Why only 4.6MP?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Processing Program
Next: curanzia versicherung, berufsunf�higkeits versicherung, berufsunf�higkeitsversicherung f�r selbst�ndige, berufsunf�higkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
From: David J Taylor on 1 Mar 2010 11:48 "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message news:hmglvc$gl3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... [] > You keep stating this but you are incorrect. Can you cite the reviews? > It was the SD9 and SD10 that was compared to six-eight MP Bayer cameras. > From my earlier post, the dpreview of the DP2 which has the same sensor > of the SD14: > > "Even so, the > level of detail being rendered is clearly very high and not dissimilar > to > that of a well-processed image from a camera with a 12mp conventional > sensor > such as the E-P1. Per-pixel sharpness on the DP2 is way ahead of the > E-P1 > and even in a large print it seems ulikely that the extra pixels on the > Olympus sensor would give you any advantage". Of course it will "look" sharp - they omitted the essential anti-alias, low-pass filter! Just a lot more sensitive to the disturbing moir� effects. David
From: nospam on 1 Mar 2010 12:04 In article <hmglvc$gl3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: > > when the sd14 came out, most reviews said it was comparable to 6-8 mp. > > unfortunately for sigma, competing cameras at the time were 10 mp and > > half the price of the sd14. plus, those cameras actually worked and > > didn't lock up. > > You keep stating this but you are incorrect. Can you cite the reviews? It > was the SD9 and SD10 that was compared to six-eight MP Bayer cameras. the sd9/10 were compared to the likes of 6 mp, so it's a bit of a stretch to think that the sd14 with just 35% more pixels would compare with 12 mp. dpreview lists the dp1 as resolving 1500-1525 lines: <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page19.asp> they list the 6mp nikon d70 at 1450-1600 lines, a little wider range but basically the same: <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page26.asp> and the 8mp canon 350d at 1650-1850 lines and the 10 mp nikon d80 at 1800-2200 lines <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page28.asp> sd14 compares with an 8 mp canon 30d: <http://www.popphoto.com/content/hands-sigma-sd14> ...on a par with cameras in the Canon EOS 30D class. dp1 is 8-9mp: <http://www.popphoto.com/Reviews/Cameras/Camera-Test-Sigma-DP1> That rivals images shot with most 8-9MP compacts and DSLRs, and it's just slightly below the Sigma SD14 (1900 lines). While not rivaling the 2350 lines captured by the 14.6MP Pentax K20D, resolution is far better than the typical 5MP camera. dp1 is definitely less than 10 mp: <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page19.asp> ...it cannot really compete with a modern 10 megapixel DSLR such as the Nikon D60. several 10 mp cameras all have 'much better image quality' than the sd14: <http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/sigma-sd14/4505-6501_7-32078973- 2.html> In fact, here is a list of five cameras that cost less than half of the SD14's approximately $1,600 street price (as of the publish date of this review) and will give you significantly faster performance and much better image quality performance across an equivalent sensitivity range: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XT, Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi, Nikon D40x, Pentax K10D, Sony Alpha DSLR-A100. > From > my earlier post, the dpreview of the DP2 which has the same sensor of the > SD14: > > "Even so, the > level of detail being rendered is clearly very high and not dissimilar to > that of a well-processed image from a camera with a 12mp conventional sensor > such as the E-P1. 'not dissimilar' does not mean it's resolving the same as a 12 mp camera. although it may look 'not dissimilar', because there's no anti-alias filter, a lot of the so called 'detail' is false and not in the original subject. > Per-pixel sharpness on the DP2 is way ahead of the E-P1 > and even in a large print it seems ulikely that the extra pixels on the > Olympus sensor would give you any advantage". per pixel sharpness is another term for detail at nyquist, which no sensor can resolve. since there's no anti-alias filter, it's all alias artifacts, or false detail.
From: nospam on 1 Mar 2010 12:12 In article <hmgr4s$nm3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Of course it will "look" sharp - they omitted the essential anti-alias, > low-pass filter! Just a lot more sensitive to the disturbing moir� > effects. don't forget that the sigma software sharpens by default, even when set to 0.
From: David J Taylor on 1 Mar 2010 12:26 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:010320101212188197%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <hmgr4s$nm3$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >> Of course it will "look" sharp - they omitted the essential anti-alias, >> low-pass filter! Just a lot more sensitive to the disturbing moir� >> effects. > > don't forget that the sigma software sharpens by default, even when set > to 0. Oh, I had forgotten that. The basic sensor must be lacking if the need /both/ to omit the low-pass filter /and/ sharpen the image. Cheers, David
From: nospam on 1 Mar 2010 12:36
In article <hmgtbe$89h$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >> Of course it will "look" sharp - they omitted the essential anti-alias, > >> low-pass filter! Just a lot more sensitive to the disturbing moir� > >> effects. > > > > don't forget that the sigma software sharpens by default, even when set > > to 0. > > Oh, I had forgotten that. The basic sensor must be lacking if the need > /both/ to omit the low-pass filter /and/ sharpen the image. yep. all these comparisons somehow neglect to mention that the playing field is nowhere near level. |