N
nautilus
Guest
Hi!
I don't know if you've already seen this great camera overview displayed by manufacturer at dpreview.com.
I think the information about mpix per cm2 is new.
Panasonic cameras as an example:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/
You can choose another manufacturer very easy by selecting it under 'camera database' at the left menue side.
We can see that
todays compact cameras are going up to 43 mpix per cm2
wherease DSLR's are between 1 and 3,
mFT a bit higher with 5
Pana LX3 moderate at 24
Sigma dp1/2 at 1.6
Ricoh GR digital III at 23, II at 25
Pana fx01 at 24
Canon G10 at 34
Granted that there are differences in lens qualities I think that picture quality even at low iso values is mostly determined by pixel density.
Before I looked into these statistics I got the impression that there are a few cameras that are ranked very high by forum members because of image quality (and other features like camera design, brand name tec.). These are Pana LX3, Canon G10 and Ricoh GR.
I would have bet that they had a better pixel density than those other compact cameras. But in respect to this they are in the same class with every single other modern compact camera
whose pictures at 100% view look as if the picture was cut into a million pieces and put together again (when compared to a smooth looking DSLR picture at 100% that looks like made by one piece).
I'm not talking about higher ISO values.
My personal picture quality 'guidline' now looks like this:
1. DSLR's with FF sensors are best
2. DSLR's with APS sensors and high pixel values are a bit worse at higher ISO values
3.a. FT cameras with larger lenses
3.b. mFT cameras that tend to be made as small as possible and sold together with as small as possible lenses with bad distortion that is heavily corrected in-camera.
4. Sigma dp1/dp2 with small integrated lenses and SD15 with maybe unnecessary low pixel density
-----------------------------------
big gap
-------------------------------------
5.a LX3, Ricoh GR, Canon G10 with better lenses than other compacts
5.b other compact cameras
But I still wonder why 5a should be much better than 5b (as I read it in the forums) since the pixel level quality must be roughly the same.
What do you think about 5a and 5b?
I don't know if you've already seen this great camera overview displayed by manufacturer at dpreview.com.
I think the information about mpix per cm2 is new.
Panasonic cameras as an example:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/
You can choose another manufacturer very easy by selecting it under 'camera database' at the left menue side.
We can see that
todays compact cameras are going up to 43 mpix per cm2
wherease DSLR's are between 1 and 3,
mFT a bit higher with 5
Pana LX3 moderate at 24
Sigma dp1/2 at 1.6
Ricoh GR digital III at 23, II at 25
Pana fx01 at 24
Canon G10 at 34
Granted that there are differences in lens qualities I think that picture quality even at low iso values is mostly determined by pixel density.
Before I looked into these statistics I got the impression that there are a few cameras that are ranked very high by forum members because of image quality (and other features like camera design, brand name tec.). These are Pana LX3, Canon G10 and Ricoh GR.
I would have bet that they had a better pixel density than those other compact cameras. But in respect to this they are in the same class with every single other modern compact camera
whose pictures at 100% view look as if the picture was cut into a million pieces and put together again (when compared to a smooth looking DSLR picture at 100% that looks like made by one piece).
I'm not talking about higher ISO values.
My personal picture quality 'guidline' now looks like this:
1. DSLR's with FF sensors are best
2. DSLR's with APS sensors and high pixel values are a bit worse at higher ISO values
3.a. FT cameras with larger lenses
3.b. mFT cameras that tend to be made as small as possible and sold together with as small as possible lenses with bad distortion that is heavily corrected in-camera.
4. Sigma dp1/dp2 with small integrated lenses and SD15 with maybe unnecessary low pixel density
-----------------------------------
big gap
-------------------------------------
5.a LX3, Ricoh GR, Canon G10 with better lenses than other compacts
5.b other compact cameras
But I still wonder why 5a should be much better than 5b (as I read it in the forums) since the pixel level quality must be roughly the same.
What do you think about 5a and 5b?