From: John P Sheehy on
I've made a direct comparison of RAW data per unit of area in the deep
shadows of ISO 100 between the FZ50 (1.97 micron) and the 400D (5.7
micron). Exposure is the same, same Av (f/4.5), same Tv (1/100), same real
focal length (22mm), both shot at "ISO 100" pushed to ISO 13,500. Large
crop is 100% for FZ50 (0.4MP), and small crop is 100% for 400D (0.05MP),
and the other two are the other camera scaled to the 100% crop of each. As
I already knew, the bigger pixels of the DSLR are inferior compared to the
higher pixel density of the small sensor camera:

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/100092629

--
John Sheehy
From: Roy G on

"John P Sheehy" <jps(a)no.kom> wrote in message
news:Xns9ADC5F5E96172jpsnokom(a)199.45.49.11...
> I've made a direct comparison of RAW data per unit of area in the deep
> shadows of ISO 100 between the FZ50 (1.97 micron) and the 400D (5.7
> micron). Exposure is the same, same Av (f/4.5), same Tv (1/100), same
> real
> focal length (22mm), both shot at "ISO 100" pushed to ISO 13,500. Large
> crop is 100% for FZ50 (0.4MP), and small crop is 100% for 400D (0.05MP),
> and the other two are the other camera scaled to the 100% crop of each.
> As
> I already knew, the bigger pixels of the DSLR are inferior compared to the
> higher pixel density of the small sensor camera:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/100092629
>
> --
> John Sheehy


I am glad you are happy with the results of your testing.

Please continue to enjoy the results from your FZ50.

I hope you don't mind if I still prefer the quality I get from my Nikon
D300.

Roy G



From: Dev/Null on

"John P Sheehy" <jps(a)no.kom> wrote in message
news:Xns9ADC5F5E96172jpsnokom(a)199.45.49.11...
> I've made a direct comparison of RAW data per unit of area in the deep
> shadows of ISO 100 between the FZ50 (1.97 micron) and the 400D (5.7
> micron). Exposure is the same, same Av (f/4.5), same Tv (1/100), same
> real
> focal length (22mm), both shot at "ISO 100" pushed to ISO 13,500. Large
> crop is 100% for FZ50 (0.4MP), and small crop is 100% for 400D (0.05MP),
> and the other two are the other camera scaled to the 100% crop of each.
> As
> I already knew, the bigger pixels of the DSLR are inferior compared to the
> higher pixel density of the small sensor camera:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/100092629
>
Another Measurebator!



From: Paul Furman on
John P Sheehy wrote:
> I've made a direct comparison of RAW data per unit of area in the deep
> shadows of ISO 100 between the FZ50 (1.97 micron) and the 400D (5.7
> micron). Exposure is the same, same Av (f/4.5), same Tv (1/100), same real
> focal length (22mm), both shot at "ISO 100" pushed to ISO 13,500. Large
> crop is 100% for FZ50 (0.4MP), and small crop is 100% for 400D (0.05MP),
> and the other two are the other camera scaled to the 100% crop of each. As
> I already knew, the bigger pixels of the DSLR are inferior compared to the
> higher pixel density of the small sensor camera:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/100092629

Of course, the DSLR image is enlarged more than 3x!

7.18 x 5.32 mm
24 x 18 mm

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: JufĂ­ on

"John P Sheehy" <jps(a)no.kom> wrote in message
news:Xns9ADC5F5E96172jpsnokom(a)199.45.49.11...
> I've made a direct comparison of RAW data per unit of area in the deep
> shadows of ISO 100 between the FZ50 (1.97 micron) and the 400D (5.7
> micron). Exposure is the same, same Av (f/4.5), same Tv (1/100), same
> real
> focal length (22mm), both shot at "ISO 100" pushed to ISO 13,500. Large
> crop is 100% for FZ50 (0.4MP), and small crop is 100% for 400D (0.05MP),
> and the other two are the other camera scaled to the 100% crop of each.
> As
> I already knew, the bigger pixels of the DSLR are inferior compared to the
> higher pixel density of the small sensor camera:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image/100092629

I suggest you call the NY Times or Scientific American since your expirement
completely contradicts what every tester has shown to date. Do you think
there might be a problem with your methodology? How about just shooting the
same scene, same angle of view, and enlarging each image to 100%? Too
complicated?

Sorry, but larger pixels always win the day.