CameraLore
Side-by-side comparison

Rollei Compactline 203
vs Rollei Compactline 230

Archive illustration for Rollei Compactline 203

Rollei / 2010

Compactline 203

Full specifications
VS
Archive illustration for Rollei Compactline 230

Rollei / 2010

Compactline 230

Full specifications

Sensor area

Calibrate screen size

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

28 mm²
Compactline 203
28 mm²
Compactline 230
Area ratio
1:1
Absolute difference
0 mm²
Relative difference
0%

The Compactline 203 and Compactline 230 have the same sensor area. Compare pixel density, sensor architecture, and release generation to understand likely image-quality differences.

Key specification differences

Compactline 203MetricCompactline 230
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—
104 gWeight121 g
SDHC, Secure DigitalStorageSDHC, Secure Digital
Li-Ion Li-ion batteryBattery2x AA

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 203 and Compactline 230 have the same sensor area. The Compactline 203 has the lighter body. The Compactline 203 and Compactline 230 have the same effective resolution. The Compactline 203 and Compactline 230 were both released in 2010. Also consider the lens system and subjects you shoot.

Reasons to choose Compactline 203

Released in 2010, Compactline 203 has about 28 mm² of sensor area, 12 MP effective resolution, and a 104 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.

Reasons to choose Compactline 230

Released in 2010, Compactline 230 has about 28 mm² of sensor area, 12 MP effective resolution, and a 121 g body. Use these values to narrow the field, not as an overall image-quality score.

Choose different cameras