Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Fujifilm

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 6, 2010, 12:37 AM   #71
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

If you look at it from a purely math stand point, there is no way a high end bridge camera with the 1/1.6 can even match a 4/3 sensor let alone a aps-c. Both will out perform base on the math of pixel density to sq area.

And if you shoot raw in a bridge vs raw in a dslr. The bridge will not come close honestly once you start editing and converting them.

On small print, the naked eye can not tell the difference, but once you start cropping and blow up the crop area you will see the difference as clear as night and day. But since I am not a pixel counter. I just go with the math, and it does not lie.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2010, 12:50 AM   #72
Senior Member
 
kirby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: northwest...Indaina
Posts: 171
Default

well im just waitin to see what cannon does about this....lol...
kirby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2010, 8:44 AM   #73
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

Shoturtle said,

“If you look at it from a purely math stand point, there is no way a high end bridge camera with the 1/1.6 can even match a 4/3 sensor let alone a aps-c. Both will out perform base on the math of pixel density to sq area.”

So, applying your “logic” (tongue in cheek), the Canon Powershot 350 (released back in 1997), with its’ 1/3" sensor and 0.4 MP, which results in a pixel density of 2MP/cm² should blow your precious T1i, with a pixel density of 4.5MP/cm², out of the water...correct?

Math doesn’t lie...

The Hun
rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2010, 9:41 AM   #74
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,200
Default

You forgot time & development.

Sure yor car from 1956 is better then cars from today :-/

Years ago aaaaaall was better!
DonalDuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2010, 11:07 AM   #75
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rinniethehun View Post
Shoturtle said,

“If you look at it from a purely math stand point, there is no way a high end bridge camera with the 1/1.6 can even match a 4/3 sensor let alone a aps-c. Both will out perform base on the math of pixel density to sq area.”

So, applying your “logic” (tongue in cheek), the Canon Powershot 350 (released back in 1997), with its’ 1/3" sensor and 0.4 MP, which results in a pixel density of 2MP/cm² should blow your precious T1i, with a pixel density of 4.5MP/cm², out of the water...correct?

Math doesn’t lie...

The Hun
You are just doing a tongue and cheek answer. You need to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. So you need to use 2009/2010 in the caparison. And math does matter, without it nothing would work on these camera from and engineering stand point. All they would be is metal and plastic junk.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2010, 1:15 PM   #76
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,870
Default

Shoturtle,

Why did you even enter this thread? You have no interest in a bridge cam, do you? You just wanted to entertain us with your wealth of knowledge, as you have throughout this forum, didn’t you?

You started with,

“Actually that is just ok if you can only get 700 between battery change. The pentax DSLR K-x gets 1200 shot with 4 AA rechargeable batteries and 1400 with lithium disposable one. I would expect more form a smaller camera a smaller sensor then 700.”

I asked you to come up with 3 bridge cameras that get more than 700 shots per charge with AA batteries...I’m still waiting. Why is it, when someone shoots a hole in one of your well educated theories, you always change the subject? You never come back and answer the question...because you can’t - so you change the subject. Where is my list of cameras? I’m not impressed with the fact you own a DSLR, or you can borrow your brother’s DSLR any time you want. I don’t care how many shots you can get with your DSLR or his. This is a thread about a new bridge camera, which you chose to knock - so I’d like to know - which bridge cameras are better? You seem to know that a smaller camera with a smaller sensor will get more shots per charge than 700 - so tell me which ones - put up or shut up! Or admit you’re wrong...but you can’t do that, can you?

Then you tell us that by using mathematics, you can prove that strictly from a pixel density perspective, DSLRs are superior to P&S cameras. You said,

“If you look at it from a purely math stand point, there is no way a high end bridge camera with the 1/1.6 can even match a 4/3 sensor let alone a aps-c. Both will out perform base on the math of pixel density to sq area.”

“But since I am not a pixel counter. I just go with the math, and it does not lie.”

Then when I give you an example where your logic is flawed, you come back with,

“You are just doing a tongue and cheek answer. You need to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. So you need to use 2009/2010 in the caparison.”

Why do I need to use 2009/2010? Has mathematics changed in the last couple of years? Has mathematics changed in the last century? Your camera has a pixel density of 4.5MP/cm², and mine has a pixel density of 2MP/cm². Therefore, according to YOUR logic, my camera has to have superior image quality. If that is not true, then your previous statement was incorrect - you were wrong. Can this be possible? Could you have erred? Could you logic be flawed?

And you should take your own advice...you were trying to compare a 2006 bridge camera to a 2009 DSLR - that’s fair...

the Hun
rinniethehun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2010, 2:44 PM   #77
Senior Member
 
gjtoth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Louisville, KY, USA
Posts: 6,938
Default

Considering this camera isn't even OUT yet, it sure is causing a lot of controversy. It's a little silly to be arguing about a camera that nobody but the Fuji Guys have played with, don't ya think?
__________________
Gary ---- "The best camera is the one you have with you."
<><~~~~~~~~~~~
Pentax K-70 ~ Panasonic FZ1000
My Gallery

--
Hebrews 13:3

Last edited by gjtoth; Feb 6, 2010 at 4:14 PM.
gjtoth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2010, 4:02 PM   #78
Senior Member
 
mrmacmusic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 274
Default

Stepping back from the technicalities for a moment, the bottom line is that the HS10 is - on paper - shaping up to be an awesome option for those don't want a DSLR or perhaps can't justify the cost... It'll do an awful lot for £379, and if the image quality lives up to brand expectations, it's a sure fire winner. But not for everyone.

Another bottom line: f2.8 won't provide the same level of background blur here as f2.8 will on an APS-C format DSLR (or even a micro 4/3rds camera).
mrmacmusic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2010, 4:06 PM   #79
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gjtoth View Post
Considering this camera isn't even OUT yet, it sure is causing a long of controversy. It's a little silly to be arguing about a camera that nobody but the Fuji Guys have played with, don't ya think?

we need a little controversy and arguing from time to time. keeps things interesting, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 6, 2010, 4:11 PM   #80
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gjtoth View Post
Considering this camera isn't even OUT yet, it sure is causing a long of controversy. It's a little silly to be arguing about a camera that nobody but the Fuji Guys have played with, don't ya think?
Agree! Some know what Fuji's engineers should make better, what's wrong with HS10, sensor is toooo small, IQ is toooo low ... and so on.

These guru-DIY-engineers should work with Fuji - than we'll get the ultimate camera
DonalDuc is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 AM.