You don't seem to take into account the processing done by the camera itself. There's a lot going on behind that little sensor- to say there's no difference between cameras of equivalent sensor size is crazy, IMO... I can assure you there's a world of difference between my GRD II and the Kodak EasyCrap my parents use 😛
What - the firmware? Please. Kodak isn't capable of creating decent firmware? Here's a rrecent EasyShare review:
Overall, however, the Kodak Z950 takes very good pictures. The color representation is very good as are the details. The noise level is lower than most other camera in this class, even at high ISOs, which is a big plus. The ISO can be manually set from 100 to 1,600. The lens created a small amount of barrel distortion in wide angle shots, but this was so slight that many people won’t even notice it.
http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Kodak-EasyShare-Z950-Digital-Camera-Review/976/7
No offense - just my opinion, the overall picture quality of point-n-shoot digitals are all in the same range all along the various price points. - they just are. It's, however, not a
bad range! They're all competent little picture takers - including Easy Shares. I love little Fuji digital, and take it with me everywhere. Expensive ones, however, make about as much sense as expense high-end "disk cameras". It's like "designer beans" and "rice mixes" that I see in health food stores that cost 3X as much per ounce as the bulk stuff. Beans are beans, rice is rice - it will all taste the same. And how it all tastes is good! But if you want to spend 3X as much for the fancy stuff - be my guest. Compacts all have the same sensors, competent firmware that all major manufactures can do, and there's only so much resolution you can get out of these cameras no matter what lens you slap on it. Price points vary based on build-quality, circuitry that effects start-up time and shutter lag (which is under control these days, largely, even the cheap ones), and whether they have some kind of image stabilization or not. - oh, and how "cool" they look. (And, yes, the LX5 looks
very sexy...)
Personally, however, - again, just my opinion, I can't see spending near-DSLR or 4/3 money on one. I like them a lot, they're good to have, not knocking them! But none of the $400+ dollar ones is going to have break through image quality over a lowly EasyShare. The LX5 is going for $500 at Ardorama! Yikes! That's more than I paid for my new Nikon DSLR body! The best small sensor application is the "compact super zoom" with image stabilization that enables you to shoot "way out there" and get a crisp clean shot, hand-held, instead of using a giant supe-expensive lens the size of your arm on an immobile tripod like you had to do in the "film days". The rest? By and large all the same. - With
one semi-exception, the no longer produce Fuji 10,11,20,30,31's because of their proprietary sensors and lowish pixel counts.
