Reading mode: Light Dark

12.2mp Panasonic........MP wars continue

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barry Fitzgerald
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
mats_b said:
One of the most revealing test I can think of would be to perform
high ISO resolution test, not only with high contrast black and
white test patterns, but various low contrast detail test patterns.
Click to expand...
Imaging-Resource (wich IMO has more elaborate and interesting tests than DPR) routinely does these kinds of studio tests showing effects of NR and noise on fine strands of human hair. Not a pretty sight on most P&S past ISO 200.

--
http://www.pbase.com/klopus
 
glasswindow said:
I asked that question awhile back and the best answer I received
was the fact that the camera would cost so much nobody would buy
it. Full frame sensors are quite expensive. They currently keep
sensors as small as possible to cut back on cost.
Click to expand...
APS-C sensors are pretty cheap and would provide extremely good picture quality for 8-12 MP images. But the lens and the body would need to be much larger. We wouldn't be talking about a pocket-sized camera anymore, as another poster already replied.

And besides, if Panasonic used a sensor of this size, they'd cram 25-50MP on it for the marketing bragging rights, and we'd still have the same noise problem.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dkusner
 
Amin Sabet said:
Youmake a good point. My G7 is such a camera. However, there does
not currently exist a compact camera with 10MP that doesn't have
shadow noise even at ISO 80. I imagine this will be worse with
12MP in an ultracompact.
Click to expand...
My Panasonic LX2 doesn't have noticeable shadow noise at ISO 100. Unfortunately it doesn't have noticeable detail either. And I'm talking about the RAW images. I'm not looking forward to what they'll do with 12MP.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dkusner
 
a computer geek who plays in an orchestra with me, and he came up to me and boldly stated, "digital cameras are just full of noise and artifacts. They will never equal film." He was now, apparently, working on a project involving sensors. I tried to discuss things with him but we had to work. Next day he brought in pictures, on hs laptop, that had various types of artifacts and problems. I told him not all cameras have these problems but he steadfastly refused to believe it.

Turns out he is working on noise reduction software for cell phone cameras that will have 4-10 MPx of resolution. Even the engineers have their heads in the sand. Just put the nose to the grindstone and write the code.

If they don't understand this stuff, how can we expect the average person to get it, with all the hype? i guess the upside is that research and development of these sensors may turn up something useful to photographers. We can always hope.

By the way: Prediciton! Someone will come on this thread and say that according to all the best calculations and scientific information, pixel size does not matter.
Sincerely,
--
Wendell
http://www.wendellworld.com

'Not everything that counts can be counted, not everything that can be counted counts.'
Albert Einstein
 
Sadly I started a post a few months ago praising manufacturers for remaiining at 10mp. Clearly it was premature! Since then we have seen at least three different 12mp sensors at 1/1.7-8".

Now we can always hope that there will be improvements, and that the improvements will more than compensate for the smaller pixel size. Sometimes this happens (eg the Fuji "magic" sensors), sometimes it's sideways progress.

I certainly hope that these will be an improvement, but if was betting, I would think that results would be similar.
Barry Fitzgerald said:
Today we see two companies, Casio and Panasonic give news of their
12.1 and 12.2 mp cameras.

Of course pannie proudly announce

"The World’s First* 12.2-Megapixel 28mm Wide-Angle Premium Compact
Digital Camera"

As if this really means much.

I fail to see how many people really need those invisible extra mp
over their current cameras.

And note the special Auto ISO 1600 - 6400 (High sensitivity mode)!

Wow ISO 6400! I bet that looks good on the box! Panasonice have
clearly shown us (and casio)..that they feel the average consumer
is a bit of a "thickie".......to fall for this stuff. Just how bad
is it likely to be? Well let's wait and see.

Not that these companies are alone..watch the rest pile in..no
longer is ISO 1600 any good...we have to have ISO 6400! War of
marketing, smoke and mirrors..call it way you may. Now I believe
there should be legislation to stop this sort of misleading con
trick on unsuspecting consumers.

That dp high ISO article came at the right time....

Camera companies are after a quick $$$ at the tills, its time to
vote with your wallets..and demand something better.

No longer just megapixel wars...now ISO wars...and IS wars...

What is next ISO 12800? Hey who cares if its unusable.....

--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)
Click to expand...
--
New blog: http://1001noisycameras.blogspot.com
Current blog: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com
 
I wonder what the images look then.
We all know that 6Mp is more than enough under almost every circustances.

I would really like to the a comparison of this 12Mp scaled down to 6Mp (for convenience of the user !in camera!) and compare the output with another 6Mp camera i.e. the Canon Powershot S3. and - more challenging a FujiFilm.

I would be curious if the images are better (They could, but if to much chip area is lost due to borders between pixels they might not), equal or worse than those of a native.

Now that Phil is what I want to see.
best
M.
P.S.

What most people ignore is that a 6mp camera has only 6.2M sensors each of which can only capture red, green OR blue. If you simplify a bit: In the resulting image the signal from two neighboring pixels can only change in one of these three channels. Well kind of. It is a bit more complicated, but you will be able to see this effect in a Fourier decomposition of the individual color channels of an image.

If you calculate a 6Mp image from 12.2 M sensor this should be better. - T Fourier analysis of the green channel of such an image should contain much higher frequencies - the question being do these frequencies mostly carry noise or detail...
 
more of the same old shoot, and don't forget to dot the "i".

If these cameras had anything new to offer, other than the equivalent of in-camera up-rezzing, I think we all would have been reading about some dramatic advance in sensor technology for some time now.

the only people this stuff benefits are the people who sell SD cards.
 
I checked their ISO & Noise Performance tests, and as you say they are more elaborate. I can not find any tests with some kind of detail/resolution number for each ISO though (or have I missed it?).

I think a number is necessary for people to grasp this. Most people, especially those visiting this site, have a basic understanding of the numbers related to screen size, mega pixels, ISO etc. Many also have a basic understanding of what resolution is, and it is spreading. If people can me made to understand what resolution is, it should be possible to make people to understand a number for detail/resolution for each ISO number.

Regards Mats
 
paulbod3 said:
When we look on the monitor at 100 % at the same image in 6 mp and
12 mp, the 6mp one looks cleaner and crisper, the 12mp will have
the details more diluted, but this is the reverse of the real world
where the images are supposed to be looked and printed at the same
size, then the 12mp one will look crisper.
Click to expand...
I always evaluate the image quality based on downsized 1800x1200 (6x4" 300dpi) for my local lab printing. The latest DC I have purchased for my sister, FX10, has frustrating noise reduction issue at any iso higher than 200. It has 2 MP more than my old A80, but believe it or not, the 4MP A80 actually produce better images at iso400 than FX10, even downsized for 4x6" prints. At least 1/2 of the FX10 iso400 shots are useless even with perfect exposure, never an issue with the A80. However, at their lowest iso, FX10 does have an edge for detail rich subjects like scenery.
--
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
 
Well reading through this thread..seems to me there is not a lot of confidence out there for having higher MP count. If this be the case, why would medium format come out with huge MP counts..or have a high MP large format backs?
 
Because medium format digital sensors are huge in comparison with the tiny thumbnail size efforts in compact cameras. Bigger sensors mean bigger photosites, which also means better light gathering characersitics with lower noise.
Mike Tussy said:
Well reading through this thread..seems to me there is not a lot of
confidence out there for having higher MP count. If this be the
case, why would medium format come out with huge MP counts..or have
a high MP large format backs?
Click to expand...
--
Quentin
http://www.brightnewlight.co.uk
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/micropayment/
--
'Where have I been all my life?'
 
mandrake said:
glasswindow said:
I asked that question awhile back and the best answer I received
was the fact that the camera would cost so much nobody would buy
it. Full frame sensors are quite expensive. They currently keep
sensors as small as possible to cut back on cost.
Click to expand...
APS-C sensors are pretty cheap and would provide extremely good
picture quality for 8-12 MP images. But the lens and the body would
need to be much larger. We wouldn't be talking about a pocket-sized
camera anymore, as another poster already replied.

And besides, if Panasonic used a sensor of this size, they'd cram
25-50MP on it for the marketing bragging rights, and we'd still
have the same noise problem.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I used to have a Nikon 35mm p&s that had a 3x zoom. What's different?
 
Panasonic and especially Fuji are at least as good as Canon in the digicam AF department...
matthew saville said:
No bueno.

It's nice to see that we're getting 28mm wide angle here and there,
but I'm far from reaching for my wallet just yet. In order for me
to do that, I'll need to see a camera with Fuji F30 quality high
ISO, Canon quality AF, and 28mm... (or a dual lens that goes to
23mm like the Kodak) And make it with 3-5 megapixels, please! I
don't want 12! That's a waste of battery life and memory card
space and it completely shoots the high ISO capabilities...

And also- a small, low res LCD, so that I don't have to charge my
battery every few hours! 2" was great for LCD size, I really
don't need anything bigger than 2.5", and definitely not "HD"...

I posted my dis-content about this as well. I really hope camera
makers listen, otherwise my wallet will stay put. I'd love to buy
a camera like the Kodak dual-lens deal, or the Olympus
"indestructible" 770sw, or the Fuji F30, but they're all missing
the featurs that the other ones have lol...

--
Take care!



http://www.matthewsaville.com
Click to expand...
--
R.I.P. my K.M. 5-D 16-4-2007

Ignore everything I post here from now on. All postings 100% pure hot air completely detached from reality

(well, except for those posts that aren't about taking pictures in the first place)
 
glasswindow said:
Hmm, I used to have a Nikon 35mm p&s that had a 3x zoom. What's
different?
Click to expand...
Aperture wouldn't be great... most 35mm P&S zooms of 3x or greater had a wide end of f/4 or smaller, and a telephoto aperture of f/11 or worse (small lens to keep the camera body from being huge). With an APS-C or larger size sensor, that's not the end of the world, especially compared to those apertures (and their effect on usable ISO/shutter speed) on a digital P&S, but it's still sort of a waste.

--
ALL DONE! BYE BYE!
 
glasswindow said:
Hmm, I used to have a Nikon 35mm p&s that had a 3x zoom. What's
different?
Click to expand...
Nothing, I'd suspect. In fact, your Nikon may have been larger than what would be necessary in a corresponding digital because it needed to hold the film spool. What size was it?

But you couldn't get a larger sensor into the super-compacts which are so popular today. In fact I was in a Circuit City a few nights ago and couldn't believe how really small almost all current P&S cameras were. My new Panasonic LX2 would have been a spy-camera in a movie a few decades back. I wasn't really prepared for just how small it would be. It fits with room to spare into a tiny camera bag I bought years ago for my Oly-5050, and nearly threw away because the 5050 didn't even come close to fitting into it.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dkusner
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
p
Previous
n
Next
w
Next unread
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top