>>        http://others.servebeer.com/misc/Toreka.jpg

> Nice, but what's it like raw? The jpg artefacts are pretty 
> evident when
> viewed full size.

Forever unknown.
It was taken at JPG fine (given Standard / Fine/ Extra Fine 
settings.
RAW would be better but the achievable resolution is the 
point - the JPGing changes the quality but lets you see what 
a 6 Mp sensor is capable of.

The reasons WHY the area per pixel matters is fuel for much 
debate. The fact that it is so is a matter of easy practical 
demonstration. Light energy per pixel seems to be a key 
factor.

A 24 Mp sensor has only twice as many linear pixels per unit 
length as a 6 MP unit BUT *tends* towards being 4 times 
noisier. This "area per pixel" quality is a more or less 
directly observable fact given similar technologies and 
processing. I have two cameras with a 9:1 sensor area and 
about a 3 stops noise quality difference. They are both the 
best that Minolta could do with their quality at the time. 
The APSC Minolta 7D produces results at 800 ISo comparable 
to what the A2 produces at 100 ISO. Their 7Hi has a 5MP 
sensor and the A2 a 7MP sensor, both of the same area, and 
performance results are about 5/7 different. This is so 
notably true that the A2 has an ISO 64 setting but the 7Hi 
doesn't. I thought that this was so the A2 could take "even 
better" photos but found that it was in fact so that it 
could take "about the same" photos at best setting.




Russell


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist