Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp?

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:55:19 +0000, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
of data?

Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
4/3"?

Thanks

I should expect that all other things being equal, a larger chip would
result in less noise. I think that's probably as far as one can take that.

"Paul D. Sullivan" wrote in message
news:HsEzh.1970$ov2.166@trndny06...
I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since they
only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling down. Hard
to please everyone, it seems.

Not really, if messages and answers are properly trimmed down
to the bare essence, there should be no issues. All it takes is a bit
of snipping and a sense for nettiquette and logic.

--
Bart
..

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:01:27 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
wrote:

I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since
they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling
down. Hard to please everyone, it seems.

I really wonder at people who seem to think pressing the down-arrow
key or the page-down key is just so difficult.

--
Rudy Giuliani began seeking
the GOP presidential nomination
on Tuesday. He's pro-choice,
pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control
and he did a skit in drag that
is on the Internet. If Osama
bin Laden hadn't attacked him
Pat Robertson would have.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:30:49 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
wrote:

80-400 probably

Define "sufficient".
It depends on what you find acceptable.
You can go to many sites that review cameras and look at the
representative pictures, and even at specific pictures designed to
show noise (I assume you're worried about noise from these sensors at
the ISOs you mention). Decide for yourself, because we really can't
decide for you.
If the noise is acceptable to you, then the sensor is sufficient for
your needs.
It really is that simple.

--
Rudy Giuliani began seeking
the GOP presidential nomination
on Tuesday. He's pro-choice,
pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control
and he did a skit in drag that
is on the Internet. If Osama
bin Laden hadn't attacked him
Pat Robertson would have.

There is no solid concensus. Some people get irritated that they
have to scroll, and get mad at people who don't top post.

Some people freak out about how quotes are done, like in Outlook
Express, some don't care. I use OE-QuoteFix and that seems to
satisfy most folks.

I prefer Plain Text, others like colors and bolding text and what
not. Some like to send HTML messages and get mad at others who
don't like to view all that stuff.

Life happens. It's just not worth stressin' over. There are so
many more important things, so sometimes I try not to nitpick.
It just upsets folks and unless it's something that is a core
value or belief, letting it slide is something I can live with.


"Paul D. Sullivan" wrote in message
news:HsEzh.1970$ov2.166@trndny06...
I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that
since they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed
scrolling down. Hard to please everyone, it seems.

Not really, if messages and answers are properly trimmed down
to the bare essence, there should be no issues. All it takes
is a bit of snipping and a sense for nettiquette and logic.

Fair enough.

I should expect that all other things being equal, a larger
chip would result in less noise. I think that's probably as
far as one can take that.

Maybe it's the funky locations of the arrow keys on different
laptops or also the different finger pad things. I know that I
just totally can't get used to having to hold down a blue
function toggle to be able to type in F1, F2, etc on some things.
I just try to go along with what makes sense.

I see their point - scrolling can be a total pain, so I listen
and am like "ok, I can adjust - to you the thing is valid and
that's cool"

Like how some people totally freak out if someone misspells or
mis capitalizes or uses apostrophe's wrong. I try to focus on
what is being said. If I can understand what they are trying to
communicate, that's pretty much good enough for me.

Some people get mad at windbags who spend more time trying to
articulate an answer around the question or criticizing the
question itself instead of just answering the thing, and some get
mad at people who don't get into lots of detail because they
think if they give a short answer they are just "blowin' them
off" and stuff.

Human behavior is just wacky all over the place. I just keep
eatin, sleepin and grinnin. Seems to get me through the day.

I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since
they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling
down. Hard to please everyone, it seems.

I really wonder at people who seem to think pressing the
down-arrow key or the page-down key is just so difficult.

Ok. I was actually not looking for a terribly specific answer,
just a general one like "It seems that 1/1.8" is really not that
effective about 6mp, in my opinion" or something like that. Or
maybe "I think 1/1.8" sorta maxes out at 8mp in general before
you get to a point of diminishing returns." No biggie. Thanks
for the reply though - I do appreciate it.

80-400 probably

Define "sufficient".
It depends on what you find acceptable.
You can go to many sites that review cameras and look at the
representative pictures, and even at specific pictures
designed to show noise (I assume you're worried about noise
from these sensors at the ISOs you mention). Decide for
yourself, because we really can't decide for you.
If the noise is acceptable to you, then the sensor is
sufficient for your needs.
It really is that simple.

? "ASAAR" ?????? ??? ??????
...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:55:19 GMT, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
of data?

Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
4/3"?

You've asked this question before, but worded a bit differently.
I thought that you understood the many answering replies, but . . .

The answer is that it depends. On the photographer. On the
photographer's expectations. On the year. On the types of pictures
you'll take. On all sorts of things, and for some photographers,
not only will a 1/1.8" sensor forever be insufficient, some only
accept FF sensors, deeming even APS-C sensors deficient due to their
"insanely small pixels". Many others think that 1/1.8" sensors are
more than sufficient for their needs, even with their large numbers
of small pixels. The answers you get can only represent
individual's preferences, and while it's unfortunate, you really
have to form your own preferences by examination and testing, either
of your own images or those taken by other photographers. If your
preferences are formed by agreeing with someone that makes a good
case for why *that individual* likes a particular type of sensor,
you'll never have the satisfaction of discovering for yourself what
works for *you*. Some find it simpler to be followers, becoming
disciples of a photographic guru. And if that guru suddenly decides
that not only are 4/3" sensors too small, now even APS-C sensors are
as well, followers will follow to the Full Frame Promised Land, even
if they've never made a single print any larger than 8" x 10" and
have no desire to ever do so.

If you can't afford to buy and try many cameras, you could easily
download images produced by those 1/1.8", 2/3" and 4/3" sensors, and
determine for yourself if they're lacking in the resolution that you
want, or are too noisy at high ISOs for your purposes. I think
that this has been suggested before. The answers that you're
seeking will come from people whose tastes differ. That doesn't
mean that some are right and that the others are wrong. What I'm
trying to say is that at some point you need to end the asking and
do your own tasting.

AFAIK the OP wants an unbiased, blanket opinion?
I don't think that's possible in today's world.It's not like asking a
question of pure physics, "how many HP of motorage needs that deep well"?It
depends on what anyone likes, and many other regulars here suggest to read
reviews of cameras, and go to a shop and see for yourself how that camera
"feels" in your hand.I bought a Kodak CX 7300 because then I didn't have
more money, now with 144 euros I'd get at least 5 MP (the CX 7300 is 3.2)and
I'm making lots of A4s.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

In article HsEzh.1970$ov2.166@trndny06, Paul D. Sullivan says...
I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since
they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling
down. Hard to please everyone, it seems.

Agree. Often messages are not trimmed, so you have to scroll down all
the way, so top posting is better. But some people are very religious
about this issue.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site