Andrew Fildes wrote:
> It's a fair point. I've tended to criticise their high ISO
> performance..... The
> 'smearing' is designed to smooth up pictures for people who will
> probably never enlarge an image beyond 8x10 and perhaps not even
> that. For people who tend to look at what's in the image rather than
> the quality of the print.
> Too be fair, the number of people who own this and do some PS
> processing or use Neat Image or Noise Ninja must close to
> infinitesimally small
Well, I don't care about that one way or the other. I am simply
interested in whether I can use it as a competent tool for my purposes.
I don't care who and what it was designed for, only how it works.
> so the question still remains - if Fuji can do
> it, why not Panny? Because they know bloody well that they can get
> away without bothering. That's what they actually know. A smaller
> manufaturer like Fuji has to do something clever,
Quite unfair, really. I've no brief for Panny, but Oly and others are in
the same boat. As I have pointed out recently, the F30 sensor has about
82% more surface area than the 1/2.x sensors used in most super-zooms.
The TZ-2/3 use an odd size sensor, but the pixel pitch is obviously
about the same as the 1/2.5" sensors. By the time you allow for Fuji's
hexagonal layout and the fact that support circuitry per pixel doesn't
get bigger with bigger sensor size, I'd guess Fuji is playing with at
least twice the sensing area per pixel
So they have a big advantage in noise before anything past the sensor.
And Fuji has done that sensor as a super-zoom. Trouble is, the bigger
sensor means a bigger lens and a bigger camera body. Might as well have
a small DLSR. Unless they could add IS at the same price. :-)
Sooo, small super-zoom means small sensor. Even if Fuji comes up with
one, I doubt it will match up to the F30.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|