Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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