Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 2:38 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:26 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: Germany
Dale wrote:
sensor density may have no discernable effect

There you have it: The word "may" is the key point. Nice you finally admitted that pixel density may have a discernible effect.
As I said: you're riding that specific LX3 vs TZ5 comparison to death which does not prove anything. So many components in the design of either camera have an influence on IQ, that putting the end result just on one factor "pixel density" is short sighted and plain dumb.

_________________
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D800+assorted lenses


Last edited by Thomas on Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 1:26 pm 
You're taking this thread away from it's original topic, Dale. The topic was about pixel densities, not whether the LX3 is better than the TZ5 or not. They aren't the only two cameras in the world and when comparing different pixel densities, there are plenty of other cameras to take into account before you can pass the conclusion that a higher pixel density is better.

You can compare the G10 and the LX3 if you're deciding on which to buy but not for evaluating the IQ difference of sensors with different pixel densities for the reasons than Thomas and myself have already pointed out several times.

Try comparing the LX3 to Panasonic's other recent 10mp compact, the FX500. Gordon's done a review and I think you'll find the LX3's results to be significantly better.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Zooms
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:16 pm 
dalethorn wrote:
hairyfrog wrote:
The market will determine what manufacturers sell.....

Nope. Turns out we can't have both. Right now I can get a 280mm eff. zoom on a pocket camera *without* manual controls. What kind of choice is that? In fact, it used to be 35-350mm, which is even better. Now that's dead. Market determines product? No - I work in a large corporation, as do several friends. What dictates product is not very intelligent in most cases, it's *fashion* that's dictated by the fashion leaders, in the case of serious compact cameras, that's Dpreview and other photo forums.


I think you are over-estimating the power of forums Dalethorn. The masses don't read this type of stuff, they just want a cam for holiday snaps and they go along to their local jessies / boots / argos and buy the features they want - that drives the manufacturers. If this doesn't fit with your requirements thats unfortunate but that's life ...


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Zooms
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 5:51 pm 
dalethorn wrote:
hairyfrog wrote:
The market will determine what manufacturers sell.....

Nope. Turns out we can't have both. Right now I can get a 280mm eff. zoom on a pocket camera *without* manual controls. What kind of choice is that? In fact, it used to be 35-350mm, which is even better. Now that's dead. Market determines product? No - I work in a large corporation, as do several friends. What dictates product is not very intelligent in most cases, it's *fashion* that's dictated by the fashion leaders, in the case of serious compact cameras, that's Dpreview and other photo forums.

hairyfrog is right
I sell cameras, and i guarantee you that not a single customer ive had has ever heard of dpreview.com let alone other photo forums. The most amount of research someone is generally willing to do is search for a camera based on brand(good or bad) online and look for the best price for it, print it out and ask us in store to price match it, half the time it being an outdated camera they didn't know was discontinued/just wanted it because it was on sale/has the most MP(i know sad huh).

The vast majority just come in, give me a price range, and i show them 2-3 options and they pick the one that best suits them based on its features(speed/zoom/menu/ease of use to name a few)and their needs, no sales person bias, no prior research, no fashion concerns.

bottom line? "fashion leaders" don't sell cameras. I'm sorry, it just doesn't work that way.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: conclusion
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:26 pm 
Hi Folks,
it seems to me after hearing all the "evidence,"
from witnesses and various experts, that the only conclusion I can reach is this;
that all things being equal (especially sensor size)
the consequence of Pixel Density does not in itself
equal better IQ. Correct?
Therefore it is at the very least, (Pixel Density) a highly
debatable and potentially misleading concept to advocate across the board
that lower Pixel Density has an advantage.
From a purely logical standpoint, if this was the case
then all cameras would follow suit and adhere to this principle (and have LOW PD).
Clearly, there are thousands upon thousands of variations upon the theme
which can be interpreted as the fact that there is NO SUCH
proven Law in physics. If there were, then it seems quite obvious that many manufacturers are trying their best to ignore or go contrary to such a Law.
Therefore, may I maintain that the quotation of the Pixel Density
on the "Spec" list, simply should be disregarded as a "Red Herring"
which aids the advertisers and marketeers of the product?(by "leading" the customer where they want you to go)
The number itself, at least to me, mean VERY little even after this 5 page enquiry/report/forum. OK it can be proven from a technical point of view, that PD is a factor in Resolution and how large prints would show their details. But by the same token, this is only one aspect and
my question initially, concerns Image Quality.
Image Quality in the final analysis is not solely or even most of the time
tied to this number called Pixel Density. Have a fine day everyone...
Otto


Last edited by otto uberswengen on Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:46 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9817
Location: UK
Hi Otto,

It is, however, probably useful to infer IQ based on the pixel size if one is comparing cameras from the same manufacturer and which employ sensors from the same generation. That "same generation" qualifier is important as we have seen significant improvements in sensor design over the last years. That said, although I haven't bought many cameras, I have not and would never buy a camera until I had seen sample images posted on the Net so I could see whether the camera would satisfy my own needs. That goes hand in hand with reading the reviews, of course.

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: An Aside
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 12:23 am 
Just as an Aside,
what is the "Pixel Density"
with FILMS?
Otto


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:47 am 
The pixel size will give you a better indication of IQ because of the area between sensors that Thomas mentioned. That factor isn't taken into account when calculating the pixel density.

However, all other things being equal, I think I can safely say that everyone on this thread with the except of Dalethorn, excepts the conclusion that a lower pixel density is better for overall IQ.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: An Aside
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:12 am 
otto uberswengen wrote:
Just as an Aside,
what is the "Pixel Density"
with FILMS?
Otto


Film is an analog medium, and as such it has no concept of a "pixel". It's like saying how many "pixels" there are in your retina. They don't go through a discretization process, so the idea of a pixel doesn't apply.

That said, a very valid question is asking how many pixels does it take to give you good prints that rival that of film? That too is hard to answer and it depends on the size of your print. The old ISO 100 film could be printed _huge_ and the quality would be very acceptable.

How many pixels does it take for a sensor to equal 35 mm film? If someone knows of an accurate way of measuring it, do share :). Things like print size and print resolution matter when working out the answer and what looks acceptable to someone might not be acceptable to another.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: another one?
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 6:58 am 
Have I stumbled upon ANOTHER
hot topic...which is, how many pixels does it take to equal film?
Can't wait for the anwers!
Otto


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:24 am 
Long story short, anything between 2 and 16mp (35mm) depending on the quality of the film. For the long story, this should explain enough to answer your question.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Thank You
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 7:37 am 
Excellent article, thank you.
Why o why do I still pine for FILM ?
(Rhetorical question)
Otto


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group