CameraLore
Side-by-side comparison

AgfaPhoto Compact 102
vs AgfaPhoto Optima 102

Archive illustration for AgfaPhoto Compact 102

AgfaPhoto / 2009

Compact 102

Full specifications
VS
Archive illustration for AgfaPhoto Optima 102

AgfaPhoto / 2009

Optima 102

Full specifications

Sensor area

Calibrate screen size

Enter your display diagonal so sensor rectangles are shown closer to their physical size.

28 mm²
Compact 102
28 mm²
Optima 102
Area ratio
1.03:1
Absolute difference
1 mm²
Relative difference
2.6%

The Compact 102 has the larger sensor area. More area usually means greater light-gathering potential, though real image quality still depends on sensor architecture and generation.

Key specification differences

Compact 102MetricOptima 102
12 MPEffective pixels12 MP
6.16 × 4.62Sensor6.08 × 4.56
1.54 µmPixel pitch1.52 µm
2.37 µm²Pixel area2.31 µm²
42.17 MP/cm²Pixel density43.28 MP/cm²
5.62Crop factor5.69
—Maximum video—
125 gWeight105 g
SDHC, Secure DigitalStorageSDHC, Secure Digital
2x AABatteryLi-Ion Li-ion battery

Amber marks the value that is generally preferable in this comparison context. It is not an overall camera score.

How to choose between these cameras

The Compact 102 has the larger sensor area. The Optima 102 has the lighter body. The Compact 102 and Optima 102 have the same effective resolution. The Compact 102 and Optima 102 were both released in 2009. Also consider the lens system and subjects you shoot.

Reasons to choose Compact 102

Released in 2009, Compact 102 has about 28 mm² of sensor area, 12 MP effective resolution, and a 125 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.

Reasons to choose Optima 102

Released in 2009, Optima 102 has about 28 mm² of sensor area, 12 MP effective resolution, and a 105 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.

Choose different cameras