Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] For B.D.
From: bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Mon Apr 11 05:57:09 2005

To say nothing, Richard, of the fact that some would definitely dispute
the contention that the Digilux's pictures are "better" than those
produced by the 4/3 sensor. :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Phong
Sent: Sunday, April 10, 2005 9:40 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: RE: [Leica] For B.D.


Richard wrote:
> Something doesn't jive about this - the DigiluxII's sensor is smaller 
> than  the 4/3 sensor. I think it's just over 1" in diagonal (I'm sure 
> less lazy people than I can find it on the dpreview site). So if the 
> digilux's pics  are better, than it has to be either
> - better lens
> - better software

It's not so simple; to say that a larger sensor is necessary better than
a smaller one is almost as naive as saying that more megapixels is
better.

For example, the Canon 1Ds (version 1) has a big sensor,
but the image quality at high ISO/longer exposure is not as good as, say
the Canon 20D.  One reason for this is because the CMOS chip used in the
20D consumes less power and generates
less heat than the CCD sensor on the D1s.   Heat is a noise
generator for the sensor.     (To optimize image quality on
your digital digital camera, don't use the preview screen much !)

The comparison in discusssion is a "system"
comparison, from which conclusions about separate
components are not always valid.

My humble, biased opinion

- Phong



_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


In reply to: Message from phong at doan-ltd.com (Phong) ([Leica] For B.D.)