Highest ISO, noise-free, in compact ultrazoom?

[ChrisBrewster]

I've tentatively settled on getting a Powershot s3 because I realized the biggest class of pictures that I can't take involves subjects that are too small or distant. (Plus I love having a swivel viewfinder.) But I've been thinking more about the sensitivity issue. I don't really need 5 or 6 MP if I could have, say 3 or 4 with higher sensitivity. And I mean usable ISO, not just the fact that the camera takes a picture at a certain ISO. People complain about the noise in the Powershot s2, and the s3 is supposedly better, but are there cameras in the 12x-zoom class that were designed more for sensitivity and less for high MP numbers? Typical camera ratings and reviews (such as Consumer Reports) don't even mention this issue.

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE= I don't really need 5 or 6 MP if I could have, say 3 or 4 with higher sensitivity.
.[/QUOTE]

Well, if that is indeed the case, I hope you realize that it means that you are not interested in quality prints beyond the 6 x 4 size. For an 8 x 10 print, for example you would certainly need 5 or 6 MP. Also don't forget that because of the advent of digital media, everyone is now looking at the sharpness and resolution of print enlargements.

Ronnoco

[SmartWombat]

For an 8 x 10 print, for example you would certainly need 5 or 6 MP

So how do you explain the success of the early digital SLRs with low MP counts?
Fuji S1 Pro (3MP), Canon EOS D30 (3MP), Nikon D1 (2.7MP)
All those were capable cameras, the D1 going up to 16x20 prints.
So I disagree.

I've taken my 3MP Casio P&S images up to 10x8.
That was a fairly poor video camera like unit internally, with a small range motorised zoom. And it had appalling low light ability because it had a tiny sensor.

If you can get a modern low noise sensor then with the same size sensor the lower number of pixels (but larger ones) will give better results with low noise.

BUT I don't think that's the way manufacturers are going yet.
Technology has up to now allowed noise to be reduced (e.g. 20D improvement over 10D) while still increasing pixel count in the same size sensor.

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=SmartWombat]So how do you explain the success of the early digital SLRs with low MP counts?
Fuji S1 Pro (3MP), Canon EOS D30 (3MP), Nikon D1 (2.7MP)
All those were capable cameras, the D1 going up to 16x20 prints.
So I disagree.

It is not really a matter of whether you disagree of not. Popular Photography test labs indicated that to match the sharpness quality of 35mm film in the creation of an 8 X 10 colour print what was required from a digital camera was 5.7 megapixels. They compared shots and matched the quality only at that level.

So, to put it another way, sure you can do enlargements with 3 MP to 8 X 10 and beyond but the quality is degraded to lower than that of 35mm film shot of the same size. So says the test labs at Popular Photography.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

If you can get a modern low noise sensor then with the same size sensor the lower number of pixels (but larger ones) will give better results with low noise.

It depends on how you define better results and perhaps we define them differently.
It would seem to me that if you have a lower number of pixels, they would be larger anyway since they are still in the same size "frame" according to the ratio of the sensor.
Even if what you say provides lower noise, that has to be balanced against less detail and lower resolution due to fewer pixels.

In a 3 mp camera your characterized "better results" are according to Pop Photo Labs below that of 35 mm, whereas 5.7mp and higher cameras are above 35mm in sharpness and resolution quality on an 8 X 10 print.

Ronnoco