On Jun 24, 11:25*am, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Many have decried the "megapixel race" that has resulted in ever smaller
> photosites, not just for compact digital cameras, but also for dSLR
> cameras, but I think this is not being borne out in real world
> performance -- images from current high megapixel sensors in both
> compact digital cameras (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ28) and dSLR cameras are
> unquestionably better than images from earlier comparable sensors with
> lower megapixel counts (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ8).
>
> The reasons are that sensors are better and that image quality has come
> to be dominated by in camera processing, especially as faster and more
> powerful processors have become available.
>
> I personally see no reason not to increase the sensor resolution as long
> as in camera processing keeps pace -
Lens quality = cost. Processing can't create detail out of thin air,
they can only refine what is there.
Robert Spanjaard wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 08:25:30 -0700, John Navas wrote:
>
>> Many have decried the "megapixel race" that has resulted in ever smaller
>> photosites, not just for compact digital cameras, but also for dSLR
>> cameras, but I think this is not being borne out in real world
>> performance -- images from current high megapixel sensors in both
>> compact digital cameras (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ28) and dSLR cameras are
>> unquestionably better than images from earlier comparable sensors with
>> lower megapixel counts (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ8).
>>
>> The reasons are that sensors are better and that image quality has come
>> to be dominated by in camera processing, especially as faster and more
>> powerful processors have become available.
>>
>> I personally see no reason not to increase the sensor resolution as long
>> as in camera processing keeps pace
>
> You don't see any reason because there's no direct comparison. If you
> build a 6 MP APS-C sensor with current technology, you can use much
> larger and better photosites than in the days of 6 MP-DSLRs. And if you
> use current processing techniques afterwards, the image will get even
> better.
>
> I'm not saying that less is better, but you can't claim that more is
> better either. As I said, there's no comparison available.
>
I tend to agree. I can see the OP's point, but from what I've seen of
resolution with APS-c dslrs moving from ~12 to ~15mp, there's a
considerable overhead (file size, in camera processing affecting battery
life etc) for at best negligible benefit - sometimes not even measurable
(resolution).
If there were visible "issues" such as aliasing, moire / bayer
demosaicing artifacts at existing pixel densities, then it might be
"worth it". But I haven't seen such problems since using a D70 and
Canon 5d (Mk 1).
Unless there were suddenly much better lenses available, then there
seems to be little to gain. Perhaps the only clue we've got as to what
could be achieved using better technology at the same pixel density was
when Nikon used "only" 12mp in the D3. Was it significantly better than
the Canon 5d sensor? I think so.
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:03:25 +1000, ribbit <ribbit@news.group> wrote
> in <7aft6gF1ur09gU1@mid.individual.net>:
>
>> The notion that you cannot tell the difference between a shot from a
>> P&S and one from a DSLR with good quality glass is silly. Of course
>> you can... Unless you only want to look at outlines.
>
> Nope. Sorry.
I've tried the test with the cameras I have, John, and the difference was
quite obvious.
David J Taylor wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:03:25 +1000, ribbit <ribbit@news.group> wrote
>> in <7aft6gF1ur09gU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> The notion that you cannot tell the difference between a shot from a
>>> P&S and one from a DSLR with good quality glass is silly. Of course
>>> you can... Unless you only want to look at outlines.
>>
>> Nope. Sorry.
>
> I've tried the test with the cameras I have, John, and the difference
> was quite obvious.
It depends on the pair of cameras. I would reckon some of the best 3x
zoom P&S lenses could give the stock zoom lens on cheaper DSLRs a run
for their money. All bets are off for good quality prime glass though.
And the guy does have a point - showing up unwanted fine detail on skin
and out of place single hairs is characteristic of what the sharper
lenses show.
Big advantage of a compact P&S is that it fits in a pocket so you can
carry it anywhere. DSLRs are too big to carry around routinely (as were
early P&S digicams).
I expect the megapixel race in P&S will continue onwards and upwards in
steps of about 2Mpixels per year or so. Just enough to keep dumb
consumers buying a new one to get that "extra" resolution.
David J Taylor wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:03:25 +1000, ribbit <ribbit@news.group> wrote
>> in <7aft6gF1ur09gU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>> The notion that you cannot tell the difference between a shot from a
>>> P&S and one from a DSLR with good quality glass is silly. Of course
>>> you can... Unless you only want to look at outlines.
>>
>> Nope. Sorry.
>
> I've tried the test with the cameras I have, John, and the difference
> was quite obvious.
>
> David
Is it visible on an 8x10 print?
I did a controlled test with a 4MP Panasonic FZ15 (P/S) with a 12X Leica
lens VS a 8 MP Canon Rebel XT DSLR with a kit lens.
I printed both images at 8x10 and the Panny/Leica combo outperformed the
DSLR Canon/Canon combo.
I repeated the test with a much more expensive Canon Lens (ca. $500) and
the prints were comparable with a slight margin still in favor of the
Panny/Leica. The thing that worked against the Canon Combo was the
shallower DOF. The subject was a stuffed child's cat.
Lots of very fine detail in hair and whiskers.
The Canon Combo could not get the whole cat in sharp focus.
To some people, that is not an issue. But to me it is.
Bob Williams
P.S.
I know that you have (had?) one or more Panasonic FZ series cameras .
Was one of those used in your comparison with your DSLR?
Bob
Bob Williams wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:03:25 +1000, ribbit <ribbit@news.group> wrote
>>> in <7aft6gF1ur09gU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>
>>>> The notion that you cannot tell the difference between a shot from
>>>> a P&S and one from a DSLR with good quality glass is silly. Of
>>>> course you can... Unless you only want to look at outlines.
>>>
>>> Nope. Sorry.
>>
>> I've tried the test with the cameras I have, John, and the difference
>> was quite obvious.
>>
>> David
>
> Is it visible on an 8x10 print?
I don't print. The difference was obvious filling a 20-inch 1600 x 1200
pixel display.
> I did a controlled test with a 4MP Panasonic FZ15 (P/S) with a 12X
> Leica lens VS a 8 MP Canon Rebel XT DSLR with a kit lens.
> I printed both images at 8x10 and the Panny/Leica combo outperformed
> the DSLR Canon/Canon combo.
The Canon kit lens had a very poor reputation, although I gather that the
newer 18-55mm IS is a better quality lens.
> I repeated the test with a much more expensive Canon Lens (ca. $500)
> and the prints were comparable with a slight margin still in favor of
> the Panny/Leica. The thing that worked against the Canon Combo was
> the shallower DOF. The subject was a stuffed child's cat.
> Lots of very fine detail in hair and whiskers.
> The Canon Combo could not get the whole cat in sharp focus.
> To some people, that is not an issue. But to me it is.
> Bob Williams
> P.S.
> I know that you have (had?) one or more Panasonic FZ series cameras .
> Was one of those used in your comparison with your DSLR?
> Bob
My comparison was of a sunlit, distant street scene with the 7MP compact
TZ3 and the 6MP Nikon D40 with the "kit" 18-55mm lens.
I can appreciate your point about the shallower depth-of-field, and it was
actually just that advantage of the DSLR which made my wife change from
her Panasonic FZ20 to a Nikon D60 with the 18-200mm VR lens. For a
comparison keeping the DoF the same, you would need to stop down the DSLR
more than the P&S.
One other thing which some people may not realise when comparing the
cameras are the settings for picture sharpness and colour saturation - by
default these may be different on every camera you use.
I do still have my Panasonic FZ5, and I have been very pleased with the
images from both the FZ5 and the FZ20. Operationally, the DSLR wins for
me as it's faster to use (zooming by twisting a single ring versus zooming
with two push-buttons) and still produces good images at higher ISOs,
where the compact is struggling. I take the TZ3 for movies, when a spare
camera is needed, or where its small size is more convenient.
David J Taylor wrote:
> Bob Williams wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:03:25 +1000, ribbit <ribbit@news.group> wrote
>>>> in <7aft6gF1ur09gU1@mid.individual.net>:
>>>>
>>>>> The notion that you cannot tell the difference between a shot from
>>>>> a P&S and one from a DSLR with good quality glass is silly. Of
>>>>> course you can... Unless you only want to look at outlines.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. Sorry.
>>>
>>> I've tried the test with the cameras I have, John, and the difference
>>> was quite obvious.
>>>
>>> David
>>
>> Is it visible on an 8x10 print?
>
> I don't print. The difference was obvious filling a 20-inch 1600 x 1200
> pixel display.
>
>> I did a controlled test with a 4MP Panasonic FZ15 (P/S) with a 12X
>> Leica lens VS a 8 MP Canon Rebel XT DSLR with a kit lens.
>> I printed both images at 8x10 and the Panny/Leica combo outperformed
>> the DSLR Canon/Canon combo.
>
> The Canon kit lens had a very poor reputation, although I gather that
> the newer 18-55mm IS is a better quality lens.
>
>> I repeated the test with a much more expensive Canon Lens (ca. $500)
>> and the prints were comparable with a slight margin still in favor of
>> the Panny/Leica. The thing that worked against the Canon Combo was
>> the shallower DOF. The subject was a stuffed child's cat.
>> Lots of very fine detail in hair and whiskers.
>> The Canon Combo could not get the whole cat in sharp focus.
>> To some people, that is not an issue. But to me it is.
>> Bob Williams
>> P.S.
>> I know that you have (had?) one or more Panasonic FZ series cameras .
>> Was one of those used in your comparison with your DSLR?
>> Bob
>
> My comparison was of a sunlit, distant street scene with the 7MP compact
> TZ3 and the 6MP Nikon D40 with the "kit" 18-55mm lens.
>
> I can appreciate your point about the shallower depth-of-field, and it
> was actually just that advantage of the DSLR which made my wife change
> from her Panasonic FZ20 to a Nikon D60 with the 18-200mm VR lens. For a
> comparison keeping the DoF the same, you would need to stop down the
> DSLR more than the P&S.
>
> One other thing which some people may not realise when comparing the
> cameras are the settings for picture sharpness and colour saturation -
> by default these may be different on every camera you use.
>
> I do still have my Panasonic FZ5, and I have been very pleased with the
> images from both the FZ5 and the FZ20. Operationally, the DSLR wins for
> me as it's faster to use (zooming by twisting a single ring versus
> zooming with two push-buttons) and still produces good images at higher
> ISOs, where the compact is struggling. I take the TZ3 for movies, when
> a spare camera is needed, or where its small size is more convenient.
>
> Cheers,
> David
Your points and preferences are well taken.
I am beginning to feel that lens quality is probably at least as
important to image quality as MP and sensor size (within limits of
course). In strong sunlite, a good Leica lens with a small (1/2.5" 4MP
sensor)can yield a better image than a mediocre lens with a larger
(APS-C, 8 MP sensor).
Now, these tests were done in bright sunlight where the small sensors
can still collect a full well of photons and produce full color images.
I suspect that if the test was done in deep shade or in late evening
under dim lite, the results might be quite different and favor the DSLR.
Bob
Robert Sneddon wrote:
> In message <nsg445hsf9nnitng6a59r8mgv9dauav740@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes
> [Clip]
>> images from current high megapixel sensors in both
>> compact digital cameras (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ28) and dSLR cameras are
>> unquestionably better than images from earlier comparable sensors with
>> lower megapixel counts (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ8).
>
> It's a truism that newer components tend be better than older
> components; if they were worse then there would be no point in designing
> and building new ones.
You haven't seen guitar players clawing over each other
to get vintage tone capacitors!
ribbit wrote:
> You are talking to the deaf mate.
> Not long ago a Wedding photography client complained to me that the
> pictures from my S5 Fuji Pro showed all the skin blemishes on his new
> wife's arms but his $150 Olympus P&S didn't.
>
> He thought the lack of detail from his P&S was an Olympus feature! How
> many proponents of P&S being as good as a DSLR have the same belief?
bugbear wrote:
> Robert Sneddon wrote:
>> In message <nsg445hsf9nnitng6a59r8mgv9dauav740@4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes
>> [Clip]
>>> images from current high megapixel sensors in both
>>> compact digital cameras (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ28) and dSLR cameras are
>>> unquestionably better than images from earlier comparable sensors with
>>> lower megapixel counts (e.g., Panasonic DMC-FZ8).
>>
>> It's a truism that newer components tend be better than older
>> components; if they were worse then there would be no point in designing
>> and building new ones.
>
> You haven't seen guitar players clawing over each other
> to get vintage tone capacitors!
>
They soon will insit to get their electricity from charcoal power plants.
Re: Future of the megapixel race 
Linear Mode
