Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Wed Sep 17, 2014 5:37 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 72 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: the latest...
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 3:13 am 
Thanks for that,
I've heard good things about the F Series
from Fuji...supposed to be lowlight wonders...
but I believe that the models are due for
updating...(they don't as yet, to my knowledge have
the provia/velvia modes)....
Ideally to my mind, if they could make the S5 in a compact form...
that looks (at least)better than the G10 (for my cousin's sake!)
I shall buy at least TWO!
Incidentally, I have Minolta, Canon, Nikon and Fuji cameras...(even an Olympus and Kodak I haven't used for a few years(!)
I don't mind stacking up on my toys(!)
Two of my favourites are the E900 (great all-rounder Fuji) and Nikon Coolpix 3200(great pictures but a bit slow off the mark)
but as I said, a really up to date rendition that puts the G10 into the shade
will take the cake! (again for my cousin's sake!)
Otto


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 5:32 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7936
Location: Germany
Oops, excuse me Otto!
Here's some background on the technical terms...

Algorithm: In today's world you can use "algorithm" and computer- (or microprocessor-) "program" interchangeably. It is just a set of instructions that describe how e.g. the processor of a camera should reduce noise.

Pixel-binning: It's like treating not every single pixel individually but lumping several (i.e. 2 or more) adjacent pixels together and treating them as one. Example: Binning 4 adajcent pixels of a 36MP sensor together makes this sensor effectivly a 9MP sensor. The "treating" is again done by a specific algorithm.

AA-Filter: An optical filter mounted directly in front of most sensors which reduces (!) the resolution of the original image. This sounds crazy, but it prevents moiree and other nasty side effects when reproducing fine structures with a sensor.

I've added some of this to my post on abbreviations & explanations.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Thanks Thomas
PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:53 pm 
That's really helpful...(honestly!)
I see that a lot of people refer to these terms like they are old buddies.
Especially when the argument gets a bit nitty-gritty.
However, who REALLY knows what these things do
apart from the specific designer of the camera package?
Wouldn't these "inner" dimensions and technical
specifications be their SECRET anyway and the people who
actually know are probably restricted by the
official Secrets Rule by their respective companies.?
Which conveniently leads me back to my original
idea/question which in a roundabout way, after all of this,
is to to say, Pixel Density per se, is potentially misleading at the very least
that is, to the ordinary Joe like me and it plays into the hands
of the marketing Wizard, as another way to confound and therefore
sell more. This is my cynical or suspicious mind at work.
Otto


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:07 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9821
Location: UK
Hi folks,

The tutorial Image Noise And Noise Reduction over at Trusted Reviews is loosely related to this topic.

Ever wondered what your sensor actually looks like under a microscope? Well here you go:
    Image
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: sensor looks
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:28 am 
Thanks Bob, how would one with half the pixel density look like?
Also, from which exact camera did this one come from?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 11:44 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9821
Location: UK
.
Reduced pixel density equals bigger pixels in my book so each microlens would be a little larger, all things being equal. I've no idea what camera it came from as the photograph comes from the article. Click on it to read more...

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:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 12:02 pm 
That's a pretty good link, Bob. I didn't realize that all the different compact sizes were so tiny. 15 MP in those 1/2.3, 1/1.8 or even 2/3 sensors looks crazy to me, especially when full frame sensors do 24 MP in the Sony A900.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 2:23 pm 
I wonder how they make the micro lenses.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thanks Thomas
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:57 pm 
otto uberswengen wrote:
However, who REALLY knows what these things do apart from the specific designer of the camera package?

The problem is that the techie people are continually led back into the techie discussion and *everyone* ignores the obvious - that the Emperor Has No Clothes. When I processed the LX3 and TZ5 images side by side, after subtracting out the 10mp -vs- 9mp difference, there was *no* remaining quality difference as there should have been, *if* a lower pixel density really does produce a superior result. Otto is the *only* person to notice this, and so what does that mean? It means forget all the techie theories - probably the superior camera will be the newest with the most pixels (hint: Canon G10)


Top
  
 
 Post subject: density
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:04 pm 
pgtips wrote:
.....15 MP in those 1/2.3, 1/1.8 or even 2/3 sensors looks crazy to me.....

In the Photokina interviews the Canon designers were confronted by the Dpreview people on this issue, and the Canon people wisely rebuked Dpreview's view (and other forums too), saying that megapixels need to increase, and words to the effect that "we'll worry about the design - you just stick to testing." Which BTW would help here, too, if people would do more tests and less complaining about density.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:09 pm 
more product testing is difficult when we arnt a website with a giant team to test products with 30some odd pages of in-depth reviews, so in my book, we should leave the testing to them, and they should leave the pixel density blogging to us. :lol:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:17 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 7936
Location: Germany
@Dale:
Well some forum members correctly identified the image from the LX3 due to the better quality.
So your assertion "there was *no* remaining quality difference" is simply wrong.
It might also be that your images don't offer the best situation to identify the differences. But even then we can see them.

And if you mind looking at the differences between D3/700 and D300 images or read any serious test *no* person seriously says that the IQ for both sensors is equal.
So you should not ride your LX3 vs TZ5 horse to death. It might well be that this is not the best choice to prove a single point about the general influence of pixel density.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: gaps
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 7:47 pm 
That pic of the sensor is very interesting - if the micro lenses are the round blobs (!) then there is quite a gap between each one - I wondered what the manufacturers really meant when they talked about making the gaps smaller but this illustrates it quite clearly ...


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: density
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:19 pm 
dalethorn wrote:
pgtips wrote:
I would love to read the transcript of that interview.

It should still be there in the Photokina interviews at Dpreview.com.


http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302_canoninterview.asp

Interviewer's statements are in bold, the Canon guy is in normal script. Underlines and italics are my own.

Quote:
So at the moment is there still an image quality disadvantage to CMOS in a small sensor?

"The signal which each pixel produces is different for CMOS and CCD, as is the noise current, so they are not directly comparable. The output is very different."


Translation: Yes, there is an image quality difference. Let us iron out the kinks first.

Quote:
We ask because the standard set by EOS cameras using CMOS - in noise terms - is very high, and there's an expectation - realistic or not - that this will be reflected in compact cameras using CMOS sensors.

"It all depends on the sensor size and pixel size; the EOS 5D Mark II has a much larger pixel pitch than any compact, so obviously that makes a big difference. However, in the future, even the small pixels will, by improvements to the technology, offer better quality - though we cannot say when."


So the Canon guy says that sensor size and pixel size make a big difference.

Quote:
Now we have tiny compact camera sensors with over 14 million pixels are we getting to the point where resolution is being limited by the lens?

"Again we can"t go into detail but the lenses themselves are good enough; diffraction is beginning to be the limiting factor when closing down the aperture."


Translation: Yes we are, but I just can't give you a straight answer.

Quote:
So our point is, why keep going? If you're already at the point where adding megapixels brings no benefits why do it? As a market leader could Canon not take a stand on this issue…

"To some extent I agree with you, which is why we're looking at the possibility of adding diversity to the G10, which would be the answer to those looking for something other than high megapixel count."


Translation: You got me there, and our marketing departments are working overtime to find a new way to market these P&S cameras to the masses.

I see nothing in that article that says a larger sensor pixel is detrimental to the image quality. In fact, the Canon guy basically agrees that cramming pixels into P&S cameras is a useless endeavour and that pixel sizes matter while pointing to their flag ship EOS 5D.

No where in that interview does the Canon guy tell DPreview to shove it. In fact, he comes across like a politician who is cornered by being unable to give a straight answer.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Zooms
PostPosted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:20 pm 
The market will determine what manufacturers sell as it always has. So, I expect some consumers will want a long zoom and be prepared to sacrifice image quality somewhat, wheras some will prefer a smaller zoom, get better image quality and live with the lack of convenience.

Surely we can have both?


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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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