Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 29, 2010, 12:39 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoot21 View Post
hi i've been seing s90's photos and they are not impresive at all.
In what way? My impression is that the S90 has excellent IQ (for the size).
camvard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 29, 2010, 12:40 PM   #12
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peripatetic View Post
It's reasonably likely that the problem is behind the camera rather than inside it.
No, the SD4000/Ixus 300 HS definitely produces photos that are noticeably more "blurry" than an old SD700/Ixus 800 IS when you do pixel-peeping at 100%.
camvard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 4:36 AM   #13
Zoo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 29
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by camvard View Post
No, the SD4000/Ixus 300 HS definitely produces photos that are noticeably more "blurry" than an old SD700/Ixus 800 IS when you do pixel-peeping at 100%.
Seems that this is the case with most newer P&S cameras. The size of the sensor has remained the same but they are trying to pack more and more pixels on it for marketing reasons.

P&S cameras with such small sensors should have stayed at 5-6 Megapixels max.

It is not a coincidence that LX3/LX5 and S90/S95 although they have bigger sensors than most P&S cameras are just 10 Megapixels.

I see very often people being criticized for "pixel-peeping". I disagree. I believe who should be criticized are the companies who keep adding mega pixels on P&S cameras.
Zoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 9:54 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
mtclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 18,143
Default

Zoo-

Excellent comment. You are very correct.

Sarah Joyce
mtclimber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 10:01 AM   #15
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoo View Post
I see very often people being criticized for "pixel-peeping". I disagree. I believe who should be criticized are the companies who keep adding mega pixels on P&S cameras.
I tend to agree that adding more pixels is bad for most photographers. But the companies are a victim of their own marketing. For better or worse, pixel count was the biggest marketing tactic. It was important in the early days of digital. However, the masses locked on to that attribute and sadly that's how people judge cameras. They have been conditioned to believe more is better. No getting away from it. I shoot with a professional DSLR and professional lenses. It's amazing how many people who ask "how many megapixels is that" - it's the first feature they inquire about.

So, now camera companies are stuck- they pushed for years that "more is better" so now consumers expect more megapixels. Perception becomes reality.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 1:50 PM   #16
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

Camvard & Zoo

This is complete nonsense.

In general when you down-rez the 10Mp image to 6Mp the resultant image is usually better than the previous model, as long as you are operating in good light.

For a fixed sensor size, the basic rule is that larger pixels do better at high-ISO (low light) situations, and smaller pixels do better in good light. But all things are seldom equal between different camera generations - there are often differences in lenses, variance in manufacture, differences in the image processing chip, differences in the conversion algorithms, differences in the noise reduction algorithms, etc. All of these factors confound simplistic judgements about "too many pixels".

The fact that this is not obvious to you that comparing two images of different resolution at 100% magnification is not valid, shows that you are very inexperienced when it comes to image processing.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Aug 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 6:18 PM   #17
Zoo
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 29
Default

No, I am not a pro in image processing, but I do have common sense.

All DSLRs seem to have a pixel density under 5 MP/cm². The same is true for some expensive compact Leica and Sigma cameras. On the other hand most newer P&S cameras have sensors with pixel densities above 30 MP/cm².

If, other things equal, more pixels means better IQ, then why don't they pack more pixels on the DSLRs and high end compacts?

To me it is obvious that marketing is the only reason that the pixels of consumer cameras keeps increasing even thought they have such small sensors.
Zoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 6:56 PM   #18
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Yes Zoo you don't need to apologize - there are other photographers with just as much experience as peripatetic that agree with your line of thinking - I happen to be one of them. Even in the DSLR realm - I applaud Nikon for deciding 12mp was enough for their D3s and d700 cameras which perform in a stellar fashion - instead of putting their R&D into more megapixels they used a design with class-leading dynamic range and high iso performance AND gave their full frame cameras focus systems that were class leading as well. Oly as well for stating 12mp was enough. There are aspects that are infinitely more important to photographers than number of MP. If manufacturers spend more time improving IQ and stayed at 6-8mp in digicams photographers would be better off.

So don't be discouraged - there are plenty of experienced photographers and professionals too that believe other features are more important than MP and consentrating R&D on more MP results in a lesser product.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2010, 2:14 AM   #19
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

There are lots of reasons DSLRs don't have pixel densities that high yet. There are a lot of technological hurdles to overcome.

The number of pixels you need depends a lot on what you are trying to do. The current set of DSLRs are around the 20Mp mark. If 6-8 was enough why would the pro cameras be putting out 20+? Why would the medium format backs be up at 65+? On the other hand, as John points out - two of the very best Nikon cameras you can get are set down at around the 12Mp mark because their low-light performance is more important than the extra resolution for their target market. However Canon's 1DMkIV comes very close in its low-light abilities and has a much higher pixel count. The manufacturers are doing their best bringing innovative products to market and letting the consumer decide who wins.

Canon have just announced a 120Mp FF sensor, expect to see it in a camera in the next 3-5 years.

There are lots of reasons why moving huge amounts of data off the much larger sensors is difficult.

Why do we need so many pixels?

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...be-enough.html

Also spend some time over at DXOMark.com - DXO are the ONLY site on the internet that has a scientific approach to camera sensor testing. Spend some time having a good look at the results shown by their testing.

Consider this article on their site:

http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Our-...s-offset-noise!

It is absolutely possible that with the SD4000/Ixus300 Canon have gone overshot the number of pixels they should have put in the camera with their current level of signal processing and lens and manufacturing technology.

If it seems like I'm picking on you I apologise, but saying that you believe the above on the basis of viewing onscreen at 100% magnification means that you simply don't understand what's going on. If they looked equally good then it would mean that Canon had taken a huge step forward, and such steps are not to be expected now that digital imaging is a reasonably mature science.

I'm also not saying it's not possible that Canon execs aren't cynical enough to look at their market research and tell the engineers "We need a 14Mp compact camera that looks really sexy". "But the IQ will be worse than the cameras they are replacing!" say the engineers. "Yes," say the execs, "but we will sell 20% more cameras and that means you will still have a job next year. You can concentrate on image quality in the S-series and 1-series. Any more objections?" The engineers think for a moment. "Can't think of anything. 14Mp and sexy. Got it." 6 months later out pops the SD4000.
__________________
My gallery
My X100 blog

Last edited by peripatetic; Aug 31, 2010 at 2:26 AM.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2010, 1:31 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
skylark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 265
Default

Zoo,

I agree with you 100%. The MP race for small sensor P&S cameras is insane. No problems with IQ in daylight but obviously lower IQ indoors than older 7 MP P&S cameras with lower pixel densities.

We are not talking DSLRs with APS-C sized sensors here since this thread's subject is the small sensor SD4000.

Sky
skylark 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 2:04 PM.