LX7 - does its IQ compete with e.g. Sony RX100?

Started Apr 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
Detail Man
Forum ProPosts: 15,270
Like?
Re: "Envelope" is a more useful concept than "equivalence" IMHO
In reply to Sean Nelson, Apr 10, 2013

Sean Nelson wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Sean Nelson wrote:

IMHO this argument breaks down because under good conditions (plenty of light, dynamic range that isn't excessive, final viewed image size that's not overly large, etc.) the difference in the amount of noise from a small vs. a large sensor is indistinguishable.

Hi Shawn. That seems like a pile of "good conditions", there. So what's are the perimeters of that "envelope". The non-normalized RAW-level DR of both cameras is only between 11 and 12 EV. Any sunny day challenges that. How small is a viewing-size that is not "overly large" ? Viewing distance ?

Then there is no advantage of in having F1.4, is there?

You're not reading the entire argument. Having an f1.4 lens widens the envelope.

Seems like it is the perimeters of an "envelope" that matters - and how readily one might collide against them in various shooting situations. "Wider" is not better once one reaches the perimeter.

In that case, the idea that a longer/brighter exposure is required on a smaller sensor to produce an equivalent image to that of a larger sensor is no longer valid.

Sounds like that mght be a limited set of special cases. How about a late afternoon shot with shadows where the sun remains in the sky, to be viewed at 1200 pixel height on a 24" monitor ?

It is no longer valid because smaller sensor still cannot get the same IQ as larger sensor. At the least that is the case between LX7 and RX100. under plenty of lighting RX100 still trumps LX7 in every aspect of IQ - colour depth, Dynamic range, and resolution. Larger sensor such as OMD trumps RX100 yet again, larger sensor such as D7100 in turn beats OMD  and finally we have D600 beating D7100. All under ideal lighting.

That's irrelevant if you can't see the difference in the result.

Plenty of things are irrelevant if/when it may happen that they are not in some cases significant.

The result is the image in the final size you intend look at, not blowing it up to 200% to pixel peep it.

"The peeping card". Let's stick with 34.7% (from M4/3) viewed at 24" diagonal size at 12" viewing distance, then. Let's throw out in-camera JPG engines and do it ourself in RAW format processing.

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