New Canon EIS mirrorless system - Four Thirds, but not Four Thirds!

Not surprising.

 

Even more, there are DSLR owners who had a P&S first and felt a need
for something better.
Me included.

DanP

 

And yet it never did improve your photography. Admit it. It probably got
even worse. The ONLY reason people buy DSLRs today is because they have
been convinced it will make them into better photographers. When nothing
could be further from the truth.

 

For a camera user who wants to improve their photography, one of the
best investments they could make is to buy some tuition.

Instead, they end up spending much more money on a camera they cannot
use which also gives them a lot of problems, due to the DSLR's
comparatively very restricted shallow depth of field.

 

Very true. There are very specific areas where a D-SLR is indispensable:

-Low light, where a larger sensor with larger pixels are required.

-High ISO, where a larger sensor with larger pixels are required for
lower noise.

-Action shots where fast AF is required

-Shots where long telephotos or extreme wide angle is required (those
adapter lenses for point and shoot cameras range from abysmal to mediocre).

The perfect combination for me is a CHDK equipped P&S and an APS-C D-SLR.

If our favorite troll saves up his money, he can buy a D-SLR too.

 

HUH??? dSLRs have adjustable diaphragms. Just increase the f-number to suit your taste.

If you have the same angular field of view and the same same number
of megapixels you will get the exact same image as a P&S with the same
depth of field ... including the same diffraction problems and the
same noise problems.

Doug McDonald

 

Sheesh. You need to follow your own advice about buying some
tuition.....

 

I'll add one to this:

- Good quality pictures

 

Pixel count is quite irrelevant, interesting is only the final
result. Unless the final result is always a 100% view of the
image, regardless of the megapixel size and regardless that one
will see only a tiny bit of the whole image. Hence the final
result is usually:
- a print of a given size (be it 4x6 inch or "fills the whole
wall")
- an image on the web of a given size (usually small, not more
than 2 MPix)
- an image on the monitor (usually small, usually not more than
2 or 3 MPix)

It's easy to show that
a) a 20MPix sensor of a given type and state of the art has
more per pixel noise than a 5MPix sensor of the same type
and state of the art
b) a print from said 20MPix sensor and 5MPix sensor is
quite indistinguishable[1], as long as the print size
doesn't cause pixelation in the 5MPix sensor's case.
That assumes no overly drastic 'noise removal' in the
20MPix sensor's case.

Hence the inherent higher possible sharpness only matters when
we come to prints where less MPixels pixelize already.

Try using a P&S for fast sports, then complain about the DSLR
being harder to use. (OK, for even larger formats than 35mm you
are probably right about the harder to use.)

-Wolfgang

[1] There's a bit more read noise in the 20MPix version, but
except for extreme circumstances that won't matter
visibly, as read noise rarely becomes visible.

 

In real life the final result is interesting, not only in theory.In
real life the final result is interesting, not only in theory.

Not if you print with essentially 12 MPix.

Additionally, the resolution is determined by the sensor and the
lens, with better sensors improving resolution in all cases (OK,
not usefully with coke glass bottle bottoms).

I've got a 20D and I would like to upgrade to a 5DII --- not
for the added pixels, but for the increased ISO capabilities.
Thus your statement is incomplete.

If that's the final result, that matters.

Nope. CoC is defined by the enlargement and the viewing distance.
If you insist to print larger but keep the viewing distance
the same, you get smaller CoCs, but they are not inherent to
more pixels.

That, however, is another problem.

Pixel noise or whole image noise? And yes, under ideal
circumstances a P&S can do impressive things, but we don't buy
DSLRs because we have ideal P&S circumstances in which we shoot.

That's fine, then use 21MPix. Or switch to 60MPix

12x18x300²=19.4M
You'd probably gain something up to 27.5MPix (thank bayer)
but nothing above at 300ppi.

Maybe pixelation wasn't the best word. You nailed what I
meant.

If pigs had wings ...

.... they'd fly.

-Wolfgang

 

Kennedy McEwen wrote:

<edited>

A digital camera must "flush" its frame buffer, also. That would be
an exceedingly excremental feat, regarding your above description of
a certain line of Olympus equipment.

 

You're slightly off base, Neil. The 126 frame was basically a squared-off
35mm one; hence, it was pretty large and >would've< benefited from a true
pressure plate (instead of a "cheesy plastic piece").

On the other hand, 110 was significantly smaller. Its overwhelming woe,
concerned grainy prints (for obvious reasons). Film-plane issues didn't
even enter the picture (pun intended).