New Canon on 22nd March?

Started Mar 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 29,195
Like?
Re: New Canon on 22nd March?
In reply to howardroark, Mar 10, 2013

howardroark wrote:

I put the sensor size next to the number of pixels for a reason: pixel density is what really matters.

Could you provide some backing for that statement? Can you find some evidence that SNR declines for same size sensors as pixel density increases? Sure, there are one or two cases where the pixel size is pushed a little above the optimum for that pixel design - a good case is the Sony 24MP APS-C, which is a bit worse performer than the 16MP, but subsequent 24MP chips from Nikon and Toshiba showed that is not a fundamental limitation, and I'm sure that Sony will be back with a revised 24MP chip which performs fully. Unless you can give some evidence, this will look very much like another unsubstantiated opinion to many people.

Other Canon lines had similar, or more alarming, trends. Other manufacturers were worse and most people were glad when Canon pulled back a bit and concentrated on improving image quality rather than just raw pixel count.

I'm wondering here how you tested the opinion of 'most people'. Did you take a poll? How did you sample, and if you used, for instance DPReview as then medium, how did you correct for the systematic biases that would occur using the active membership here? However, it seems that DPReview reviewers were excluded from 'most people', because they noted in their review of the G11 that: 'The G10 remains the most impressive small-sensor camera we've seen, at low ISO settings. The level of detail it renders is very impressive and is enough to put some entry-level DSLRs to shame'. Remember, the G11 used exactly the same lens. The only benefit that the G10 had was its higher pixel density sensor, and that allowed it to deliver what the reviewers found to be higher image quality.

you say on an earlier post:

Many much smaller chips were shooting up to 18MP and the images were awful.

I once found a French web review of a Sony 16MP 1/2.3" P&S, comparing it with its 12MP predecessor. Pity I didn't bookmark it, because I can't find it now. Anyway, they came to a similar conclusion to you, on the basis of 100% pixel peeping. When they go some questioning comments they took the trouble to run a blind web poll, with unlabelled images from both cameras, asking which their readers thought were better. Overwhelmingly the 16MP won.

Without some evidence, the statement that 'the images were awful' will look very like unsubstantiated opinion to many people.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow