brainiac
Offline
Dedicated FM
Account Locked
|
digitalbug30d wrote:
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Maybe if you bothered to read the explanation that went with that "lame picture of a desk with junk on it" you'd understand? Just sayin'.
Why? do I need to be a scientist to use a camera?since I am typing this on a Dell with an i7 should I really know everything there is to know about an i7 chip?
also on high speed comcast internet do I need to know how it works to use it also?.
You would do well to know the simple fact that sensel size doesn't really affect a camera's noise performance in the way that sensor size does.
I am trying to explain that so that more people can make informed decisions about upgrading cameras.
Others are confused by comparing cameras at unequal magnification, and think they have seen evidence that sparser sensors are better. They claim, without any evidence, that more pixels make a camera worse. It happens on every thread.
It's a shame the subject has to come up so often, but it is important because it will affect how manufacturers supply the market and consequently it will affect our picture quality in the years ahead.
So you don't need to be a scientist, but it will help if you can understand why and how an apparently fair test isn't one, because that way you can ignore all the very biased tests and opinions that are rife on the internet, and you can ensure that when you compare cameras you have done it fairly, and don't make the mistake of upgrading to a worse camera because the pixels looked nicer.
A real world example of this issue, at risk of returning to the topic of the thread, is that many people are put off the 7D on the grounds that it has 'too many' pixels. Their fears are ill-founded, and once they get beyond comparing at unequal magnification they will see that the 7D has the best overall image quality of any APS-C camera to date, notwithstanding that it may have slightly less DR than some other cameras.
|
