From: DanP on
On Mar 12, 5:38 pm, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote:
> On 12 Mar 2010 13:39:18 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> >Words are good at arguing about logical relationships. They're rubbish
> >at arguing about numerical relationships. That's why we had to invent
> >mathematics. The much bruited "thresholds" of image quality with
> >respect to sensor and lens parameters are artefacts of the inevitably
> >Procrustean translation of the mathematics of resolution to words.
>
> TA-DA! We have a WINNER! Of pretend-photographer trolls and bit-head
> tech-head uselessness.

See some numbers here:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/341%7C0/(appareil2)/247%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Nikon/(brand2)/Canon

DanP
From: Bowser on
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 09:51:11 +1300, Me <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote:

>Bowser wrote:
>> While I did not upgrade from the 5D to
>> the 5D II simply for more resolution, the added resolution is clearly
>> visible in prints as small as 8 x 10.
> >
>Did you upgrade from about 3mp?
>I've actually used and compared 5d 1 &II, and my conclusion is very much
>the same as this:
>http://www.astroweb.no/a900/a700-vs-a900.html
>
>Added resolution "clearly visible at 8x10" is plain and utter nonsense.
>I think I actually can tell the difference between 6 and 24mp at 10x8,
>but to say it's "clearly visible" is totally delusional.
>Printer used is R1800, which also exceeded wet-process print resolution
>(150lpi) by about double (horizontal) to about 50% (radial) (printer
>uses the same print engine as the R2400 used by David L).

Sorry, I see the difference. If you don't, I don't care. I'm not
trying to convince you of anything.
From: Bowser on
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:00:14 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com"
<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>Bowser wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:39:42 -0500, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com"
>>>
>>> It's not likely to end even if YOU say it will. There isn't a limit when
>>> it comes to marketing.
>>
>> Who cares about SLR/P&S comparisons? Two different beasts, and
>> comparing them proves nothing, really. Why not compare a 5MP P&S from
>> 5 years ago with a newer cam in the same market? Try this: compare a
>> Canon G2 with a Canon G11 and see which one produces better images. I
>> have, and the G11 wins every damned time. That's a 4MP P&S compared to
>> a 10MP P&S and there's no question, really, which is better.
>
>
>So you believe a 20MP camera with the same size sensor will be even
>better? That is where this is headed.. And does a G2 and a G11 have the
>same size sensor? Sorry I don't know the answer there.
>
>Stephanie

Me, neither. But my point was than simply saying an older lower
resolution camera can outperform a newer higher resolution camera is
not a singular truth. It may be true in some cases, but in many others
it is not unless someone can disprove what I said about the G2 and
G11. And yes, there is a point where simply stuffing more pixels will
hurt, no question. I think you see that too many consumer P&S models
have already crossed the line and IQ seems to have gone down, and the
reason for more pixels is marketing more than anything else.

Which is why I still have my Panasonic FX01, an old 6MP P&S cam that
I'll keep until it totally dies. I still like it...
From: Robert Spanjaard on
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:18:04 -0500, Bowser wrote:

> Me, neither. But my point was than simply saying an older lower
> resolution camera can outperform a newer higher resolution camera is not
> a singular truth. It may be true in some cases, but in many others it is
> not unless someone can disprove what I said about the G2 and G11. And
> yes, there is a point where simply stuffing more pixels will hurt, no
> question. I think you see that too many consumer P&S models have already
> crossed the line and IQ seems to have gone down, and the reason for more
> pixels is marketing more than anything else.
>
> Which is why I still have my Panasonic FX01, an old 6MP P&S cam that
> I'll keep until it totally dies. I still like it...

When it dies, you could take a look at compacts with a slightly larger
sensor, like the Canon Powershot S90. At 10MP, it has even less pixels per
cm² than the 6MP FX3 (the FX1 had 3 MP).



--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
From: Me on
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Me" <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hnblde$fac$1(a)news.albasani.net...
>> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>>> I can't speak for Alan's wisdom, but I can speak from my experience.
>>> Canon has done exactly the right thing in the 5D2. (I'd guess Alan's
>>> experience with prints from his 20+MP dSLR is similar to mine.)
>> No - from my experience they did the wrong thing. They should have
>> upgraded the AF module.
>
> But they did: they gave us live view which allows incredibly precise
> focusing from anywhere in the image.
>
> But AF? What's AF? Must be one of those newfangled bells and whistles I
> don't use/need. (I'm not completely joking here: 3 of my 5 main lenses are
> MF. My walk-around kit is Zeiss 21/2.8, Voigtlander 40/2.0, and Sigma 70/2.8
> macro, the Sigma being the only AF lens).
>
Well, you're a good candidate for a new Pentax medium format camera
perhaps. If it was small and inexpensive, then I'd chuck one in my
backpack for the rare occasion it would be useful. But it isn't, so I
won't.