cheap modern camera shows smooth pixels, not jaggies but 1Dmk2 shows jaggies.

[Pacific Photos]

Yeah Guyz and Ladyz...just was noticing on a 100% crop on a similar shot taken by two great, but hugely differant cameras, a great "despair ity" when examining a really close crop..(pixel peeping)
The '09 Pentax x70 ultra zoom point and shoot, at max optical zoom (620mm triple image stabilization)  ) and a '04 Canon 1Dmk2 with a ef 75/300 zoom (at 300mm) (Junky $20.lens)*at iso 400.*
   same lighting, same (surfing) action.  I can give more details of the two cameras various "specs"  and settings to those of you interested in helping me understand why the 8.3 mgpxl Canon produces really "square" noticeable pixalization (zooming in to "fault" on purpose) while the 12megpix much tinier Pentax sensor seems to blur or "round" the pix's, giving a much smoother look to a 16x24 surfing "shot".  LIKE MAYBE "NOISE" IS GOOD....DESIRABLE?
2.) I wanna show you guyz and galz, the two photos....but am wondering how to "drag" them into the post??  Once I learn to do that, you all can maybe help me understand??? old school camera, "H" size sensor 1.3 crop EOS sensor.....versus a little bantam rooster Pentax x70 point and shoot ultra zoom, 12mgpix CCD sensor.   Who woulda thought that this little $400.dollar "dingy of a camera from Staples could out rez the old "Bismark" 1Dmk2 that sold for $4,000 in '04.?
3.) Ok, the ef 75/300 is not an "L"glass 2.8 400mm...but we are just talking pixel "square noticeability"....I will show the two fotos side by side (with help?)

[francois]

To post images, use the "choose file" button on the Attach line, below the text field. If you don't see the Attach line, click on Additional Options… to reveal buttons & checkboxes.

[Epsilon5th]

Your post is really hard to read. You might get more answers if you write it.. properly.

On the topic, pixels are basically squares. Are you peeping beyond 100%? Are you shooting RAW? HQ jpeg?

My guess is that the Pantax zoom glass cannot resolve 12mpix or in camera compression that causes artifacts.

Also, 8MP isn't enough for 16*24in^2 photo@300dpi

[Pacific Photos]

Yes Francois and Epsilon5th...thank you both for your quik repy....to Francois, I will do what you suggested...to drag them onto the Forum (after I "even the playing field").. and Epsilon5th...I will be more succinct in my writing style...I do tend to wander a bit...maybe de caf too??
I shoot in Lg jpeg on each camera....I just like to zoom, zoom, zoom into the foto to see what the pixels look like.... a curious sort of affliction especially now having "ponied up" for the old pro 1Dmk2, wanting to see at the micro level the differances  the same shot, (almost) same angle of light etc etc.... betwixt a cheap, but thoroughly "modern millie" camera Pentax X70 ultrazoom  and an old pro work horse 1Dmk2 from '04.
A gentlemans contest of sorts? ( actually these are what I got...and must use and learn to love...it's a "Recession" baby!!!!)  maybe just on the "Left" coast???
  I am also from the "school" that any good shot can be blown up to 16x24..no matter of grain or pixelations....the "shot" is the "gold" and the little info dots can be viewed as "pointellism" or "your momma"!  just kidding, but you get the "drift"!! ciao mm.

[ablankertz]

I hereby second less caffeine

[terence_patrick]

Sentences end with only one period.