Sony's Alpha (clear resolution leader)

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

RichA - 16 Dec 2006 01:51 GMT

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page24.asp

Reply to this Message

mark.thomas.7@gmail.com - 16 Dec 2006 08:49 GMT

> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page24.asp

'Clear leader'??? Here's some figures for you, from that very site:

Pentax K10D
H LPH 2000
V LPH 1800

Nikon D80
H LPH 2200
V LPH 1800

Sony Alpha DSLR-A100
H LPH 2200
V LPH 1800

Canon EOS 30D
H LPH 1850
V LPH 1650

Fuji S9000 (**PROSUMER**)
H LPH 1800
V LPH 1750

Note that the Fuji, a non DSLR with a fixed zoom, slightly outperforms
the Canon 30D in terms of resolution. (I have the Fuji by the way, and
it's a very fine camera, for what it is intended to be....)

My point?

*Resolution isn't everything*. It's a vague guide, but other 'IQ'
factors overtake it and make a simplistic comparison like that, close
to meaningless. If I was hunting down an SLR right now, it would
probably be the K10D, despite its relatively lousy in-camera image
processing. Its feature set is a winner imo.

When IQ is important to me, down to the last pixel - I shoot raw
anyway. Yes, even on the Fuji.. (O; (Interestingly, because of the
weird diagonal pixels in the Fuji 9Mp CCD, the Fuji delivers an 18Mp
RAW file... But does that mean it is better than a Canon 1DS MKII...?
Of course it bloody doesn't.)

As a side issue, I think it's dumb how we focus so intently on
horizontal and vertical resolution, ignoring diagonal.. The frequent
large disparity between horizontal and vertical resolution figures on
any given camera should tell you something about this whole silly
"let's-agonise-about-resolution-down-to-4-significant-figures" crap.
The Fuji is one of the few cameras to get very similar readings for
both directions, but it has significantly lower *diagonal* resolution,
of course!

Reply to this Message

RichA - 16 Dec 2006 22:04 GMT

> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page24.asp
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> RAW file... But does that mean it is better than a Canon 1DS MKII...?
> Of course it bloody doesn't.)

But I haven't seen such a apparently radical difference between a raw
file and a JPEG with
before, unless the JPEG was highly compressed. Prior to that K10D
test, the differences I've seen have been limited to dynamic range, not
resolution, at least not much.

> As a side issue, I think it's dumb how we focus so intently on
> horizontal and vertical resolution, ignoring diagonal.. The frequent
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> both directions, but it has significantly lower *diagonal* resolution,
> of course!

I question bringing prosumers with 1/1.7 and 1/1.8 sensors into the
mix, as any
detail their resolution will allow them to show will be compromised by
their reduced
dynamic range and increased noise compared to DSLRs, even at low ISOs.
.

Reply to this Message

Little Juice Coupe - 17 Dec 2006 04:21 GMT

Yep and they all mean nothing. Take the camera out in to the real world and
stop all of this lab testing bullshit and the slight differences mean jack
sh.t. Just like benchmark tests for computers. Worthless in the real world.

LJC

>> > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk10d/page24.asp
>>
[quoted text clipped - 59 lines]
> dynamic range and increased noise compared to DSLRs, even at low ISOs.
> .

Reply to this Message

film - 16 Dec 2006 09:12 GMT

Did they use the same lens on all the bodies ?

sad if you chose a camera based on these lens tests
need to consider other lens for the bodies too

Reply to this Message

RichA - 16 Dec 2006 21:53 GMT

> Did they use the same lens on all the bodies ?
>
> sad if you chose a camera based on these lens tests
> need to consider other lens for the bodies too

Unless one lens was particularly bad it wouldn't account for the
differences
seen.

Reply to this Message