Photography is in-part "devolving" into high-end audio-speak, as far as VIDEO is concerned

On Mon, 03 Jun 2019 19:50:36 GMT, FlipChip(TM)
wrote:

On Sun Jun 2 18:46:21 2019 Davoud wrote:

Don't see where it makes much difference, given that most viewers can't
distinguish between 720p and 4k at normal viewing distances. The hype
is all about higher profits from the gullible.
\

About the same thing than "BIGGER sensor MORE light BETTERRRRRR!" shouting stupids ... Different but about the same. When people believe something they are more likely to do stupid things like buy something.

But what you can do. Consumerims is in somes mothers milk.

What is generally regarded as the sensor in a camera is in fact a
multitude of sensors known as sensels. For the purpose of this
discussion the overall size of the array of sensels is not
particularly important. What is important is the size of the sensels.

It is evident that for a given number of sensels a large sensor will
employ larger sensels that will a small sensor.

Bigger sensels will capture more photons. A sensel holding more
photons will be less affected by stray photons (noise). In low light
conditions a bigger sensel has a better chance of capturing a useful
quantity of photons.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 05/06/2019 09:57, Incubus wrote:
[]
Does this mean, therefore, that as the number of megapixels increases, the low
light sensitivity decreases? Perhaps I am better off sticking with my Nikon
D200 and D300 rather than going full frame 45.7 megapixels...

That's a very good question! Essentially, the answer is "yes". But:

- newer sensors may have a better performance is have lower noise level

- many smaller photosites may not use the available area as efficiently
(for a constant gap size the spacing is a bigger fraction of the
available area).

- when looking at the final image at "normal" viewing distances, the eye
will be averaging the pixels together, so the overall effect of more
pixels may be averages out. If you images are viewed on a computer
monitor (1080 x 1920) that's only 2 MP. What size of images do you produce?

- more pixels may mean you can crop a little more, and then the greater
per-pixel noise would be seen, but you may need better lenses to take
advantage of that higher resolution.

So it's not a simple yes-no answer.

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

In article , Incubus
wrote:


About the same thing than "BIGGER sensor MORE light BETTERRRRRR!" shouting
stupids ... Different but about the same. When people believe something
they are more likely to do stupid things like buy something.

But what you can do. Consumerims is in somes mothers milk.

What is generally regarded as the sensor in a camera is in fact a
multitude of sensors known as sensels. For the purpose of this
discussion the overall size of the array of sensels is not
particularly important. What is important is the size of the sensels.

It is evident that for a given number of sensels a large sensor will
employ larger sensels that will a small sensor.

Bigger sensels will capture more photons. A sensel holding more
photons will be less affected by stray photons (noise). In low light
conditions a bigger sensel has a better chance of capturing a useful
quantity of photons.

Does this mean, therefore, that as the number of megapixels increases, the low
light sensitivity decreases?

it does not mean that.

for a given sensor size and sensor technology, as the number of
megapixels goes up, the size of each one gets smaller, which means
noise is higher.

sensor technology is constantly improving, so a newer and higher
megapixel sensor can have (and often does) *better* low light
sensitivity than an older lower resolution sensor.

Perhaps I am better off sticking with my Nikon
D200 and D300 rather than going full frame 45.7 megapixels...

bad idea, particularly with the d200, which was very noisy.

In article , David Taylor
wrote:

Does this mean, therefore, that as the number of megapixels increases, the
low
light sensitivity decreases? Perhaps I am better off sticking with my Nikon
D200 and D300 rather than going full frame 45.7 megapixels...

That's a very good question! Essentially, the answer is "yes".

false.

But:

- newer sensors may have a better performance is have lower noise level

they almost always do.

- many smaller photosites may not use the available area as efficiently
(for a constant gap size the spacing is a bigger fraction of the
available area).

fill factor is unrelated to sensel size.

- when looking at the final image at "normal" viewing distances, the eye
will be averaging the pixels together, so the overall effect of more
pixels may be averages out. If you images are viewed on a computer
monitor (1080 x 1920) that's only 2 MP. What size of images do you produce?

not true.

you've been reading dpreview too much, where this myth is common.

- more pixels may mean you can crop a little more, and then the greater
per-pixel noise would be seen, but you may need better lenses to take
advantage of that higher resolution.

true, other than the per-pixel noise claim.

So it's not a simple yes-no answer.

actually it is.

In article , Incubus
wrote:

Perhaps I am better off sticking with my Nikon
D200 and D300 rather than going full frame 45.7 megapixels...

bad idea, particularly with the d200, which was very noisy.

Not at the time of release.

yes at the time of release. the d200 was not one of nikon's better slrs.

I never shoot above ISO 800 anyway so I don't
really noice any adverse noise.

then why did you ask?

and not shooting above iso 800 is greatly limiting.

If I ever get into night photography or
needing action shots in low light, I'll think about getting a D500 or a D700.

the d500 is good, but the d700 is long obsolete. did you mean d750?

On Jun 5, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-06-05, wrote:
In , Incubus
wrote:

Snip

If I ever get into night photography or
needing action shots in low light, I'll think about getting a D500 or a
D700.

the d500 is good, but the d700 is long obsolete. did you mean d750?

The D700 would be a relatively cheap introduction to FX bodies and has the
controls where I am used to them.

I am an APS-C shooter, and as such I do not see the need for an FX/FF body in
my future. The current generation of APS-C sensors deliver surprisingly good
low light/high ISO performance. I have a D300S which does quite well in good
light, but has not been used much in the last two years after my move to
Fujifilm with my current APS-C mirrorless being an X-T3. If I was considering
a DSLR update for my D300S it would be a D500.

Ultimately if you move to FX/FF you will only see the full benefit with the
added expense of fresh FX glass which is going to be a stronger factor in
improving your image quality than buying into an FF sensor camera, especially
one as dated as the D700, you would be better off with a D850.

Personally, I am satisfied with my move to Fujifilm, and since my move I have
invested in some outstanding Fujinon glass, including a mix of fast primes,
and several zooms. So I am not about to invest in FX body, & glass anytime
soon.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Incubus
wrote:

Perhaps I am better off sticking with my Nikon
D200 and D300 rather than going full frame 45.7 megapixels...

bad idea, particularly with the d200, which was very noisy.

Not at the time of release.

yes at the time of release. the d200 was not one of nikon's better slrs.

It was very much top of the range and better than the D2X for most purposes.
Its speed and low noise capability were widely acknowledged at the time.

the d200 was not known for having low noise, only slightly better than
the d70/d100 that preceded it.

the d300 was a noticeable improvement.

Volume of sales speak in its favour as it pretty much flew off the shelves and
wasn't a camera people regretted buying.

many people did

Even today it is regarded as a good
body for amateurs.

no it isn't.

I never shoot above ISO 800 anyway so I don't
really noice any adverse noise.

then why did you ask?

Because the debate about sensor size, pixel size and low light capability is
interesting.

fair enough.

and not shooting above iso 800 is greatly limiting.

Not if I shoot mainly in daylight and artifically lit rooms at relatively
close quarters where I don't need to track fast movement.

it's not just fast movement. high iso creates opportunities which were
otherwise difficult to impossible before.

If I ever get into night photography or
needing action shots in low light, I'll think about getting a D500 or a
D700.

the d500 is good, but the d700 is long obsolete. did you mean d750?

The D700 would be a relatively cheap introduction to FX bodies and has the
controls where I am used to them.

not a good introduction.

In article , Incubus
wrote:

The D200 and D300 meet my needs perfectly at the moment so I don't feel I have
any need to move to a full frame digital camera.

then why did you list full frame as a potential option?

On Jun 5, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article ):

On 2019-06-05, wrote:

The one thing that would put me off modern Fuji cameras is that they are all
mirrorless. I understand the advantages of mirrorless cameras but I really
like having optical viewfinders.

You would be surprised with the current generation of EVFs in the latest
Fujifilm, and other mirrorless cameras. There are actually some advantages to
mirrorless, and an EVF over a DSLR. I don’t miss the optical VF at all. If
you have the opportunity you should try one.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Incubus
wrote:

The D200 and D300 meet my needs perfectly at the moment so I don't feel I
have
any need to move to a full frame digital camera.

then why did you list full frame as a potential option?

Because the frequent discussions I read on-line where people preach the
benefits of full frame digital cameras make me wonder from time to time whether
I am missing out.

that depends what you want to do.

if a d200 and d300 fit your needs, then fx is likely overkill.

a d7500 or d500 is a *huge* jump over what you have now.