How do i explain to someone its not about megapixels ?

Started Oct 4, 2013 | Questions thread
Joe186
Joe186 Senior Member • Posts: 2,098
Fujifilm F31fd vs. Nokia Lumia 1020

Jay Ell wrote:

Joe186 wrote:

Eh, those 41 MP phones are semi-bogus.

Hardly.

The lens and pixel density gets them.

Pixel pitch has little to do with noise. And the lens is very high performing.

The Lumia 1020 has not only a larger sensor than the F31, but also one that is significantly more modern, ie. has much lower read noise and higher quantum efficiency. Additionally the lens is faster. It has much higher performance potential in low light as well as other conditions than the F31 has.

My prints are 8.5x11, to fit in standard binders, etc. Though, all the models want those big, long (please don’t say it) 9x12 prints now.

Because of that, I need to shoot at ISO 200/400 with the F31. There’s no noise at all, but I do need to keep very steady hands.

No noise equals plenty of noise reduction. That was always one reason Fuji F31 was though to have excellent low light performance among it's peers. The real advantage of it was that the sensor was quite large for such camera. The sensor itself was mediocre in it's time, very inefficient compared to today's sensors.

As you may be aware of, light itself is noisy, thus if there is no noise, it's been sanitized in software.

An acquaintance has an RX100 II. Believe or not, I still prefer the colors and tones of the F31.

What’s your opinion of that?

Opinions are like [cencored] - everyone has one

(nothing wrong with preferring one camera's performance over another as long as one remains in subjective domain or agrees with evidence, or both. Nice that you like yours!)

Yes, it is a remarkable camera-phone, great high tech, etc. On the subject of the lens, the Lumia 1020 has a wider and faster lens than an F31fd, but is it actually better? Straying too far off 35-50mm always seems to bring compromises.

The 1020 does have it’s six irregularly contoured lens elements, to offset barrel, pincushion, fringing, etc., but now we’re talking straight physics. To receive, you must give up, no matter what.

What does the 1020’s lens give up to get those specs, in such a compact design? I honestly don’t know. In-camera image correction, has it’s compromises too. The F31fd’s lens just isn’t asking so much of the light it receives.

They are indeed apples and oranges. At that, possibly one of the best examples in compact style photography, of using that phrase. The sensors especially. So vastly different, the time it would take to do a sensor comparison, would far exceed diminishing returns.

In the F31fd’s favor, are still focus/image processing speed, battery life, insane reliability and nobody can say, that it still doesn't take great pictures.

At this point, because they are so different, the only real answer would be an objective, public opinion oriented, image challenge, between the two. Ergo, as Gordon Laing would say, “and ‘ear it is“.

(If possible, please take comments on the comparison, over to the poll)

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(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