The pixel size of a Canon S95 is 6% as a 12-MEG-professional digital SLR (FX format). A3000 is 4%. Given the dynamic range and low light of a pro DSLR is not so great, I can not see any reason to pay a premium of 6% and 4%.
CONCLUSION
My perfect little camera - pocket usably large viewfinder (I can accept a smaller LCD), 5-6 megapixels, manual controls, image stabilization (small cameras are difficult to keep stable), not cluttered with stupid functions - is no longer made. If a camera manufacturer wants me to spend more, they need to get closer to it, more megapixels do not.
Until then, I'm OK with the A3000. The pictures are great for a subcompact. Lightning in a large room is more than acceptable for on-flash, focus is fast and remarkably adept at identifying the right subject, image stabilization works as well as I had hoped. The controls are well laid out and intuitive. LCD is bright and clear, even outdoors. The trigger may be more prominent, and I can attach a thin rubber disc to make it easier to find by feel.
The A3000 does not look expensive, then subjects tend to ignore it. And I'm more inclined to take it, because if damaged or lost, or meetings uneconomical to repair "lens error" that seems to plague all brands, it's not a big deal. The manual is a PDF file on the disc, also available online. Camera in Malaysia. 1-year warranty.
No comments:
Post a Comment