Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.
> Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
> produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
> the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
> coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
> 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
> camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
> performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.
From the "If Pigs Had Wings" department, eh?
What if they went at it from the other direction, taking one of
Olympus's small DSLRs and substituted a Fuji designed 25mp 4/3"
sensor and welded a nice 14-65mm zoom onto it? It doesn't sound
particularly attractive to me, but it would be interesting, unless
it managed to drive out of the digicam business.
Rich wrote:
> Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
> produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
> the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
> coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
> 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
> camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
> performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.
24-135mm equivalent FL, please :-). Since we're not restraining our
requests to anything vaguely sane. And f/2 of course (I'm being nice,
for the big sensor; I'm not asking for f/1.4, like some of the super-8
movie camera zooms were).
Why go for 25 megapixels? I'd *much* rather go for higher quality and
higher ISOs for printing up to 11x14 than try to make a P&S that can
print to 30x40 or whatever.
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:46230cb4$0$957
$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:
> Why go for 25 megapixels? I'd *much* rather go for higher quality and
> higher ISOs for printing up to 11x14 than try to make a P&S that can
> print to 30x40 or whatever.
But does that trade-off really exist?
I don't think it does. Smaller pixels, in the same sensor area, give
better image quality, at any magnification.
The idea that large pixels are better is one of the grand illusions of the
early digital photography era, IMO. The illusion is created by the facts:
1) That given the same number of pixels, bigger pixels are better, but
don't forget that the *SENSOR* is also bigger!
2) When more pixels are crammed into the *same* sensor area, noise (and/or
the alleged need for noise reduction) increases when view at 100% pixel
view. Bigger displays go best with bigger sensors; smaller pixels in
the same sensor size are more useful for more resolution at the same
display size (and for more artifact-free arbitrary resampling).
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
John Sheehy wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:46230cb4$0$957
> $8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:
>
>> Why go for 25 megapixels? I'd *much* rather go for higher quality and
>> higher ISOs for printing up to 11x14 than try to make a P&S that can
>> print to 30x40 or whatever.
>
> But does that trade-off really exist?
Well, all the tests show it does, and all the people who really look
into the area (perhaps excepting you) seem to agree it does.
> I don't think it does. Smaller pixels, in the same sensor area, give
> better image quality, at any magnification.
>
> The idea that large pixels are better is one of the grand illusions of the
> early digital photography era, IMO. The illusion is created by the facts:
>
> 1) That given the same number of pixels, bigger pixels are better, but
> don't forget that the *SENSOR* is also bigger!
>
> 2) When more pixels are crammed into the *same* sensor area, noise (and/or
> the alleged need for noise reduction) increases when view at 100% pixel
> view. Bigger displays go best with bigger sensors; smaller pixels in
> the same sensor size are more useful for more resolution at the same
> display size (and for more artifact-free arbitrary resampling).
Okay; for my purposes, that all translates back to "bigger pixels are
better". So the tradeoff exists, yes.
In article <1176698442.320451.24130@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups. com>, rander3127@gmail.com says...
> Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
> produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
> the the size of an APS-C sensor.
You got the sizes wrong:
1/1.7": 5.7 x 7.6mm
4/3: 13.5 x 18 mm
APS-C: 15 x 22mm
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in
news:4623b9e0$0$270$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.ne t:
> John Sheehy wrote:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net> wrote in news:46230cb4$0$957
>> $8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net:
>>
>>> Why go for 25 megapixels? I'd *much* rather go for higher quality
>>> and higher ISOs for printing up to 11x14 than try to make a P&S that
>>> can print to 30x40 or whatever.
>>
>> But does that trade-off really exist?
>
> Well, all the tests show it does, and all the people who really look
> into the area (perhaps excepting you) seem to agree it does.
What tests? I have seen no tests from anyone but me that test what is
relevant; image quality per unit of sensor area. Everyone else whose
tests I have been pointed to are testing something else, entirely.
Once, it was a nearly universal belief that small pixels are inherently
inferior. Now, usenet groups are one of the last holdouts of big-pixel
believers.
>> The idea that large pixels are better is one of the grand illusions
>> of the early digital photography era, IMO. The illusion is created
>> by the facts:
>> 1) That given the same number of pixels, bigger pixels are better,
>> but
>> don't forget that the *SENSOR* is also bigger!
>> 2) When more pixels are crammed into the *same* sensor area, noise
>> (and/or
>> the alleged need for noise reduction) increases when view at 100%
>> pixel view. Bigger displays go best with bigger sensors; smaller
>> pixels in the same sensor size are more useful for more resolution
>> at the same display size (and for more artifact-free arbitrary
>> resampling).
> Okay; for my purposes, that all translates back to "bigger pixels are
> better". So the tradeoff exists, yes.
No, it doesn't translate that way, unless you believe that all sensors
have the same number of pixels, or that printed area should always be
proportional to the number of pixels.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
On Apr 16, 10:05 am, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
> On 15 Apr 2007 21:40:42 -0700, Rich wrote:
>
> > Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
> > produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
> > the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
> > coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
> > 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
> > camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
> > performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.
>
> From the "If Pigs Had Wings" department, eh?
>
> What if they went at it from the other direction, taking one of
> Olympus's small DSLRs and substituted a Fuji designed 25mp 4/3"
> sensor and welded a nice 14-65mm zoom onto it? It doesn't sound
> particularly attractive to me, but it would be interesting, unless
> it managed to drive out of the digicam business.
For me it's "If only Panasonic would use Fuji sensors in their
superzoom cameras....."
On Apr 16, 4:10 pm, mianil...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Apr 16, 10:05 am, ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 15 Apr 2007 21:40:42 -0700, Rich wrote:
>
> > > Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
> > > produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
> > > the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
> > > coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
> > > 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
> > > camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
> > > performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.
>
> > From the "If Pigs Had Wings" department, eh?
>
> > What if they went at it from the other direction, taking one of
> > Olympus's small DSLRs and substituted a Fuji designed 25mp 4/3"
> > sensor and welded a nice 14-65mm zoom onto it? It doesn't sound
> > particularly attractive to me, but it would be interesting, unless
> > it managed to drive out of the digicam business.
>
> For me it's "If only Panasonic would use Fuji sensors in their
> superzoom cameras....."
Olympus is producing bottom of the barrel P&S cameras now. When I
think of the E-10, E-20 or C-8080 and then this new Sanyo-built,
"Kodakian" junk, it's enough to make me retch. My only hope is that
income for the P&S garbage they are producing can be used to fund R&D
on DSLRs.
> Going from a 1/1/7" and doubling its size in 2 dimensions, which would
> produce a sensor similar in size to an Olympus 4/3rds or about 2/3rds
> the the size of an APS-C sensor. Put it in a decent camera body
> coupled to a reasonable f.l. zoom, like a 28-130mm equivalent.
> 25 megapixels. If the lenses were top notch (as good as the best
> camera lenses) then this would be one interesting camera, given the
> performance of the current 1/1.7 sensor.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf31fd/
I dunno - what if the moon were made of green cheese? A false assumption
logically implies any conclusion you want.
What if Fuji doubled the sensor size? 
Linear Mode
