Pixel density revisited

Started Oct 22, 2008 | Discussions thread
DMillier Forum Pro • Posts: 21,002
Re: Pixel density revisited

This is sensible advice - although in a lot of cameras image quality IS generally commensurate with pixel count

i.e. the real world image quality differences between, say, the cohort of cameras in the 6MP DSLR or 10MP DSLR classes is remarkably similar and scales pretty much with pixel count.

Presumably, competition forces such performance simularities.

It would be an interesting exercise to analyse how many cameras' image quality was broadly in line with the average for the pixel count expectations and how many are outside.

One of the consequences of product reviews is they tend to inflate the importance of minor performance differences. Often where something is rated as improved or disappointing in the lab, under field conditions for real users, the differences are inconsequential.

Likewise, reviews focus on specs and performance and sometime omit things that are important in the field.

Just the nature of the reviewing process.

Phil Askey wrote:
Did you read the rest of the review? The original point was that the
pixel density figure provided in the specs database should not be
used as a predictor of image quality alone.

igb wrote:

In the beginning:

[quote]
pixel density should not be used as a predictor for image quality but
instead as a parameter to help understand the sensor
[end quote]
(from
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/pixel_density_01.htm )

A coupla months later we learn in
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydslra900/page36.asp that:

[quote]
“rather disappointing high ISO performance that is the inevitable
consequence of such a high pixel density”
[end quote]

So, what’s it gonna be?

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
igb
igb
igb
igb
igb
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow