CameraLore
Side-by-side comparison

Rollei Compactline 202
vs Rollei Flexline 250

Archive illustration for Rollei Compactline 202

Rollei / 2009

Compactline 202

Full specifications
VS
Archive illustration for Rollei Flexline 250

Rollei / 2009

Flexline 250

Full specifications

Sensor area

Calibrate screen size

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

28 mm²
Compactline 202
28 mm²
Flexline 250
Area ratio
1:1
Absolute difference
0 mm²
Relative difference
0%

The Compactline 202 and Flexline 250 have the same sensor area. Compare pixel density, sensor architecture, and release generation to understand likely image-quality differences.

Key specification differences

Compactline 202MetricFlexline 250
12 MPEffective pixels12 MP
6.08 × 4.56Sensor6.08 × 4.56
1.52 µmPixel pitch1.52 µm
2.31 µm²Pixel area2.31 µm²
43.28 MP/cm²Pixel density43.28 MP/cm²
5.69Crop factor5.69
—Maximum video—
110 gWeight160 g
SDHC, Secure DigitalStorageSDHC, Secure Digital
Li-Ion Li-ion batteryBatteryLi-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 Compactline 202 and Flexline 250 have the same sensor area. The Compactline 202 has the lighter body. The Compactline 202 and Flexline 250 have the same effective resolution. The Compactline 202 and Flexline 250 were both released in 2009. Also consider the lens system and subjects you shoot.

Reasons to choose Compactline 202

Released in 2009, Compactline 202 has about 28 mm² of sensor area, 12 MP effective resolution, and a 110 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.

Reasons to choose Flexline 250

Released in 2009, Flexline 250 has about 28 mm² of sensor area, 12 MP effective resolution, and a 160 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.

Choose different cameras