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: nospam on 24 Feb 2010 17:04 In article <hm3o8h$qfi$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: > I've got too many these days. I have the SD14 (have always used Sigma > before others, including the SD9). I also have an Olympus E-510 and my wife > bought me a Canon 7D for my 50th. Now that's a nice camera. that's a nice wife.
From: Robert Spanjaard on 24 Feb 2010 17:22 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:02:35 -0500, nospam wrote: >> I diasgree. The older 3.4 MP Foveon was on par with 6 MP, some say 8 >> MP cameras. The current sensor is on the same level as a 10 - 12 MP >> sensors. > > bullshit. most reviews claimed that the current 4.6 mp sensor is > comparable to 'roughly 8 megapixels'. dpreview said it's not even close > to 10 mp. "And it is a camera capable of producing some great images. Despite the low nominal resolution suggested by its pixel count, the DP2 can capture astonishing levels of fine detail that are comparable with some of the better 12MP bayer designs." http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp2/page23.asp -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: nospam on 24 Feb 2010 17:39 In article <ac90f$4b85a6c2$546accd9$32525(a)cache90.multikabel.net>, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > >> I diasgree. The older 3.4 MP Foveon was on par with 6 MP, some say 8 > >> MP cameras. The current sensor is on the same level as a 10 - 12 MP > >> sensors. > > > > bullshit. most reviews claimed that the current 4.6 mp sensor is > > comparable to 'roughly 8 megapixels'. dpreview said it's not even close > > to 10 mp. > > "And it is a camera capable of producing some great images. Despite the > low nominal resolution suggested by its pixel count, the DP2 can capture > astonishing levels of fine detail that are comparable with some of the > better 12MP bayer designs." > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp2/page23.asp they're comparing it to other compact cameras, with sensors that are much smaller than what's in the dp2. larger sensors do better than smaller sensors and that has nothing to do with foveon or bayer. when compared with a sensor of similar size (another slr), it does not compete. <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page19.asp> The Sigma DP1 delivers an admirable resolution considering the size of its image output of not even five megapixels. While it outresolves the downscaled Nikon D60 image and almost matches the resolution of the ten megapixel Ricoh, it cannot really compete with a modern 10 megapixel DSLR such as the Nikon D60. and the last part once again for clarity: ...almost matches the resolution of the ten megapixel Ricoh, it cannot really compete with a modern 10 megapixel DSLR such as the Nikon D60. note that the d60 is old. canon's entry level is now 15 megapixels, with 18 megapixels in the midrange and nikon/sony on top at 24 megapixels. sigma's *next* dslr, the sd15, is *still* 4.6 megapixels. they're stuck. it's laughable.
From: Robert Spanjaard on 24 Feb 2010 18:47 On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:39:16 -0500, nospam wrote: > In article <ac90f$4b85a6c2$546accd9$32525(a)cache90.multikabel.net>, > Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > >> >> I diasgree. The older 3.4 MP Foveon was on par with 6 MP, some say >> >> 8 MP cameras. The current sensor is on the same level as a 10 - 12 >> >> MP sensors. >> > >> > bullshit. most reviews claimed that the current 4.6 mp sensor is >> > comparable to 'roughly 8 megapixels'. dpreview said it's not even >> > close to 10 mp. >> >> "And it is a camera capable of producing some great images. Despite the >> low nominal resolution suggested by its pixel count, the DP2 can >> capture astonishing levels of fine detail that are comparable with some >> of the better 12MP bayer designs." >> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp2/page23.asp > > they're comparing it to other compact cameras, with sensors that are > much smaller than what's in the dp2. larger sensors do better than > smaller sensors and that has nothing to do with foveon or bayer. > > when compared with a sensor of similar size (another slr), it does not > compete. > > <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page19.asp> I'm sorry, I didn't know the Sony A330 was a compact with a much smaller sensor. Again, you're nothing but a liar, twisting and turning when you get caught. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: nospam on 24 Feb 2010 19:13
In article <d834c$4b85ba9a$546accd9$16020(a)cache80.multikabel.net>, Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap(a)arumes.com> wrote: > I'm sorry, I didn't know the Sony A330 was a compact with a much smaller > sensor. and according to the review you cited, the dp2 didn't resolve as well as the a330. it only managed 1400-1500 lph *with* moire (aka aliasing, so it's actually resolving less than that) versus 1900 lph for the a330 with no moire. the 12 megapixel olympus (slightly smaller sensor than the dp2) was able to resolve 2200 lph, almost *double* that of the dp2. in short, the dp2 does *not* compare with 12 megapixel sensors. <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp2/page21.asp> > Again, you're nothing but a liar, twisting and turning when you get caught. sounds like you. |