Camera Labs

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

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.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

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 ...

_________________
EOS 40D / Ixus 500 / S95, Canon 24-105 F4L, 50 F1.8, Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS, Canon 10-22 IS, Speedlite 430EX II, 580 EXII
My flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/hairyfrog/

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and look for the best price for it, print it out and ask us in store to price match it, half the time it being an outdated camera they didn't know was discontinued/just wanted it because it was on sale/has the most MP(i know sad huh).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.

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

_________________
Noise to one is music to another...

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.

_________________
OM-D E-M5 + ED 12-50mm, H-PS14042E, H-F007014E, L-RS014150E, M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 45mm 1:1.8.
Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.

Just as an Aside,
what is the "Pixel Density"
with FILMS?
Otto

_________________
Noise to one is music to another...

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.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

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.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

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

_________________
Noise to one is music to another...

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.

_________________
Graham
Flickr

Excellent article, thank you.
Why o why do I still pine for FILM ?
(Rhetorical question)
Otto

_________________
Noise to one is music to another...