Which one does it best? Low Light test

Hi I have three cameras at home and i have decided to test them in the same conditions. 15s aperture with minimum f/stop possible Here are the results. the picture was taken from the same place and represents a curtain with a dim back lighting. Please tell me witch you like the best and why because i cant get to a point. http://imageshack.us/a/img268/5186/img0882i.JPG 8mpx http://imageshack.us/a/img18/8923/1000330n.jpg 14mpx http://imageshack.us/a/img12/6826/img2514pq.jpg 9mpx what do you think?

Hi

I have three cameras at home and i have decided to test them in the same conditions. 15s aperture with minimum f/stop possible
Here are the results. the picture was taken from the same place and represents a curtain with a dim back lighting. Please tell me witch you like the best and why because i cant get to a point.


http://imageshack.us/a/img268/5186/img0882i.JPG 8mpx

http://imageshack.us/a/img18/8923/1000330n.jpg 14mpx

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/6826/img2514pq.jpg 9mpx

what do you think?

Unfortunately, these images are of little or no value to make any conclusions. To make it right you will need to get outside and make comparative images of some object lit by say, a street light. The image must be properly exposed to reveal at least some detail and include clear edges and reasonably large flat surfaces to work out noise level. A car under a lamp post in the night will do.

Unfortunately, these images are of little or no value to make any conclusions. To make it right you will need to get outside and make comparative images of some object lit by say, a street light. The image must be properly exposed to reveal at least some detail and include clear edges and reasonably large flat surfaces to work out noise level. A car under a lamp post in the night will do.

Hi australia! ok i'll do that :) thanks on the info. i still find that the light sensitivity on the 9mpx is very good :)

Hi australia!

ok

i'll do that
thanks on the info. i still find that the light sensitivity on the 9mpx is very good

]new sets of pics available: [link=http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/]Fkickr[/link]

]new sets of pics available:

Fkickr

I like the medium one, IMG 0884. It shows considerable amount of motion blur, but that aside is most detailed and least noisy of all three. Colours are acceptable too. IMG 2517 shows distinct reddish tint, and otherwise is not any better than 0884, but the differences are subtle ( I did not look at 1:1 though). Hard to say really how much it is better or worse - varying lens focal distances make detailed comparison difficult. The last one - 100_0333 is probably the worst one. Being the sharpest one it is also the noisiest one and the darkest one - which makes any adjustments to it very problematic. Colours are very "cold" too, this image seriously differs from the other two in it's white balance. This is a classic "take it or leave it" compact image.

I like the medium one, IMG 0884. It shows considerable amount of motion blur, but that aside is most detailed and least noisy of all three. Colours are acceptable too. IMG 2517 shows distinct reddish tint, and otherwise is not any better than 0884, but the differences are subtle ( I did not look at 1:1 though). Hard to say really how much it is better or worse - varying lens focal distances make detailed comparison difficult.
The last one - 100_0333 is probably the worst one. Being the sharpest one it is also the noisiest one and the darkest one - which makes any adjustments to it very problematic. Colours are very "cold" too, this image seriously differs from the other two in it's white balance. This is a classic "take it or leave it" compact image.

You know... I think as you do, but what makes me think is that the IM_884 is a 2006 Canon SX100IS IM_2517 is a Canon SX230 HS (CMOS) 100_0333 is a Kodak Z5010 The Kodak, as you may see has mixed results depending on what you do to it. It needs more attention to deliver great pics, and night photographs aren't its strong point. The Canon CMOS is great too, but on burst shooting and fast shooting it delivers great easy pictures with great detail, lighting, colors... But the most consistent is a 8mpx CCD sensor with almost 10 years. I get great landing plane pictures with that camera... and awesome flash usage pics as well. Cant understand if today, brands make you pay more if you want a good camera or if the loads of mpx is making cameras worse at mid range solutions...

You know... I think as you do, but what makes me think is that the
IM_884 is a 2006 Canon SX100IS
IM_2517 is a Canon SX230 HS (CMOS)
100_0333 is a Kodak Z5010

The Kodak, as you may see has mixed results depending on what you do to it. It needs more attention to deliver great pics, and night photographs aren't its strong point.
The Canon CMOS is great too, but on burst shooting and fast shooting it delivers great easy pictures with great detail, lighting, colors...
But the most consistent is a 8mpx CCD sensor with almost 10 years. I get great landing plane pictures with that camera... and awesome flash usage pics as well. Cant understand if today, brands make you pay more if you want a good camera or if the loads of mpx is making cameras worse at mid range solutions...

I would share my thoughts on small camera CMOS sensors here. They are step forward, but the area of their superiority is quite specific. In bright daylight CCD may do as well-if not better, in very low light with shutter speed counted in seconds the difference from CCD is not great either. Where you will get it very different is a low light situation where the lighting is not optimal, but not scarce as well - like indoors party shots. Here CMOS comes at its best, and it's backlit variety goes even further: [epzimg]2317966[/epzimg] This image was taken with IXUS115HS, and with little tweaking it shows up as no CCD cameras I ever had would do. As for older cameras - their great merit is in large pixel size - which is critical with night photography. My best night images taken with compact were done with 3Mp Fujifilm Finepix s3000. With its native ISO100 (and nothing else) tripod-mounted camera produced JPGs that could be pulled extensively - and still not exhibit noise deterioration. However, this sort of compact camera application is rather exotic, and I would not think of household grade camera makers even taking it into account.

I would share my thoughts on small camera CMOS sensors here. They are step forward, but the area of their superiority is quite specific. In bright daylight CCD may do as well-if not better, in very low light with shutter speed counted in seconds the difference from CCD is not great either. Where you will get it very different is a low light situation where the lighting is not optimal, but not scarce as well - like indoors party shots. Here CMOS comes at its best, and it's backlit variety goes even further:



This image was taken with IXUS115HS, and with little tweaking it shows up as no CCD cameras I ever had would do.
As for older cameras - their great merit is in large pixel size - which is critical with night photography. My best night images taken with compact were done with 3Mp Fujifilm Finepix s3000. With its native ISO100 (and nothing else) tripod-mounted camera produced JPGs that could be pulled extensively - and still not exhibit noise deterioration. However, this sort of compact camera application is rather exotic, and I would not think of household grade camera makers even taking it into account.

thanks! But its funny to see a 2006 camera doing what 2013 cameras cant do :)

thanks!

But its funny to see a 2006 camera doing what 2013 cameras cant do

gee , Michael ,it sure looks good ;)... if i didn't know otherwise i would have thought this to be a well done Photoshop enhancement :D

gee , Michael ,it sure looks good ... if i didn't know otherwise i would have thought this to be a well done Photoshop enhancement