Timo might have used abusive language towards most digicams, but
some of us used abusive language to HIM. Now, that's not exactly
the same thing, so please give him a break.
Everyone deserves respect, but it IS a two way street. I have been on the internet since 1990, and BBSs long before that. Heated discussions and real flame wars has always popped up now and then. In fact and very fortunately people have learned than emotions seldom transfer well in posted text, even with smileys attached. Cynisms, jokes, satire etc. don´t fare well and may or will get people angry. But so will stubborn agressive posts, no matter if they are in principle correct or not. Decent manners matter.
I am one who have bashed on Timo, and I am not proud of that, on the contrary. But I still feel it was and is necessary, in this case.
If I understand his logic correctly, this is what's he's been
saying: Since larger dots (i.e. pixel size in a large CCD) can
represent a greater number of shades (i.e. dynamic range recorded
by number of useable bits) with less noise, a design based on
1.3MP-CCD is much better han 5-MP in a CCD of the same size.
This is his favorite theme just now, but what does it mean?
A bigger CCD cell can improve signal noise ratio and can increase dynamics, this is true. Timo uses this to "prove" his point, claiming it is fact. In certain way, it is fact. If you would build a medical equipment to take images of blood samples and do some image processing of that, I would probably need to stop and think if resolution or noise/dynamic is needed in that application. There are lots of technical applications where a CCD is used where low resolution is acceptable and dynamics and noise has to be as good as possible.
So, it is a fact, but as always it is only true in certain perspective! If you take a 1.3 MP image of you beloved and you try to print it bigger than 4x5 and the square pixels start to show, you will realize that resolution is also a part of the equation. In discussion of digital versus film the resolution issue is very central, no one can dismiss resoution and get away with it (except Timo). It just simply is so painful that the resolution has to come up to about 3 MP before it is approaching a practical turning point. For me the CP950 with 2.1MP was barely enough, more than once I had a great image but too low resolution. With the CP990 3+ MP this is seldom the case, the resolution is acceptable. The D7 with about 5 MP will be sufficient for almost anyone, when it comes to resolution. The amount of detail in a 5 MP camera is often larger than in film (and here I hear Timo and others just jump up and down screaming NO),
in actual use . It is possible to take film images that show more detail than digital, probably up to a point of 15 MP or so, but ONLY in rare cases! In most situations the resolution you get with film, camera and lenses of non-pro quality, is lower than what you do get from a 3+ MP camera properly exposed and setup. For
most people including a good part of pro´s a resolution over 3 MP is sufficient.
Then it comes to get quality in those 3 MP pixels. This is where Timo disagrees with most of us. Timo argues that resolution can be sacrified on the altar of noise/dynamics. I cannot and will not agree, this is based on facts - a fact that my eyes see on screen or on paper, resolution is more important than noise/dynamics. Noise is irritating, but it is like grain, it shows it ugly face when you push it too far, the noise is popping up when you have low light or use high ISO, so be it. Handle it! Expose so that YOU feel the noise is acceptable, if you can´t then use FLASH or LAMPS!!! As for poor dynamics, that is also the case with film - even if the range there is larger - the eye has so vast dynamic range YOU have to choose what and how you want your image. This is why you have exposure/aperture choices, you choose what range you want to show, do you want details in the shadows? Blown out highlights or not? Sometimes you do want that, sometimes you don´t. If you can´t accept any lack of detail in both ends of the range, then you WILL get lower dynamic resolution in the middle range... It is always a compromise that YOU as photographer has to do.
Timo seems forget that cameras are to be used, even with all the limitations there ALWAYS are. He seeks perfection, in an abstract sense, it is really just a show-off stomp-down perfection behaviour. It doesn´t lead to better cameras and it certainly lead to lots of pissed off readers in this or other forums. Timo has gotten on many peoples nerves, repeatedly during many many years, and he still doesn´t get it. You can´t use facts as a disguised weapons to hurt people by phrases such as "pre-teens toys" and get away with it just because you have collected details about CCDs or other technical matters. The knowledge is just not any use if it is used in the wrong way and distorted. Vallues really can distort facts and give them meanings that may be misleading.
[room for bashing here, I am off for vacation and won´t read it
]
I suppose that for a given practical CCD size, the optimum number
of pixels could be determined based on human's perception of
quality. Is it 1.3 MP, I don't know. However, human's perception of
quality is very subjective and that's the reason why there are
different designs.
CCD size influences everything in a camera! If you choose a larger CCD you have to have a larger lens! For low resolution CCD the quality demands are low, for a high resolution CCD the lens quality is critical. A larger lens will have less depth of field, it will be harder to create macro lenses as size increases. There are lots and lots of compromises here.
As I see it, the camera designers DO have a good knowledge of CCD size versus noise, dynamic range and lens construction! Their choices and compromises are trying to give as good overall results as possible.
Timo doesn´t want that, he wants large CCD cells at whatever cost (not only in money mind you, but in other quality aspects of imagery). He proposes a 1.3 MP D7, something that surely will not happen.
The market trend is to have higher MP count because it's easily
understood by the mass (just witness this thread). A courageous
manufacturer that comes out with a $2000-1.3MP consumer digicam
would be laughed off the block. Now, that's something (the Don
Quixotic) Timo should understand.
Resolution is not easily understood! It is quite hard to grasp the fact that your impression of sharpness in an image is a complex process, it is not only resolution. You can have a 0.1 MP image that seems sharp and very good, but it lacks detail, you can have a 10+ MP image that has lots of details but even so seems fuzzy and unsharp...
