sensor size vs resolution

Hi,

I know the bigger the better but...
Comparing Oly E-500 vs Nikon D50, Nikon has 23.7 x 15.5 mm and 6 MP and
Oly has 18.00 x 13.50 mm and 8 MP. Smaller sensor with more MP or bigger
sensor with less MP? If these 2 cameras were completely same except the
sensor, which one would be better choice and why?Thanks

 

It's not the size, but how you use it, that counts. Ask any lady
photographer.

 

so you know something that isn't true.

Nikon, their sensor is superior in technology. If Olympus had a sensor the
same size as the Nikon sensor I'd still go for the Nikon.
Neither sensor size nor MP count says everything, and sensor size says
nothing at all.

 

Olympus sensor arguably has a very high resolution.
Supported by their excellent glass , it enables you as a photographer to see
details that will cost at least 3x when you are using a Nikon PRO glass.

I myself is a Nikon pro glass user with 13 lens array in my collection, and
I have a friend who basically owns all the pro glass of ANY 35mm major brand
[ Leica, Nikon, Canon, Olympus and the list goes on.. all those flower pots
and anti tank missle lens ] and his daily carry round gear now ..
is a Oly E-500 + 14-54 Oly glass [with also 35-100 and 150 glass ready in
his bag]
http://www.myfourthirds.com/user.php?id=2280&page=user_images

If you are not shooting serious sport and mostly do portaiture , I would
suggest you to have a look at Olympus line.
Their image quality are simply stunning !

=bob=

 

The D50. The pixel size is larger (7.8u versus 5.4u), and the noise
level is lower. The D50 gives good results at ISO 800, and usable
results at ISO 1600. The E-500 gives good results at ISO 400, and
marginal results at ISO 800.

It's not clear if the difference in noise is solely due to the much
larger pixel pitch of the sensor in the D50, or if part of the reason is
something Nikon did in terms of noise-reduction.

 

I would look at the results of both and then decide. The specifications
noted do not convert directly to results and it is the results not the
specifics that I am interested in when I buy.

 

The Nikon has more lenses available from Nikon and third parties. Olympus
lenses are quite pricey overall.

 

I've shot some stuff with my E500 at ISO 1600 that was not nearly as noisy
as Fujifilm 800 pushed two stops - either way it's hard to shoot a moving
ballerina on stage with almost no light...but cheaper with E500 than film





| freightcar wrote:
| > Hi,
| >
| > I know the bigger the better but...
| > Comparing Oly E-500 vs Nikon D50, Nikon has 23.7 x 15.5 mm and 6 MP
and
| > Oly has 18.00 x 13.50 mm and 8 MP. Smaller sensor with more MP or bigger
| > sensor with less MP? If these 2 cameras were completely same except the
| > sensor, which one would be better choice and why?Thank
|
| The D50. The pixel size is larger (7.8u versus 5.4u), and the noise
| level is lower. The D50 gives good results at ISO 800, and usable
| results at ISO 1600. The E-500 gives good results at ISO 400, and
| marginal results at ISO 800.
|
| It's not clear if the difference in noise is solely due to the much
| larger pixel pitch of the sensor in the D50, or if part of the reason is
| something Nikon did in terms of noise-reduction.
|

 

Buyers of these cheap Oly's are not going to buy too many lenses, they will
probably buy the kit with the two basic lenses so the price of any other
lenses most likely will not matter one jot, from what I read though the
Oly's are about the last choice for low light.

 

Yes, under lower light conditions, the Nikon is better, but NOT for
resolving detail under normal conditions. 8 meg will always beat 6
meg.
-Rich