jkurkjia wrote:
For the benefit of those folks that are not mind readers it would be nice if you would label which camera corresponds to whatever side of your example above (my apology if I've missed an identifier somewhere)
I think it's implicit that the 1Ds3 is the slightly nosier one on the left.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's a shame that the G11 doesn't get the f/2 speed of the S90.
Agreed. I remember my G1 with the f/2 lens and tilt-swivel screen and auto-focus assist. I could take pictures anywhere with the hunk of metal. I'm pretty pumped to see what else is in store from Canon.
Sample images from what? They are 10 times the size needed and posted sideways. Judging from the quality it looks like the discussion has moved from the G11 to unknown DSLR camera samples.
To me the new PowerShot S90 looks like the same camera without the swivel. It's 10 mpix shoots RAW has basically the same specs and a 3.0-inch PureColor System LCD. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081907canons90.asp
Sample images from what? They are 10 times the size needed and posted sideways. Judging from the quality it looks like the discussion has moved from the G11 to unknown DSLR camera samples.
Then they caught you out. They are samples from the G11 and S90. Very good indeed
Sample images from what? They are 10 times the size needed and posted sideways. Judging from the quality it looks like the discussion has moved from the G11 to unknown DSLR camera samples.
The exif shows that they were all shot with a G11 at ISO 80.
jamesf99 wrote:
I think it's implicit that the 1Ds3 is the slightly nosier one on the left.
No, 1Ds3 on right! Sorry I didn't provide identifiers, but to my eye there is so little between the cameras at iso 12800 that who cares which is which?
The point of posting this file is to illustrate that most people's beliefs about the effects of pixel contraction are based on per pixel analysis, which is thoroughly misleading.
It's my opinion that the G11 sensor was going to be better than the G10 one regardless of whether it was 10 or 15 Mpixels. Engineers don't sit on their arses all day, after all.
The issue is whether reducing pixel count to 10M provides any real benefit over 15M. Those that believe it does only have for evidence a groundswell of web opinion based on the incorrect per pixel analysis. Those of us who are more skeptical that reduced pixel counts provide any great benefit can provide some evidence that image quality is mostly a question of date of production and size of sensor: all of the current full frame cameras have about the same high iso performance and general image quality, regardless of whether they are 12 or 24 Mpixels, and they are all clearly distinguishable from the current crop sensor cameras in that regard.
In brief, what I'm saying is "sensor size matters, and sensel size doesn't (much)". For evidence look at _all_ contemporaneous cameras from Nikon/Canon/Sony/Olympus/Pentax over the last ten years. That's why to me, Canon reducing the number of pixels appears to be a matter of pandering to the delusions of the market rather than a genuine advance in engineering. And one thing's for sure: given a good lens, a 15 Mpixel G11 would probably have taken _sharper_ pictures than the 10 Mpixel one.
In my experience if you want to print big at low ISO then more MP is fine but above ISO 200 in a P+S I'll take a lower pixel density every time. I agree these samples look very good. I'm pleased to see the MP count drop.
willis wrote:
In my experience if you want to print big at low ISO then more MP is fine but above ISO 200 in a P+S I'll take a lower pixel density every time. I agree these samples look very good. I'm pleased to see the MP count drop.
It's my belief that you probably formed that opinion by looking at files on screen at 100% rather than comparing prints from contemporaneous cameras with equivalent sized sensors but differing numbers of pixels, or by resizing images to equivalent pixel count before comparing on screen.
brainiac wrote:
Yes - the Stephenson gauge was adopted.
As you know from previous threads, I'm in complete agreement with your point that total sensor noise is far more important than per pixel noise. But isn't the Stephenson gauge just a railroad standard? Do you mean to suggest that on top of just being unnecessarily wary of high pixel density, we're headed for a pixel density standard?
All Canon G's must be 4.7 MP, all APS-C must be, I dunno, what would be equivalent, 18 MP, all FF must be 46 MP? JK
Seriously, if we decided that all sensors must be designed around a density that gave a certain level of per pixel noise regardless of other factors, compact cameras would be impossible. It would be like dictating that 35 mm film must never be enlarged beyond 2x3 inches, because otherwise we could see differences compared to 8x10 film. And ISO 100 35 mm film prints better than ISO 400 6x7 cm film, because when you look at each with a 10x loupe the larger film looks grainier. Of course the opposite is true when you make prints of the same size from each.
brainiac wrote:
No. There is very little evidence for that belief. Meanwhile there is evidence to the contrary
This may be true for larger sensors but I would think the opposite for smaller sensors. Obviously FF sensors haven't plateaued in the MP department yet, but I think it's safe to say that smaller sensors, like the one in the G10 and the 50D/T1i, have hit the ceiling. Unless other technological advancements occur I can't see them increasing in MP size all to much further.
I only raised the Stephenson gauge because it was a good example of how popular misconceptions can favour worse engineering. If only Brunel's gauge had been adopted trains would be much faster, cheaper, safer, more comfortable, and more people would use them. Digital cameras matter less, but like the photodisc era, we are approaching an era in which some people will get less good snaps because of a popular misconception. Misconception-driven engineering is the point.
That's why to me, Canon reducing the number of pixels appears to be a matter of pandering to the delusions of the market rather than a genuine advance in engineering. And one things for sure: given a good lens, a 15 Mpixel G11 would probably have taken _sharper_ pictures than the 10 Mpixel one.
Does that mean that my discontinued G10 will be worth more than the G11 once people find out the real truth?
