Digital Camera Sensor Performane Summary updated Feb 3

If you haven't visited this month, see:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

I've added data for several newer cameras, added a new
section on Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) along with models
for constant megapixels and constant format size. What formerly
looks like a scatter plot now is taking shape in that the
pixel size and sensor format are showing trends. The models
should now allow prediction of performance when new cameras
come out. The new AIQ plot is Figure 9.

Roger

On Feb 4, 1:29 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:
If you haven't visited this month, see:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...erformance.sum...

I've added data for several newer cameras, added a new
section on Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) along with models
for constant megapixels and constant format size. What formerly
looks like a scatter plot now is taking shape in that the
pixel size and sensor format are showing trends. The models
should now allow prediction of performance when new cameras
come out. The new AIQ plot is Figure 9.

Roger

Interesting, but only dealing with Canon and Nikon cameras.

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) writes:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Nice work.

On Feb 4, 9:21*am, RichA wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:29 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

wrote:
If you haven't visited this month, see:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...erformance.sum...

I've added data for several newer cameras, added a new
section on Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) along with models
for constant megapixels and constant format size. *What formerly
looks like a scatter plot now is taking shape in that the
pixel size and sensor format are showing trends. *The models
should now allow prediction of performance when new cameras
come out. *The new AIQ plot is Figure 9.

Roger

Interesting, but only dealing with Canon and Nikon cameras.

Interesting? Not to photographers, certainly not to me.

On Feb 4, 3:29 pm, Bob G wrote:
On Feb 4, 9:21 am, RichA wrote:



On Feb 4, 1:29 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

wrote:
If you haven't visited this month, see:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...erformance.sum...

I've added data for several newer cameras, added a new
section on Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) along with models
for constant megapixels and constant format size. What formerly
looks like a scatter plot now is taking shape in that the
pixel size and sensor format are showing trends. The models
should now allow prediction of performance when new cameras
come out. The new AIQ plot is Figure 9.

Roger

Interesting, but only dealing with Canon and Nikon cameras.

Interesting? Not to photographers, certainly not to me.

Well, you can reconcile real world image quality with the data, if
your so inclined.

Bob G wrote:
On Feb 4, 9:21?am, RichA wrote:
On Feb 4, 1:29 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

wrote:
If you haven't visited this month, see:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...erformance.sum...

I've added data for several newer cameras, added a new
section on Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) along with models
for constant megapixels and constant format size. ?What formerly
looks like a scatter plot now is taking shape in that the
pixel size and sensor format are showing trends. ?The models
should now allow prediction of performance when new cameras
come out. ?The new AIQ plot is Figure 9.

Roger

Interesting, but only dealing with Canon and Nikon cameras.

Interesting? Not to photographers, certainly not to me.

All you need to falsify a generalisation is one contrary example :-)

(It's interesting to me as a photographer who takes a keen interest in
the development of photographic technology.)

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Interesting? Not to photographers, certainly not to me.

All you need to falsify a generalisation is one contrary example :-)

(It's interesting to me as a photographer who takes a keen interest in
the development of photographic technology.)


My meaning was that anyone who's interested in that sort of data is
not a photographer. Since you're interested, it follows you're not a
photographer.
Ha, ha.

At any rate, I can't really see how the time and study necessary to
absorb the charts and all that data can be possibly justified by
whatever slight benefit one might obtain from their use as a criterion
to buy this or that camera. Better to ignore it all and go out and
shoot some pictures.

On the other hand, if you derive some pleasure from that sort of
mental torture, you're welcome to it. My point is that it won't help
your photography nearly as much as actually taking some pictures.

In article e7c1b5fb-818a-4536-b279-b11e35601d53
@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, says...
-On Feb 4, 9:21*am, RichA wrote:
- On Feb 4, 1:29 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
-
- wrote:
- If you haven't visited this month, see:
-
- http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...erformance.sum....
-
- I've added data for several newer cameras, added a new
- section on Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) along with models
- for constant megapixels and constant format size. *What formerly
- looks like a scatter plot now is taking shape in that the
- pixel size and sensor format are showing trends. *The models
- should now allow prediction of performance when new cameras
- come out. *The new AIQ plot is Figure 9.
-
- Roger
-
- Interesting, but only dealing with Canon and Nikon cameras.
-
-Interesting? Not to photographers, certainly not to me.

not looking to understand,
not curious?

hmmm.


-
-
-

--
Bob Crownfield

On Feb 5, 12:32 am, Bob G wrote:
Interesting? Not to photographers, certainly not to me.

All you need to falsify a generalisation is one contrary example :-)

(It's interesting to me as a photographer who takes a keen interest in
the development of photographic technology.)

My meaning was that anyone who's interested in that sort of data is
not a photographer. Since you're interested, it follows you're not a
photographer.
Ha, ha.

At any rate, I can't really see how the time and study necessary to
absorb the charts and all that data can be possibly justified by
whatever slight benefit one might obtain from their use as a criterion
to buy this or that camera. Better to ignore it all and go out and
shoot some pictures.

On the other hand, if you derive some pleasure from that sort of
mental torture, you're welcome to it. My point is that it won't help
your photography nearly as much as actually taking some pictures.

Calling that mental torture explains the state of many things in
today's societies (at least ours, ie, western ones). I blame it all on
the incompetence of the teachers in our schools. Or plain stupidity,
of course: most people tend to dislike things that show them their
limits

On Feb 4, 9:29 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
wrote:
If you haven't visited this month, see:

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...erformance.sum...

I've added data for several newer cameras, added a new
section on Apparent Image Quality (AIQ) along with models
for constant megapixels and constant format size. What formerly
looks like a scatter plot now is taking shape in that the
pixel size and sensor format are showing trends. The models
should now allow prediction of performance when new cameras
come out. The new AIQ plot is Figure 9.

Roger

Hey Roger,
Nice to see you're still alive! Thanks for the update.