Leandro DUTRA wrote:
> 2008/3/18, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
>> I too have bemoaned the fact that modest MP digicams seem as a result of
>> marketing pressures to have gone the way of the dodo.
>>
>> However, I also did some research and testing by down sampling some of
>> those high MP images to the size of their predecessors.
>>
> I do believe you. But I like to shoot raw, so one more processing to
> be done is a bit bothersome to me. Would rather have a simpler tool.
>
I think you may be misunderstanding me. I was not proposing that one
need down sample every shot.
Down sampling the images from the large MP cameras to match the pixel
dimension of the older, smaller MP cameras was simply a way to make a
fair comparison of noise and sharpness/detail.
If you look at both sorts of images at 100%, the bigger ones can look
pretty bad. BUT, they are, in effect, enlarged, compared to the smaller
ones. It's all too easy to conclude that they will produce worse prints
and web images. It's a classic problem with pixel peeping without some
sort of reality check.
What my results say are that in some cases, the higher pixel count
sensor may give as good results, even better with some subjects, when
all are reproduced to the same size. But you still get to that size in
the ordinary way, without some intermediate step.
If you want RAW in a small camera, you have very few official options.
The CHDK add-on software brings RAW, and other useful functions, to
quite a few Canon digicams. It's nice, in a way, as requiring RAW cuts
down the otherwise endless appearing options.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|