12-megapixel pictures as sharp when enlarged as 18-meg pictures?

On 6/16/2012 5:52 PM, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Robert Montgomery wrote:

Can you suggest a camera with a bigger sensor?

Also, I've been wondering: if it's sensor size that affects image quality,
why do advertisers advertise the number of megapixels of cameras in their
camera summaries, instead of sensor size?

because most consumers look at the number of megapixels as the sole
metric of quality, not the size of the sensor or anything else about
the camera, such as noise, colour accuracy, lens quality, etc.

Is there any evidence that larger sensors produce less noise than small
ones with the same number of pixels? I think it should be easier to
design a lens for a smaller image.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

In article , James Silverton
wrote:

Is there any evidence that larger sensors produce less noise than small
ones with the same number of pixels? I think it should be easier to
design a lens for a smaller image.

yes, ****loads of evidence. bigger sensors with the same number of
pixels have larger pixels, so each pixel captures more photons,
lowering the noise and raising the dynamic range. it's basic physics.

start he
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...formance.summa
ry/

On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 18:21:52 -0400, nospam wrote:
: In article , James Silverton
: wrote:
:
: Is there any evidence that larger sensors produce less noise than small
: ones with the same number of pixels? I think it should be easier to
: design a lens for a smaller image.
:
: yes, ****loads of evidence. bigger sensors with the same number of
: pixels have larger pixels, so each pixel captures more photons,
: lowering the noise and raising the dynamic range. it's basic physics.
:
: start he
: http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...formance.summa
: ry/

And yes, it is easier (and cheaper) to design a lens for a smaller image.
Which is the main reason that the APS-C sensor size survives at all in
high-quality cameras.

Bob

On 2012-06-16 14:22:06 -0700, Savageduck said:

On 2012-06-16 14:00:22 -0700, Robert Montgomery said:

Thanks, Alan.

What size of sensor should I look for that would give much sharper pictures
than the ones we've discussed, which are "Sensor size: 1/2.3� (6.17 x 4
.55 mm)".

My advice is you get to dpreview and hunt.

Okay.

And what's an example of a desirable zoom ratio to get sharp photos?

Zoom ratio is not going to get you sharp images. Good technique, a
larger sensor, and good glass will do it. What you really need is to
step up and buy the tools you need. A DSLR, entry level, about 10-12
MP, new or used and some decent glass. If you are going to limit
yourself to $400, you are not going to get the job done without making
some compromises.


A 7.1 times zoom is not enough for me, and $800 is double the maximum I'm p
repared to pay.

Why do you think you need the massive zoom ratio?
What exactly is it you are shooting that you need such a long lens?


I hvae a five times zoom now in the Canon A1200, so it would be a downgrade
to buy a Sony DSC-RX100 with its puny 3.6 times zoom.

Robert

Not necessarily, a greater zoom ratio does not equate to better quality
images. 8-15 times zoom lenses are a compromise and do not always
produce great images. With a compact camera I would stick to the 3.5-5
times zoom range.

A bit more information on sensor size:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor_size

Another example of a 10MP 5X zoom G11 image. This one is resized for
web at 1810x1080. The original at 3720x2220 is good enough for
acceptable 19x13 prints on my Epson R2880. However even shots such as
this with this camera are a compromise, and the results would be much
better with an APS-C
http://db.tt/bQMB3hJt

....and this is what a 70-300mm on a Nikon D300S, a 12MP APS-C DSLR can
do for you. Those with Full Frame cameras will be able to provide much
better images.
http://db.tt/5fwN2ao5
http://db.tt/llcaIA1f
http://db.tt/UlM5hI5X


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-06-16 15:29:08 -0700, Robert Montgomery said:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 3:00:17 PM UTC-7, Savageduck wrote:


The questions remain;
What are you shooting that needs this long zoom range?
Are you producing images for web, or print?
If print what is the largest size print you intent to make, and on what

printer?

Regards,

Savageduck

Thanks, Savageduck.

I'm photographing landscapes and cityscapes and sometimes I want to zoom in
to capture a small segment of the scene and I can't do that with a lens wi
th a short focal length, and if I shoot the whole scene and crop it in Phot
oshop, there's not enough data to make a sharp image.

You can crop in PS if you have a quality image to start with, and that
isn't going to happen with a compact camera.

Here is a little exercise I did on a large scale with a D300s.
http://db.tt/YtvTLWmI



It looks like I'll have to compromise because I think the camera I'm lookin
g for doesn't exist yet.

I'm leaning leaning toward the Nikon Coolpix 7100 that Alan recommended.

A decent camera.


It's got only a 7.1 times zoom, but it's better than the four times zoom in
the Canon A1200 that I've been using.

Zoom is is not the answer.
It might do some of what you want, but there are always other considerations.


It has a bigger sensor (1/1.7" (7.44 x 5.58 mm) than the other cameras I me
ntioned ( 1/2.3� (6.17 x 4.55 mm) so the Nikon sensor is about 50 percent
bigger.

Robert

I found it for $370 at Amazon, so it just barely fits into my tight budget.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-06-16 17:00 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
Thanks, Alan.

What size of sensor should I look for that would give much sharper pictures than the ones we've discussed, which are "Sensor size: 1/2.3” (6.17 x 4.55 mm)".

My advice is you get to dpreview and hunt.

Okay.

And what's an example of a desirable zoom ratio to get sharp photos?

A 7.1 times zoom is not enough for me, and $800 is double the maximum I'm prepared to pay.

I hvae a five times zoom now in the Canon A1200, so it would be a downgrade to buy a Sony DSC-RX100 with its puny 3.6 times zoom.


At this point I'll leave you to your own devices.

The 12 Mpix Canon and the 18 Mpix Sony look fine to me compared to the
A1200.

Pick one and good luck.


--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-06-16 17:37 , Robert Montgomery wrote:
On Saturday, June 16, 2012 12:40:54 PM UTC-7, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-06-16 14:59 , Robert Montgomery wrote:

Can you suggest a camera with a bigger sensor?

Also, I've been wondering: if it's sensor size that affects image quality, why do advertisers advertise the number of megapixels of cameras in their camera summaries, instead of sensor size?


Because the vast majority of camera buyers don't understand what makes
for a quality camera.

So they go for "more megapixels" and "more zoom x".

That said, for your budget and needs, you've picked two good candidates.

Flip a coin and get on with your life.


--
"Civilization is the limitless multiplication of unnecessary necessities."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-06-16 18:29:38 -0700, Robert Montgomery said:



I looked at a G11 at a store and on the Net last year, but I didn't buy it
because of the size and weight.

Size and weight with regard to a G11/G12??

It is positively tiny in comparison to any DSLT an most super zooms. In
that case I suggest you look at a Canon S100 along with the Nikon.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-06-16 18:48:00 -0700, Robert Montgomery said:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 5:11:10 PM UTC-7, Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-06-16 15:29:08 -0700, Robert Montgomery said:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 3:00:17 PM UTC-7, Savageduck wrote:


The questions remain;
What are you shooting that needs this long zoom range?
Are you producing images for web, or print?

Print.

If print what is the largest size print you intent to make, and on what

Most of them no bigger than 11 square feet.

No bigger than 11 square feet???
I should hope so, if your source is a compact.




printer?

Epson 7600.

That is crazy, feeding a $2200 printer with the product of a budget
compact. I gather that you didn't buy the 7600, that you only have
access to it.




--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012-06-16 18:57:35 -0700, Robert Montgomery said:

On Saturday, June 16, 2012 3:49:08 PM UTC-7, tony cooper wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:22:06 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


How can anyone make a recommendation when we have no idea what this
guy is trying to take photographs of? Without knowing what he's
photographing, and under what conditions, how can you recommend a
camera?

What if he does industrial photography and photographs the upper
reaches of oil rigs for stress fractures? Or underground cables in
subway lines? Would you recommend a DSLR for that?

He *does* need the tools for the job, but we don't know what the job
is.

Sharp images require a combination of f/stop and speed. If he works
in low light on static subjects, recommending a tripod may solve his
problem better than a different camera.

Personally, I'm not going to bother with someone who asks "What's the
best camera for me?" and doesn't understand that he needs to provide
the necessary information about the conditions and subjects to get a
good answer.

Why does he need zoom? He hasn't told us why he can't zoom with his
feet.

He hasn't told us anything useful.

I'm shooting cityscapes, landscapes, marinas and stuff like that, then
editing the images in Photoshop to make giclees.

Mostly the sizes are a few square feet. Occasionally, I blow up the
images up to about 11 square feet.

Robert

Then you need at minimum an APS-C DSLR, preferably a FF DSLR and
quality glass. You should be looking at spending for camera and one
lens somewhere between $1600 to $5500. $400 is just not going to cut
it. You are not going to avoid a large camera body. Start hitting a
gym, and heft a bag like the rest of us. No wonder your customers
aren't happy with your current efforts. They are not going to be any
happier with your $400 solution to your problem.



--
Regards,

Savageduck