If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
On 9/21/2018 8:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Sep 21, 2018, Ron C wrote (in ): On 9/21/2018 6:28 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Sep 21, 2018, wrote (in ): No, the pixel count is certainly critical. Read my premise carefully. No, the pixel count is not critical. Consider a 24MP FF sensor and a 24MP APS-C sensor. The pixel count is equal. However, the pixel densities are different, and will contribute to the response characteristics of each sensor, and is certainly a critical factor in sensor specs. Your premise is worthless. Consider, it is merely your premise, and has very little basis in fact. Photonics Online News https://www.photonicsonline.com recently ran several short articles on "Understanding Resolution In Scientific Cameras" that covered a lot the questions in this thread. [ You do need to be a subscriber to access the articles. ] Then it doesn’t do us non-subscribers much good. Also, judging by the nature of the content of that site, I believe an understanding of resolution in scientific cameras isn’t going to help the users of consumer cameras engaged in fanciful thought exercises in this room, one iota. OK, i did some searching and found this article that covers a lot of the mechanics of the pixel size/sensitivity/resolution basics. Here's a pointer to the article: https://www.pco-tech.com/library/knowledge-base/#c1560 ~ "Pixel Size & Sensitivity" The relationship between pixel size of an image sensor and its sensitivity is discussed in detail to illuminate the reality behind the myth that “larger pixel image sensors are always more sensitive than small pixel sensors”. ~~ -- == Later... Ron C -- |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
In article , Ron C
wrote: Photonics Online News https://www.photonicsonline.com recently ran several short articles on "Understanding Resolution In Scientific Cameras" that covered a lot the questions in this thread. [ You do need to be a subscriber to access the articles. ] Then it doesnąt do us non-subscribers much good. Also, judging by the nature of the content of that site, I believe an understanding of resolution in scientific cameras isnąt going to help the users of consumer cameras engaged in fanciful thought exercises in this room, one iota. OK, i did some searching and found this article that covers a lot of the mechanics of the pixel size/sensitivity/resolution basics. Here's a pointer to the article: https://www.pco-tech.com/library/knowledge-base/#c1560 ~ "Pixel Size & Sensitivity" The relationship between pixel size of an image sensor and its sensitivity is discussed in detail to illuminate the reality behind the myth that łlarger pixel image sensors are always more sensitive than small pixel sensors˛. it's not that larger pixels are more sensitive, it's that they collect more light, resulting in lower noise. sensitivity is separate. the article even confirms that, therefore it cannot be a myth: Still the proportionality of SNR to pixel area at a constant irradiance is valid, meaning the larger the pixel size and therefore the area, the better the SNR will be. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
In article ,
RichA wrote: If only FF'rs would realize that it doesn't stop at FF. Medium format IS better, by a long-shot and no one would argue it. it's also a lot more expensive and the cameras are a lot bigger. the additional quality is rarely needed, especially for typical consumers. a full frame slr is only slightly bigger than a crop sensor slr. it's the sweet spot. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
On 9/14/2018 7:47 PM, Neil wrote:
On 9/14/2018 4:10 PM, wrote: Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ? I think it's connecting back to the 35mm lenses that people have and like but are compromised when used with smaller sensors. Although the larger sensor cell area has a better signal to noise ratio, most prints won't expose those differences if the pixel counts are the same. Pixel count isn't the issue. it's also the quality of the pixels. -- PeterN |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
On Sep 25, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 9/14/2018 4:41 PM, Savageduck wrote: On Sep 14, 2018, wrote (in ): Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ? Nothing! For many years M43, and APS-C have exceeded the capability of 35mm film, as have some of the small sensors found in the better performing Smart phones. However, there are some characteristics of modern FF sensors such as DoF, and low light performance which only a handful of APS-C sensors can come close to. In the end many of the FF pundits have failed when it comes to discerning the source of a well made print from FF, M43, APS-C, or even a late model iPhone or Android phone. to each his own. I prefer FF for landscape and/or WA shots. For wildlife I prefer my D500. Use what you like, but understand why you are using it. I do, and I do. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
So, Why FF ?
On 9/25/2018 8:26 PM, PeterN wrote:
On 9/14/2018 7:47 PM, Neil wrote: On 9/14/2018 4:10 PM, wrote: Seems to me that FF is all about connectng back to the old 35 mm film format, and very little else, since smaller sensors with the same pixcel count in conjunction with shorter lenses could do the same thing, BUT smaller and lighter. What part have I got wrong ? I think it's connecting back to the 35mm lenses that people have and like but are compromised when used with smaller sensors. Although the larger sensor cell area has a better signal to noise ratio, most prints won't expose those differences if the pixel counts are the same. Pixel count isn't the issue. it's also the quality of the pixels. In this discussion, I think it's reasonable to assume decent quality sensors for all examples being referred to. Otherwise, nothing matters other than the quality differences between sensors. -- best regards, Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|