On Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:19:47 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 28/04/2013 20:51, Andy Champ wrote:
On 28/04/2013 15:12, Peter wrote:
What is your view (no pun intended)?

Pentax canon nokia in that order.

+1


Andy

Although I agree with your ranking I also think that the Canon and
Pentax are a tadge overexposed by at least half a stop and has burned
out the sky too much and the Nokia has underexposed by half a stop
retaining too much sky detail at the expense of the rest of the image.

The internal JPEG details and average info content a

Canon S95 uses its own custom Qtables approx
Luminance Q=93 Chroma Q~88. 2.8 bits/pixel

Pentax K5 Q=100 (both) 5.85 bits/pixel

Nokia 808 Q=100 (both) 7.1 bits/pixel

The bits/pixel is for the main image only.

So the information content in the Nokia shot *is* higher - largely
because the sky isn't burnt out and amazingly the adjacent pixels are
more nearly statistically independent. Impressive for such a tiny lens!

You've lost me there!

Zooming in hard on the TV aerial allows easy judgement of the psf. The
Cannon S95 has applied some pretty brutal unsharp masking and its image
quality might well be improved by toning it down a bit (if possible).
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?