Canon G2X

Started Jan 14, 2013 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 2,853
Re: Getting it right by innovation and keeping up with the times

tron555 wrote:

Howey… let me try to explain my point to you once more, as simply as I can so that even you can hopefully understand.

Cool...can't wait.

Higher sensor image efficiency (QE) equals better image quality (IQ), period!

Nope. Wrong. First of all, if there is no noise at ISO 100, then there is no noise. Okay, we all know that there is always some noise, but if it is beyond our ability to perceive then better is a relative term that is basically meaningless. Better is, of course, always better, but your quantum efficiency (that DxO doesn't even measure....check the site, their score is not a quantum efficiency nor do they measure that) is much more meaningful where noise becomes more prevalent. In fact, the score you want to go up is based on several factors, any one of which could increase the overall score. That means the DxO score you're equating to quantum efficiency could go up if color depth, dynamic range, or ISO sensitivity improve. These are not the same as quantum efficiency.

In other words (all things being equal): > QE = > IQ “and” < QE = < IQ, believe it or not.

And put that 100% efficient sensor behind an awesome lens and then behind a lousy lens and you'll see your sensor isn't the only variable in the equation. In the case of fixed lens cameras you can not separate the sensor and its detail resolving ability from the lens and its detail resolving ability. Can't. Period.

If you do not agree with this simple fact, I am sorry for you, but you do not know what you are talking about and do not know as much as you profess to. You are the ONLY person who would dispute this fact. If you continue to dispute this simple fact of physics, you will only continue to lower credibility. I’ll bet you have never said “I’m sorry” or “I was wrong”. If I were you, I would not try to continue to dispute the very simple fact that > QE = > IQ

Once again, I agree you are a reductionist that doesn't understand that something being true on its own does not have the same meaning when placed into a system. A system has bottle necks that the individual parts may or may not have. I have not disputed that a better sensor is better, that would be idiotic. I disputed your oversimplification of the system as though the sensor alone has the sole responsibility for image quality. You're wrong. Oh, and you're right, I'm not sorry.



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