5 megapixel cameras...opinions

Hmm, interesting. The following are just my own attempts and are not gospel, but they work for me.

I did no manipulation of the charts other than view them at 300%

a. Non-interpolated resolution - the point up till which both black and white bands retain equal width and contrast. This is the lens/sensor resolution and represents the smallest correctly sized object you are likely to see in isolation (ie with no neighbouring data to interpolate from). I would expect this to be the same for all cameras with the same sensor, and it was.

Note I measured approximately the same horizontal and vertical so I just included the one measure.

F707 1010
D7i. 1010
E20 1010
CP5 1010

b. Maximum interpolated resolution - the point at which 9 black or "darker" llines are visible on the chart. By this time all white bands had merged into grey

In this case I ignored the noise unless the dots changed the relative values of the lines (dark/light). This of course would be exaggerated by contrast enhancement hence your dim view of the D7i. This would represent the limit to which information could be interpolated linearly, given information to interpolate from...

F707 1580
D7i. 1450
E20 1450
CP5 1420

Good result from the Sony, all the others were pretty close with the D7i being quite "noisy". Sony is doing some good math interpolation to pull this much detail out. Good for wires, hair etc.

c. Extinction, at which point no information is visible..
F707 1800
D7i 1600
E20 1650
CP5 1620

Again good for F707, evens for rest.

So squaring the interpolated resolution gives relative values (in millions) of

2.5 (sony, top marks ... your value 3.3)
2.1 (D7i, E20 ... your value 2.0)
2.0 (CP5 ... your value 2.6)

Good result for the Sony but it does not put the D7i at the bottom of the pack, merely on a par with the rest.

For the top 4mp cameras I got
S85 1.7
G2 1.7 ...your value 2.3)

So, a ratio of 5/4 roughly for the average 5 vs 4 (as you would expect??)

At least my values seem to tally with subjective experience and can easliy be verified. I'm sure someone will dispute them for one reason or another and thats fine. At least we have two sets of figures instead of one - Oh, and Phil's too. Multiplying his two values gives

F707 1.8 vs
D7i 1.5.

Same ratio as mine (and I think he was a tad harsh on the D7i Vertical).
--
Steve

there have always been speculations that the interpolated 6MP pics have better resolving power than regular 3MP files from other cameras.

I've to admit I've some vested interest though.

KC said:

there have always been speculations that the interpolated 6MP pics
have better resolving power than regular 3MP files from other
cameras.

I've to admit I've some vested interest though.

Click to expand...

I didn't check but from Phils review it comes in close to the good 4mp cameras. Which is a good result, especially at the price range and probably about what would be expected.

On a more limited budget I would seriously have considered one. They take very nice pics too, have good dynamic range, low noise, but I can't buy the assertion that they compete with any of the 5mp for ultimate detail (and neither do the reviews). Shooting by hand a good photographer with an F602 will get better shots than a bad one with an F707 though!
--
Steve

Agree Didn't think it could resolve more than a good 5MP camera but if it has as much resolving power as a good 4MP, I'm more than happy.

Steve Jacob said:

I didn't check but from Phils review it comes in close to the good
4mp cameras. Which is a good result, especially at the price range
and probably about what would be expected.

On a more limited budget I would seriously have considered one.
They take very nice pics too, have good dynamic range, low noise,
but I can't buy the assertion that they compete with any of the 5mp
for ultimate detail (and neither do the reviews). Shooting by hand
a good photographer with an F602 will get better shots than a bad
one with an F707 though!
--
Steve

Click to expand...

Great design/build, manual focus ring, good EVF, long zoom, excellent battery life, CF compatible and unlimited high quality video - hmm, think I'd be happy too

KC said:

Steve Jacob said:

I didn't check but from Phils review it comes in close to the good
4mp cameras. Which is a good result, especially at the price range
and probably about what would be expected.

On a more limited budget I would seriously have considered one.
They take very nice pics too, have good dynamic range, low noise,
but I can't buy the assertion that they compete with any of the 5mp
for ultimate detail (and neither do the reviews). Shooting by hand
a good photographer with an F602 will get better shots than a bad
one with an F707 though!
--
Steve

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Steve

Steve Jacob said:

Hmm, interesting. The following are just my own attempts and are
not gospel, but they work for me.

I did no manipulation of the charts other than view them at 300%

a. Non-interpolated resolution - the point up till which both black
and white bands retain equal width and contrast. This is the
lens/sensor resolution and represents the smallest correctly sized
object you are likely to see in isolation (ie with no neighbouring
data to interpolate from). I would expect this to be the same for
all cameras with the same sensor, and it was.

Note I measured approximately the same horizontal and vertical so I
just included the one measure.

F707 1010
D7i. 1010
E20 1010
CP5 1010

b. Maximum interpolated resolution - the point at which 9 black or
"darker" llines are visible on the chart. By this time all white
bands had merged into grey

In this case I ignored the noise unless the dots changed the
relative values of the lines (dark/light). This of course would be
exaggerated by contrast enhancement hence your dim view of the D7i.
This would represent the limit to which information could be
interpolated linearly, given information to interpolate from...

F707 1580
D7i. 1450
E20 1450
CP5 1420

Good result from the Sony, all the others were pretty close with
the D7i being quite "noisy". Sony is doing some good math
interpolation to pull this much detail out. Good for wires, hair
etc.

c. Extinction, at which point no information is visible..
F707 1800
D7i 1600
E20 1650
CP5 1620

Again good for F707, evens for rest.

So squaring the interpolated resolution gives relative values (in
millions) of

2.5 (sony, top marks ... your value 3.3)
2.1 (D7i, E20 ... your value 2.0)
2.0 (CP5 ... your value 2.6)

Good result for the Sony but it does not put the D7i at the bottom
of the pack, merely on a par with the rest.

For the top 4mp cameras I got
S85 1.7
G2 1.7 ...your value 2.3)

So, a ratio of 5/4 roughly for the average 5 vs 4 (as you would
expect??)

At least my values seem to tally with subjective experience and can
easliy be verified. I'm sure someone will dispute them for one
reason or another and thats fine. At least we have two sets of
figures instead of one - Oh, and Phil's too. Multiplying his two
values gives

F707 1.8 vs
D7i 1.5.

Same ratio as mine (and I think he was a tad harsh on the D7i
Vertical).
--
Steve

Click to expand...

Interesting numbers. However, to come up with the effective resolution you need to multiply the squared value by 4/3 to account for the greater width of the sensor in the horizontal direction. If you do this, several of your values are similar to mine.

If we want to use true uninterpolated values, they all should be similar to the numbers you presented since the sensor has 50%green, 25% blue and 25% red sensors, a total of four sensor would be neccessary for a uniterpolated value (this is of course a general simplification). In such a simplification we would have a sensor giving about 1.25 million pixels of uninterolated information (5 million/ 4). Interestingly, your 1010 resolution works out to 1.35 million. Very Close.

But by using a good interpolation algorithm the camera can "guess" with a high degree of probability the colors of additional pixels. The key is to interpolate to pixel values that are correct and accurate. My point is that Sony appears to have done this most effectively.

--
Kurt

My conclusions roughly jibe with Technolawyer's, although I really enjoyed Steve's careful point-by-point evaluation. (That sort of post is very useful--too bad more people won't see it.)

The Minolta does have the best lens of all for speed, range, distortion, and zoom control, but I found the overall image quality from the camera disappointing. I didn't bother to discover workarounds as Steve has done.

For me, the F707 wins on overall image quality by a fair margin. Not only is the resolution excellent in 9 x 12" prints, but for some reason F707 pictures print right out for me--they require very little manipulation. This was quite noticeable in my trials, and pleasant. Skin tones are also really excellent--none of the grey or "photo cyan" cast in the shadows that sometimes plague lesser digicams.

While I would like to buy the Sony, I can't. Having already invested in SmartMedia cards and several sets of rechargeable NiCads, Sony's proprietary batteries AND storarge media takes them out of contention for me. One or the other, I would take the hit, but not both.

Also, I need wide angles more than telephotos and the Sony's 38mm limit on the wide end is a disadvantage for me. The Mintola and the Coolpix 5000 score better in that respect. In a 5x zoom, I'd rather have a 28-140mm equivalent than a 38-190mm.

Overall, though, the F707 has the best image quality I have seenso far in any digicam (as distinct from dSLRs--I'm not interested in those).

--Mike

P.S. Is it just me, or do you find that "anti-troll" comments are sometimes just as biased as a troll? When someone says something somebody doesn't like, it's very easy to discredit him by accusing him of being a troll or of wanting to "bash" a particular camera. But often this is just as much a shibboleth as a troll itself would be. Technolawyer wasn't bashing anything. His comments were neither ad hoc, ad hominem, nor insulting. He gave his conclusions quantitatively and described his methods. This allowed several people to disagree with him in a substantive way. Frankly, I think the people who accused him of trolling are the ones using unfair rhetoric.

From reading the posts here it sounds like what we would really like is for Sony to put out an image processing program that could read in raw files all sorts of cameras. I suppose there is no chance that Sony has any such post processing software available? Are there general packages for processing raw image files?

blakeb_1 said:

Hello all,

I am going to buy a digital camera before heading for college, and
I'm trying to decide between a few. I am interested in a 5
megapixel camera.

I have read reviews on the dimage 7, sony dsc-f707, and a couple of
others, but I'd really like to get some user opinions.

What kind of experience and opinions do you have of any of these
cameras? I originally thought that I was going to get the dimage,
but I have heard that the batteries last no time at all. Is this
true? And the Sony also seems good, but is 128 mb all the larger a
Memory Stick gets? Would some of the others like Nikon or Canon
have a better camera than these 2?

I know everyone has different opinions so it makes it hard to say
what cameras are better, but basically I'm just looking for a
camera that will allow me to print excellent photos at all sizes.
I'm looking for excellent quality pictures, fairly easy use, good
battery life, and nice features.

I sure hope someone can help me. Thanks!

Blake

Click to expand...

--
[email protected]

I did not sharpen the photos, or otherwise manipulate them, so some are a bit soft. Additionally, I can not tell you exactly what conditions camera or studio were used to take the poster shots. I did manipulate them a bit prior to printing to adjust color, contrast and sharpness. Printed, I found d. to be by far the best, a. second with c. in third (I did not print d.)

d. D60
a. F707
c. D7i
d. CP5000

It would be interesting to see what would happed to c. if it were run through neatimage or the like.

Steve Jacob said:

a, c 1st=

have roughly equal resolution (within sharpening tolerance anyway)
if you look at the shadows round the bricks and the plant details.
a. is smoother with less contrast and c. has more contrast and
texture - though this may be noise it actually makes the bricks
look more brick-like.

b. 4th
loses almost all the shadow detail of the bricks, flattening them
out. Far less detail than other three.

d. 3rd
has good resolution - same as a, c, but the colour looks overdone,
hiding the subtle changes in brick colouration and texture.

I'd agree with Jesper 100%. It would come down to a comparison with
the original poster to see which was the most accurate and one
picture does not make for a fair comparison even though these are
well controlled.

So, you going to tell us which was which??

Steve

TheSwede said:

technolawyer said:

TheSwede said:

technolawyer wrote:

As someone else pointed
out, all the cameras approximate the lines as parallell long before
they start losing detail.

Click to expand...

Huh?

Click to expand...

They all interpolate from well before maximum resolution, from
around 1100 lph or so, at most.

The data below that is meaningless when trying to determine general
purpose resolution capability and only illustrates capability to
depict narrow white and black lines. The choice of interpolation
method will determine this; you're already below actual visible
detail on ALL cameras.

*isteve said:

Actually, I have printed crops of similar images at the sizes that
would represent 11x14 prints. The D7i print is very noisy and does
not have much resolution. I would even go as far as saying the S602
(a 3 meg camera had better actual detail).

Take a look at the following crops of the same "house poster" used
by Imaging resources, which exhibits the most detail, which is the
noisiest, which is the best overall?

Click to expand...

b. is too soft, d. has so much saturation I honestly have trouble
telling much because of this, it's pretty much a dead beat between
a. and c.

They all have different sharpness, contrast, saturation etc., so
comparison of resolution from this material is more or less
impossible beyond sweeping generalizations.

--
Jesper

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Kurt

technolawyer said:

I did not sharpen the photos, or otherwise manipulate them, so some
are a bit soft. Additionally, I can not tell you exactly what
conditions camera or studio were used to take the poster shots. I
did manipulate them a bit prior to printing to adjust color,
contrast and sharpness. Printed, I found d. to be by far the best,
a. second with c. in third (I did not print d.)

Click to expand...

Print quality is strongly affected by adjustments to color, contrast and sharpness. I fail to see how this will give you valid data on resolution ability.

It will give you material for subjective quality comparison, but I'd hardly call this process a scientific, objective approach and even less draw absolute data conclusions from it. It does little to support your arguments about resolution. In fact, it looks like it flies in the face of them.

technolawyer said:

d. D60
a. F707
c. D7i
d. CP5000

Click to expand...

Can you please clarify here; this makes no sense. d. is two things and no b.?

technolawyer said:

It would be interesting to see what would happed to c. if it were
run through neatimage or the like.

Click to expand...

No need. It, and a., already looks best. b. is too soft and featureless to be a contender and d. is so oversaturated it's not even funny.

--
Jesper

Yours were rational comments. However, much more of that sort of thing will end the thread.

Mike Johnston said:

My conclusions roughly jibe with Technolawyer's, although I really
enjoyed Steve's careful point-by-point evaluation. (That sort of
post is very useful--too bad more people won't see it.)

The Minolta does have the best lens of all for speed, range,
distortion, and zoom control, but I found the overall image quality
from the camera disappointing. I didn't bother to discover
workarounds as Steve has done.

For me, the F707 wins on overall image quality by a fair margin.
Not only is the resolution excellent in 9 x 12" prints, but for
some reason F707 pictures print right out for me--they require very
little manipulation. This was quite noticeable in my trials, and
pleasant. Skin tones are also really excellent--none of the grey or
"photo cyan" cast in the shadows that sometimes plague lesser
digicams.

While I would like to buy the Sony, I can't. Having already
invested in SmartMedia cards and several sets of rechargeable
NiCads, Sony's proprietary batteries AND storarge media takes them
out of contention for me. One or the other, I would take the hit,
but not both.

Also, I need wide angles more than telephotos and the Sony's 38mm
limit on the wide end is a disadvantage for me. The Mintola and the
Coolpix 5000 score better in that respect. In a 5x zoom, I'd rather
have a 28-140mm equivalent than a 38-190mm.

Overall, though, the F707 has the best image quality I have seenso
far in any digicam (as distinct from dSLRs--I'm not interested in
those).

--Mike

P.S. Is it just me, or do you find that "anti-troll" comments are
sometimes just as biased as a troll? When someone says something
somebody doesn't like, it's very easy to discredit him by accusing
him of being a troll or of wanting to "bash" a particular camera.
But often this is just as much a shibboleth as a troll itself would
be. Technolawyer wasn't bashing anything. His comments were neither
ad hoc, ad hominem, nor insulting. He gave his conclusions
quantitatively and described his methods. This allowed several
people to disagree with him in a substantive way. Frankly, I think
the people who accused him of trolling are the ones using unfair
rhetoric.

Click to expand...

--
jnat
http://www.pbase.com/jnat

I'm curious as to how you arrived at the megapixel count listed below.

You can't just state numbers and expect it to be accepted as factual without supporting evidence of your findings. Show where from DPreview you got that info because I find it surprising.

Does that mean that a 1 megapixel camera has zero pixel resolution ability? Or are we to understand that a 5 MP sensor only utilizes less than half of it's pixels to resolve an image and interpolates the rest of those useless pixels?

Something is goofy on this.....

CP5000 - 2.57 mega pixels?

So if I take a picture in 2560 resolution on the camera then I'm really taking a 2 megapixel photo. I'm to believe this?

Julio

technolawyer said:

The F707 does have its issues as do all these cameras, but I cannot
ignore the resolution issue.

Relavative Actual Resolving Power (based on DPreview and imaging
resources (IR) resolution charts and large size printouts of "the
house" photo from IR:

f707 ----> 3.27 million pixels
CP5000 ---> 2.57 million pixels
D7i --> 2.04 million pixels

Canon G2 (4MP) ---> 2.28 million pixels

The G2 resolves more detail than the D7i!

print some sample pictures (from IR or another source), the
differences are not insignificant!

Kurt

blakeb_1 said:

Hello all,

I am going to buy a digital camera before heading for college, and
I'm trying to decide between a few. I am interested in a 5
megapixel camera.

I have read reviews on the dimage 7, sony dsc-f707, and a couple of
others, but I'd really like to get some user opinions.

What kind of experience and opinions do you have of any of these
cameras? I originally thought that I was going to get the dimage,
but I have heard that the batteries last no time at all. Is this
true? And the Sony also seems good, but is 128 mb all the larger a
Memory Stick gets? Would some of the others like Nikon or Canon
have a better camera than these 2?

I know everyone has different opinions so it makes it hard to say
what cameras are better, but basically I'm just looking for a
camera that will allow me to print excellent photos at all sizes.
I'm looking for excellent quality pictures, fairly easy use, good
battery life, and nice features.

I sure hope someone can help me. Thanks!

Blake

Click to expand...

--
Kurt

Click to expand...

Yes but the rest of the resolution is controlled by other factors that the other 2+ MP are doing. Like color accuracy and noise reduction... I personally found the F707 pictures to be a little on the grainy side. While I find that any shots not close up do lack some detail with the CP5000. However, since it is impossible to get them both at the same exact zoom and sony's F707 starts at 38mm and the CP 5000 starts at 28 mm I'd say they both meet different needs and close up the CP 5000 pictures are full of detail.

--

http://www.pbase.com/elterrible

technolawyer said:

The F707 does have its issues as do all these cameras, but I cannot
ignore the resolution issue.

Relavative Actual Resolving Power (based on DPreview and imaging
resources (IR) resolution charts and large size printouts of "the
house" photo from IR:

f707 ----> 3.27 million pixels
CP5000 ---> 2.57 million pixels
D7i --> 2.04 million pixels

Canon G2 (4MP) ---> 2.28 million pixels

The G2 resolves more detail than the D7i!

print some sample pictures (from IR or another source), the
differences are not insignificant!

Kurt

blakeb_1 said:

Hello all,

I am going to buy a digital camera before heading for college, and
I'm trying to decide between a few. I am interested in a 5
megapixel camera.

I have read reviews on the dimage 7, sony dsc-f707, and a couple of
others, but I'd really like to get some user opinions.

What kind of experience and opinions do you have of any of these
cameras? I originally thought that I was going to get the dimage,
but I have heard that the batteries last no time at all. Is this
true? And the Sony also seems good, but is 128 mb all the larger a
Memory Stick gets? Would some of the others like Nikon or Canon
have a better camera than these 2?

I know everyone has different opinions so it makes it hard to say
what cameras are better, but basically I'm just looking for a
camera that will allow me to print excellent photos at all sizes.
I'm looking for excellent quality pictures, fairly easy use, good
battery life, and nice features.

I sure hope someone can help me. Thanks!

Blake

Click to expand...

--
Kurt

Click to expand...

Hi !

I have had many Diogicams.

The last three were :

Canon G1: Very easy to operate but limited in refinements and pix.
The G2 should be better. But more a point and shoot camera.

Minolta D7: Probably the best for price but severe quality problems and seemingly bad service.

The EVF rapidly degrades and becomes very temperamental.
The quality of pictures is very unstable .
Poor auto focus, and practicaly impossible manual focus through the EVF.
Great lens and price,
The batteries is not a problem with good quality NIMH and proper charger.

Olympus E20 N.
Pricy, bulky and less lens.
Great autofocus and optical VF.
Very solid and more 35mm. like
Through ttl reflex.
Great stable quality pictures.
Very small buffer (slow writing time)

As you see nothing is perfect.

If I were you, I would try to buy a good E10 used, and get experience with it. There are great new cameras coming up in the next months.

Have fun,

Hubert

technolawyer wrote:
Quite happy with my CP 5000.

Do you see any missing detail here? Please advize if I am missing something. Taken with Nikon CP 5000.



My CP 5000 and CP 990 galleries

http://www.pbase.com/xl1ken

Ken Leonard

technolawyer said:

Here is my humble opinion: 5mp does not mean 5mp of actually
resolving power. I researched this, did a few calculations, and
found the F707 resolves far better than any other 5 MP consumer
level camera. If you want to print very good 11x14 prints and good
16x20 prints (sometimes), the F707 is the way to go.

The F707 does have its issues as do all these cameras, but I cannot
ignore the resolution issue.

Relavative Actual Resolving Power (based on DPreview and imaging
resources (IR) resolution charts and large size printouts of "the
house" photo from IR:

f707 ----> 3.27 million pixels
CP5000 ---> 2.57 million pixels
D7i --> 2.04 million pixels

Canon G2 (4MP) ---> 2.28 million pixels

The G2 resolves more detail than the D7i!

print some sample pictures (from IR or another source), the
differences are not insignificant!

Kurt

blakeb_1 said:

Hello all,

I am going to buy a digital camera before heading for college, and
I'm trying to decide between a few. I am interested in a 5
megapixel camera.

I have read reviews on the dimage 7, sony dsc-f707, and a couple of
others, but I'd really like to get some user opinions.

What kind of experience and opinions do you have of any of these
cameras? I originally thought that I was going to get the dimage,
but I have heard that the batteries last no time at all. Is this
true? And the Sony also seems good, but is 128 mb all the larger a
Memory Stick gets? Would some of the others like Nikon or Canon
have a better camera than these 2?

I know everyone has different opinions so it makes it hard to say
what cameras are better, but basically I'm just looking for a
camera that will allow me to print excellent photos at all sizes.
I'm looking for excellent quality pictures, fairly easy use, good
battery life, and nice features.

I sure hope someone can help me. Thanks!

Blake

Click to expand...

--
Kurt

Click to expand...

Ok, lets try this again. My mind was on somethingelse when I responded to the post naming the cameras from which each picture was produced

a. F707
b. Fuji s602
c. D7i
d. cp5000

Anyhow, I also did a print out of several of these including one of the D60

Swede: I never claimed printing out the photos was anything more than subjective. But in the end I am going to pick the camera that provides the best pictures in my subjective opion which of course may be differant from yours.

If you have a prefered manner to Objectively compare the images from differant cameras then lets here it. The manner in which I came up with the resolution number was completely objective yet you did not like that either. I am open to hearing why my methods may not be valid in your opinion, but I believe it would be useful to all the readers if you'd present a method that you believe would Objectively compare the resolution and imaging power of differant cameras.
--
Kurt

No one implied that images from a CP5000 were missing any detail. Quite frankly the CP5000 resolutionwise performs very well. The fact is that bayer interpolation lowers signifcantly the effective resolution of a camera. Some worse than others, depending perhaps on the agressiveness of the bayer interpolation algorithm utilized. Of course, the quality of the lens can effect resoltion as well.

Ken Leonard said:

Do you see any missing detail here? Please advize if I am missing
something. Taken with Nikon CP 5000.



My CP 5000 and CP 990 galleries

http://www.pbase.com/xl1ken

Ken Leonard

Ken Leonard said:

Here is my humble opinion: 5mp does not mean 5mp of actually
resolving power. I researched this, did a few calculations, and
found the F707 resolves far better than any other 5 MP consumer
level camera. If you want to print very good 11x14 prints and good
16x20 prints (sometimes), the F707 is the way to go.

The F707 does have its issues as do all these cameras, but I cannot
ignore the resolution issue.

Relavative Actual Resolving Power (based on DPreview and imaging
resources (IR) resolution charts and large size printouts of "the
house" photo from IR:

f707 ----> 3.27 million pixels
CP5000 ---> 2.57 million pixels
D7i --> 2.04 million pixels

Canon G2 (4MP) ---> 2.28 million pixels

The G2 resolves more detail than the D7i!

print some sample pictures (from IR or another source), the
differences are not insignificant!

Kurt

blakeb_1 said:

Hello all,

I am going to buy a digital camera before heading for college, and
I'm trying to decide between a few. I am interested in a 5
megapixel camera.

I have read reviews on the dimage 7, sony dsc-f707, and a couple of
others, but I'd really like to get some user opinions.

What kind of experience and opinions do you have of any of these
cameras? I originally thought that I was going to get the dimage,
but I have heard that the batteries last no time at all. Is this
true? And the Sony also seems good, but is 128 mb all the larger a
Memory Stick gets? Would some of the others like Nikon or Canon
have a better camera than these 2?

I know everyone has different opinions so it makes it hard to say
what cameras are better, but basically I'm just looking for a
camera that will allow me to print excellent photos at all sizes.
I'm looking for excellent quality pictures, fairly easy use, good
battery life, and nice features.

I sure hope someone can help me. Thanks!

Blake

Click to expand...

--
Kurt

Click to expand...

--

Click to expand...

--
Kurt

I never said the D7i is "no good". I just think that it does not live up to its potential resolutionwise. It may be the best camera outer there in all other areas. Certainly, in terms of color and white balance it blows the F707 away.

Are my opinions biased: I would say yes. Aren't yours? Show me a person who says his opinions are not clouded by his own bias and you will have shown me a fool.

But that is why I presented those objective numbers in an earlier post concerning resolving power. Now perhaps, there are issues with my methodology, but the numbers I have presented are not my opinion but rather my observation

Are we having fun yet?

Thordur Arnason said:

Now, IMHO this means that all the above mentioned cameras are top
of their class and that your biased opiniones are merely just a
rant from someone that for reasons unkown to me has decided that
the Minolta D7(i) is no good.

--
Cheers,

Thordur Arnason
All about DiMAGE - http://www.alldimage.com/

Click to expand...

--
Kurt

technolawyer said:

Swede: I never claimed printing out the photos was anything more
than subjective.

Click to expand...

In all honesty you said that was a valid base of information for your calculation of resolution power ... or at least you gave it as an answer when I asked if all you had tried to base it off was the line test.

technolawyer said:

But in the end I am going to pick the camera that
provides the best pictures in my subjective opion which of course
may be differant from yours.

Click to expand...

No argument there. I agree completely.

technolawyer said:

If you have a prefered manner to Objectively compare the images
from differant cameras then lets here it.

Click to expand...

Easy: there is none. If there was, don't you think everyone would use it? Lots smarter people than you or I have tried to come up with workable solutions to this. So far noone has succeeded.

technolawyer said:

The manner in which I
came up with the resolution number was completely objective yet you
did not like that either.

Click to expand...

You presented it as objective when it in fact involved several subjective operations in the execution and a number of arbitrary choices. There's nothing objective about it.

technolawyer said:

I am open to hearing why my methods may
not be valid in your opinion, but I believe it would be useful to
all the readers if you'd present a method that you believe would
Objectively compare the resolution and imaging power of differant
cameras.

Click to expand...

The only way to do this is to take a series of images depicting various high detail patterns, preferably real world examples, and photograph them under perfectly controlled circumstances, making sure all other factors than resolution are EXACTLY the same between all cameras. Sharpness, saturation, contrast etc. must not differ at all or the results will become skewed. I'm not talking settings; I'm talking actual, resulting output.

The subjects should be photographed with smaller and smaller details, as a series of pictures from each camera. There should also be several types of subjects, as the results will otherwise be skewed by algorithms that handle certain types of detail better but handle others worse.

Then, from these various pictures, blind test with several people, having them all grade the resolution.

At this point you will undoubtedly find that not only do the reviewers not agree, but the winner in high detail may very well not produce the pictures that are overall "best".

Since all the fine detail is just interpolated anyway, in different ways by the different cameras, what you're measuring is not resolution anyway, but how efficient the algorithm used is at depicting certain patterns.

And people mean different things when they say "resolution". For example, you claimed that you saw more detail in the pictures of the 602 than of the D7i, which was as I understand b. in your list of pictures. Yet that is to my eye the undeniably worst picture of them all, with almost no detail at all.

Objective measures of subjective qualities and trying to measure the amounts of apples one camera has and comparing it to the amount of oranges another camera has is not going to get anyone anywhere. Look at the pictures, print tests, decide what features you like and decide from that.

--
Jesper

technolawyer said:

But that is why I presented those objective numbers in an earlier
post concerning resolving power. Now perhaps, there are issues with
my methodology, but the numbers I have presented are not my opinion
but rather my observation

Click to expand...

How is an observation based on a method born out of opinion different from an opinion?

The numbers you have presented are your opinion on how resolution should be measured. That's not objective. Period.

--
Jesper