Reliable/reputable digital photography sites?

[LTig]

Ok: you didn't understand what I said.

Count me in.

Which is that no sensor has a single curve - you have a range of curves for (at least) different contrast levels. A lot of consumer level sensors over specialize in the high contrast part of the curve at the cost of the lower contrast level. This is why pro cinema cameras and lenses often very different characteristics to consumer stills gear, with eg very low pixel counts relative to sensor size and thin filter stacks. Eg an Alexa 65 has 20 times the sensor area of an RX100 but the same pixel count.

My understanding how a pixel well in a sensor works is as follows:

• with no light there are a few noise photons inside.
• with increasing light the well is filled in a quite linear relation.
• when the capacity of the well is reached more light does not increase the number of photons captured which is called clipping

Do I understand you correctly that you claim that the linear part of a sensor well is not linear but a curve tailored to specific needs? If yes could you provide a link where such is explained (Wikipedia? a scientific paper?)

My understanding until now was that all sensors are (more or less) linear and the curve is implemented in software in the JPG engine.

 

[Chromatischism]

Ideally I'd like a decent zoom with good low light performance for $700/$800 that is pocket size.

These are diametrically opposed goals, as low light performance requires light collection, and to collect light you need a light bucket.

I would suggest Nikon Z 50 with the 40mm f/2, but take a look at it and see if it meets your needs. You would probably want to pair it with the 28mm so not a zoom, but much better performance.

At around the 5:00 mark:

 

[JeffS7444]

http://www.13thmonkey.org/~boris/photos/Foveon2/foveon-highlights.html

This is the equivalent of a subjective audio review: There's no attempt at any sort of controlled testing, and not so much as a single word about how raw files were processed except for a mention about using "default settings". To me, it reads as just another hobbyist's opinion piece.

 

[JeffS7444]

That's my concern. They are pricey, and they aren't real good in low light. Ideally I'd like a decent zoom with good low light performance for $700/$800 that is pocket size. All purpose camera that i can carry around and take pictures with while traveling, or going to events, parties, concerts, or just walking around.

If you plan on shooting by moon- or star light, then you do what you must, and it probably won't be pocket-sized. But wandering around the city after dark and photographing the scenes through shop windows with my RX100 Mk I, my main complaint has more to do with reflections and loss of contrast due to the window glass.

 

[imateacup]

This is the equivalent of a subjective audio review: There's no attempt at any sort of controlled testing, and not so much as a single word about how raw files were processed except for a mention about using "default settings". To me, it reads as just another hobbyist's opinion piece.

Well, no. The most important content on the page are the completely freaking objective response graphs and hue maps. As for your complaint about settings... I don't think you understand the issue here. This isn't about pleasing "tonality" but about how over exposure is handled by the sensor. There are no relevant raw processing settings for handling this. The data is gone. That's the point.

Also, you didn't bother finding out who the author was: he writes image processing software. So, no, not "another hobbyist."

 

[imateacup]

If you plan on shooting by moon- or star light, then you do what you must, and it probably won't be pocket-sized. But wandering around the city after dark and photographing the scenes through shop windows with my RX100 Mk I, my main complaint has more to do with reflections and loss of contrast due to the window glass.

Those aren't low light scenes, surely? Yes, you may have been standing in the dark, but the window displays were lit up. I mean, you can see the lights in the picture...

Also: if you use a polarizer you should be able to get rid of the problems you're complaining about.

 

[imateacup]

I would suggest Nikon Z 50 with the 40mm f/2, but take a look at it and see if it meets your needs. You would probably want to pair it with the 28mm so not a zoom, but much better performance.

Which obviously isn't a zoom, costs several times more than he wants to pay, and is much larger than his spec.. Honestly, as someone who hates phones and has shot with quite a range of cameras, I'd just buy a good phone for this job. The enormous processing power and heavy investment in software mean that they get a lot more out of a small sensor and lens than a conventional camera. Unless the user is willing to do a lot of image processing on a PC afterwards, which the OP probably isn't.

Also, I'd avoid investing in Nikon gear if possible right now. They're very likely to go bankrupt in the next few years, which isn't great for support or resale value.

 

[Chromatischism]

Which obviously isn't a zoom, costs several times more than he wants to pay, and is much larger than his spec.. Honestly, as someone who hates phones and has shot with quite a range of cameras, I'd just buy a good phone for this job. The enormous processing power and heavy investment in software mean that they get a lot more out of a small sensor and lens than a conventional camera. Unless the user is willing to do a lot of image processing on a PC afterwards, which the OP probably isn't.

Also, I'd avoid investing in Nikon gear if possible right now. They're very likely to go bankrupt in the next few years, which isn't great for support or resale value.

This post is so full of FUD that I don't know where to begin or why I'd even bother.

 

[Fahzz]

I had to look up FUD - thanks for that! Other responders, thanks for the tips. Happy Holidays!