Is This Overkill

CaptainPenguin

CaptainPenguin

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,161
Name
Nigel Cliff
Edit My Images
Yes
Just reading the review of the new Canon Ixus in AP,initially looks just about normal for this type of camera for the amateur user
35-135 lens
IS
No Viewfinder
£280

But 14.7 million pixels,for heavens sake why surely the target audience is rarely going to print bigger than 10x8 and you only need 6 million pixels for that.
Is it aimed at serious amateurs,well I don't know about you but I would not be seen dead using a camera without a viewfinder if only for the reason that you dont get proper stability holding the thing at arms length.

So Canon what are you really doing other than going

"OOOOH look at the size of my sensor"
 
I think it is because the sort of people it is aimed at still think megapixels are the most important thing.
 
you don't need a viewfinder on these sorts of cameras.. they have live view and in any case, the view in the viewfinder isn't what the camera see's exactly.. not FAR off though id admit.

Jimmy is correct imo, the people that buy these things do look at the pixel count as a guide to how good the camera is, but some people DO enlarge their prints so its not a bad thing that they get the pixels.. I recently bought an IXUS with 12mp for my holiday to Zante, it takes greast little pictures.. but i only use it for snaps.. ;) OH, and i have the underwater case for it so better for that..

I don't think iv EVER used the viewfinder more that once or twice! the only reason id use it is if its too bright to see the rear screen.. so its pretty redundant, BUT! when i was looking at getting this new little camera i did see the newer one without the veiwfinder and opted for the older on WITH one.. :shrug: Just in case.. :thumbs:
 
jerry12953 said:
Can?? Depending on??
Click to expand...

I think it's to do with the small pixel size making it more prone to electrical noise, as the technology matures the materials/processes involved are improved so the noise drops for that pixel density.
 
mrgubby said:
I think it's to do with the small pixel size making it more prone to electrical noise, as the technology matures the materials/processes involved are improved so the noise drops for that pixel density.
Click to expand...

So a small sensor with xMP will be worse than a larger sensor with xMP, then?
 
mrgubby said:
View finders are rare in compact cameras, they get in the way of the displays on the back (and put up the price)

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Whhops, sorry, my bad. Didn't realise we are talking about compact cameras.
 
jerry12953 said:
So a small sensor with xMP will be worse than a larger sensor with xMP, then?
Click to expand...

Nikon DSLR sensor on the left, compact camera on the right...

2748503640_91923d54fc_o.jpg
 
jerry12953 said:
I'm showing my ignorance here, I think, but isn't a megapixel a megapixel, then?:thinking:
Click to expand...

MegaPixel - > Million pixels


On a DSLR the sensor tends to be larger so the pixels have more room to breathe & give quality results :thumbs:
 
if you had a 12mp Ixus and put it side by side to the sensor of say a 5D which is full frame, the pixles are MUCH bigger to fill the sensor... these bigger pixles are much better at capturing light so work better at high ISO's and also reproduce much better..
 
I'm thinking of buying a new compact as walkaround camera and realise that more Megapixels on a small sensor cause more noise, but when comparing sensors on a compact which is the biggest sensor, 1/2.33" or 1/1.72". I assumed that these were fractional measurements and that 1/2.33" would be the bigger but after reading several specs I'm wondering if it should be the other way round?:thinking:
 
fraggle101 said:
if you had a 12mp Ixus and put it side by side to the sensor of say a 5D which is full frame, the pixles are MUCH bigger to fill the sensor... these bigger pixles are much better at capturing light so work better at high ISO's and also reproduce much better..
Click to expand...

I see, so a pixel is not just a pixel, then. Different sizes? Different capabilities?

Scuse me, I've just been having a rant about personalised number plates .....:D
 
From what I remember a pixel is a picture-element, pixel for short. When they refer to a camera pixel it normaly means 3 light sensors, one for red / blue / green. Depending on the camera these will vary in size / number / sensitivity / layout etc.

The dots on TV / PC screen are called pixels as well, same idea.
 
hillwalkinggirl said:
I'm thinking of buying a new compact as walkaround camera and realise that more Megapixels on a small sensor cause more noise, but when comparing sensors on a compact which is the biggest sensor, 1/2.33" or 1/1.72". I assumed that these were fractional measurements and that 1/2.33" would be the bigger but after reading several specs I'm wondering if it should be the other way round?:thinking:
Click to expand...

Erm......1/1.72 > 1.233 sorry, but that seems rather obvious, just type it into a calculator.
 
I was taking photos with my 5D last year and some passers-by stopped and asked me about it. Ooohd and aaahd when I showed them how wide a view the 12mm was giving compared to their compacts. They got round to asking how many mp and I said nearly 13. Another oooh, that must take good pictures. Then one of them said he'd just seen a 14mp compact in the shops (this was over a year ago), so that must take better pictures. I didn't say anything.

On the subject of sensor sizes, I have a retired 10D which is 6mp and took some outstanding pictures, even now compared to the 5D. I also have a 6mp Ixus 800 compact which takes totally crap pictures compared to anything, let alone the same mp 10D. I don't use it anymore.
 
jerry12953 said:
I see, so a pixel is not just a pixel, then. Different sizes? Different capabilities?
Click to expand...
Think of a pixel as a little bucket for counting photons. The shutter opens, a load of photons pour in to all the buckets, the shutter closes, and then you count how many photons there are in each bucket.

The sizes of pixels vary hugely between DSLRs and P&S cameras. The new Canon Ixus 980 IS which the OP mentioned has a sensor which is 7.6x5.7mm. The pixel density is 34MP per sq cm. The Canon 5D, long regarded as close to the ultimate in image quality, has a sensor which is 36x24mm. The pixel density is 1.5 MP per sq cm. So the 5D pixels are more than 20 times the size of the Ixus pixels. Even the newest Canon DSLR, the 50D, only has 4.5 MP per sq cm, which means its pixels are about 8 times as big as the Ixus pixels.

Big pixels are better for one very important reason.

When the light is poor (or the subject is dark), there aren't many photons to go round and a small bucket won't capture very many of them. Random variation can rear its ugly head; if one bucket captures 10 pixels and the one next to it captures 11, that would be interpreted as an area which is 10% brighter but it could just be random variation. If the pixels are 20 times larger, the difference between 200 and 201 photons won't be interpeted as such a large variation in brightness. In addition the counting machinery causes random errors which again has a bigger effect on smaller photon counts; if the 11 photons are accidentally counted as 12 then that will be interpreted as an even bigger difference in brightness, whereas if the 201 are counted as 202 it won't have such a big impact. Of course, localised variations in brightness is the phenomenon we call noise, and this explains why bigger sensors perform better at high ISOs.
 
Id buy one with a vewfinder every time..............saves on the battery big time.
 
Thats an interesting point, the sensor is the same size with double the amount of pixels, which would mean they are much smaller (Half) than the 1st 5D pixels... so, will they struggle with producing the lovely quality or will the shear amount of pixels more than make up the difference? i assume that the newer technology will produce better quality all round aswell..
 
fraggle101 said:
Thats an interesting point, the sensor is the same size with double the amount of pixels, which would mean they are much smaller (Half) than the 1st 5D pixels... so, will they struggle with producing the lovely quality or will the shear amount of pixels more than make up the difference? i assume that the newer technology will produce better quality all round aswell..
Click to expand...

We shall see....
 
Oh crumbs! more confusion. I am still undecided on which compact to get. Does anyone have the new Ixus 980?
 
Gilly B said:
Oh crumbs! more confusion. I am still undecided on which compact to get. Does anyone have the new Ixus 980?
Click to expand...

I recently opted for the 960IS as i didnt feel i needed 14mp in a point N shoot.. it seemed like overkill tbh so i got the older model, which incidently was more expencive in places!! i dont get that.. anyway, the images look nice and colourfull if a LITTLE soft on occasions.. but a great little camera for your hand bag.. :coat:
 
jerry12953 said:
Stewart,

Thanks very much for explaining that.

If the 5D is close to the ultimate for image quality, how will the 5D mk2 fare, I wonder? It will have lots more pixels on a sensor the same size.
Click to expand...

Not sure about the 5D MkII but on the 50D they claim to have eliminated the gaps between the micro lenses over each individual pixel, and thereby having freed up a considerable amount of space on the sensor so the pixel count can be increased without having to use (much?)smaller pixels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top