B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Thats not correct. Horizontal x Vertical is the mp number...24mp is twice the size.
Thats not right either!
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Comparison of image quality of 5D & Alpha
- Thread starter iCeZuLy
- Start date
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
You seem to have been suckered into megapixels are the only measure of image quality..size in only one, an increase is a good thing. But at the cost of what? Details in higher ISO? Tones and noise are also a factor..
are interpolated to alpha100 size, thus looking soft. With a little bit of sharpening, the roof 5D images look very similar to the alpha one.
Also one can clearly see block compression artifacts on the 5D images which has probably been saved as low quality jpeg (not fine or xtra fine).
As far as I am concerned, I can't see any conclusive difference in resolution in this comparison.
F.C.
Also one can clearly see block compression artifacts on the 5D images which has probably been saved as low quality jpeg (not fine or xtra fine).
As far as I am concerned, I can't see any conclusive difference in resolution in this comparison.
F.C.
Scientiest
Active member
5d: ~ 3.000 x 2.000 = 6.000.000 px
6.000 x 4.000 = 24.000.000 px => but thats 4x the size !!!
a field that is 20m x 20m is 4 x bigger than a field that meassures 10m x 10m
Have you been missing at school in 1st grade?
if you douple one side you douple the area
if you douple both sides you square it...
6.000 x 4.000 = 24.000.000 px => but thats 4x the size !!!
a field that is 20m x 20m is 4 x bigger than a field that meassures 10m x 10m
Have you been missing at school in 1st grade?
if you douple one side you douple the area
if you douple both sides you square it...
Scientiest
Active member
No it is just about cutting cost, building up a production line for a new 8 mp ccd is more expensive than using an 10 mp ccd that is already in production...
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
My maths is 100% correct. You are indeed wrong!
As dp review says:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page25.asp
Megapixels, some perspective
One thing you must never lose perspective of is that (for the same aspect ratio) you must quadruple megapixel count to double resolution. This means that a twelve megapixel sensor of today has approximately twice the resolution (horizontally or vertically) of the three megapixel sensor of yesterday. Hence as megapixel counts climb it becomes harder and harder demonstrate a significant resolution advantage, the 'jumps' in megapixel count have to become much bigger. The diagram below is a comparison of output image size from five different 8 megapixel-and-up digital SLR's.
More info for you:
http://www.thetechlounge.com/articles.php?id=121
http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,117138,00.asp
http://www.smartmoney.com/mossberg/index.cfm?story=november2004
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Maybe you are right...I have no objection to 10.2mp if image quality is still very good. Its too early to say as such...
Dave Farmer
Senior Member
...that your argument boils down to:
It's twice as long on each edge!
No, it's 4 times the area!
No, each side is twice as long!
No way, the area is 4 times the size.
.....
?
--
Cheers,
Dave
http://purpledog.smugmug.com
'If they don't give us [insert daft requirement here] I'm jumping ship!'
It's twice as long on each edge!
No, it's 4 times the area!
No, each side is twice as long!
No way, the area is 4 times the size.
.....
?
--
Cheers,
Dave
http://purpledog.smugmug.com
'If they don't give us [insert daft requirement here] I'm jumping ship!'
Scientiest
Active member
We're talking about pixels, not sub-pixel and Bayer-Models...
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
yes you need that to x2 the res..remember its horizontal times vertical=res..
The area measurement is what the companies use..to enhance belief that a 12mp cam is twice as good picture wise as a 6mp canera. h times v=mp no.
The maths cannot be questioned!
fishcatcher
Senior Member
You keep playing this same tune about 10 mp not being much bigger than 6, and that is true, but it is big enough to clearly see the difference.
The visible difference in 100% sample detail between 6 and 10 mp in side by side controlled shots same lens is simply there. Go to the Nikon d200 forum, for example, and you can see lots of comparative samples.
Will there be a difference in parameters other than detail? Yes, ever so slightly, and those will reflect the difference in the two bodies used even when very close to identical settings are made. But, the added resolution of detail will be very visible.
Whether one NEEDS that difference is another matter. Whether one ever practically uses that difference is another matter. And, I presume that is the gist of your argument.
I do agree that this test is flawed, and that 10 mp doesn't quite blow away 6 mp, however.
That resolution difference will be both visible and a big selling feature--even to those who may never need it or even use it.
The visible difference in 100% sample detail between 6 and 10 mp in side by side controlled shots same lens is simply there. Go to the Nikon d200 forum, for example, and you can see lots of comparative samples.
Will there be a difference in parameters other than detail? Yes, ever so slightly, and those will reflect the difference in the two bodies used even when very close to identical settings are made. But, the added resolution of detail will be very visible.
Whether one NEEDS that difference is another matter. Whether one ever practically uses that difference is another matter. And, I presume that is the gist of your argument.
I do agree that this test is flawed, and that 10 mp doesn't quite blow away 6 mp, however.
That resolution difference will be both visible and a big selling feature--even to those who may never need it or even use it.
sandy b
Veteran Member
tell me why sony should dump this sensor for a 6 mp, when theres nothing wrong with these pics. For crying out loud, 99% of the people that buy this camera will be hobyists who will love this camera.
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
How so? Printing?
Sure the res is more, without question, but thats not the point...in print will it make a big difference...no, is more better? yes...it is..but the whole image quality area should be looked at. Not just the mp number
You keep saying this but when I print A3 shots off, I dont see it. Sure its there, subtle that it is..but in no way is it "vast"...a bit better is a fair way of saying it.
No see above. The argument is that image quality is not purely measurable on image size or res alone. As anyone who has owned a 8mp superzoom camera will tell you. Yes the image is bigger, but not as good as a 6mp SLR sensor, on screen or in print. Now for same size sensors, such as this the extra few mp is welcomed, its a step in the right direction, but people should not be under the impression its almost twice as good as the 6mp sensor. This is not the case.
It will be a big selling feature, as for clearly visible its not really no! Sorry I print shots out and big too...a bit better aint miles better.
If 10.2 mp is got at the expense of poor higher ISO performance, then no its not welcomed. A bit worse is ok, a lot worse is not!
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
Not saying they should. For crying out loud most daft buyers out there wont know that for the few extra mp, you get questionable noise performance..maybe. There are lots of reasons to consider this camera, mp is not a huge one IMHO.
I earn money from photography..if the average joe consumer is fooled into thinking more mp=better camera thats his/her business. For those of use who do know what matters...its this...the photographer!
KEITH-C
Forum Pro
What these comparisons mean that if this test is carried out correctly then it should be a lot easier to decide on relative image quality.
I hope that Phil still has his 5D & can carry out a similar comparison. For many this will be more meaningful than contrasts with ,say, the Canon 30D. This wil be particularly true if the same lens is used.
Keith-C
I hope that Phil still has his 5D & can carry out a similar comparison. For many this will be more meaningful than contrasts with ,say, the Canon 30D. This wil be particularly true if the same lens is used.
Keith-C
sandy b
Veteran Member
decision making, but neither should it be a detractor. The 10 mp seems to work ok. I dont think this is particularlty rendition is any noisier than my d70, so not sure I buy the 10 mp is causing wose noise in this particular camera. I think sony technology is just a notch noiseir at high ISO than canons under pretty much any circumstance
SirSeth
Veteran Member
I'm a math major. Thanks for the laughs you two.
--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
--
http://www.wallygoots.com
--
What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?
--
http://www.wallygoots.com
Jort
Forum Enthusiast
You keep talking in subjective terms but you don't seem to be able to accept other peoples' subjective terms.
A bit...a lot..
--> I
Could you live with that statement?
glideslopes
Senior Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum