DiploStrat
Expedition Leader
As a follow on to discussions of digital camera sensor size. I just noted that DPReview has started publishing a most interesting number - the number of megapixels per square centimetre of sensor.
Basically:
-- DSLR runs 1.5 to 5 MP per cm2.
-- P&S are all over the place, but many are around 35 MP per cm2
That is an order of magnitude and goes a long way towards explaining some issues of image quality. (For those of us contemplating moving from DX (APS-C) to FX [35mmx24mm] there are some interesting numbers out there. For example the Nikon D300 (DX) and the Nikon D700 (FX) have almost exactly the same density. Of course, the photosites on the D300 would have to be smaller, but a relatively low density does go a long way towards explaining why certain cameras are admired for their "natural" look. For example, many prefer the 6MP D40 to the 10MP D40x.
There is no free lunch, but much of the "magic" can be explained.
Basically:
-- DSLR runs 1.5 to 5 MP per cm2.
-- P&S are all over the place, but many are around 35 MP per cm2
That is an order of magnitude and goes a long way towards explaining some issues of image quality. (For those of us contemplating moving from DX (APS-C) to FX [35mmx24mm] there are some interesting numbers out there. For example the Nikon D300 (DX) and the Nikon D700 (FX) have almost exactly the same density. Of course, the photosites on the D300 would have to be smaller, but a relatively low density does go a long way towards explaining why certain cameras are admired for their "natural" look. For example, many prefer the 6MP D40 to the 10MP D40x.
There is no free lunch, but much of the "magic" can be explained.