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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
What is the main difference between a full size sensor (EOS 5d) and
a smaller sensor size (Nikon D200). Is a smaller sensor worse in getting light/resolution compared to a full size sensor? Why is a full size sensor more preferable? Thanks, --j |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
On 7 Jan 2006 01:20:47 -0800, "John" wrote:
What is the main difference between a full size sensor (EOS 5d) and a smaller sensor size (Nikon D200). Is a smaller sensor worse in getting light/resolution compared to a full size sensor? Why is a full size sensor more preferable? In the same way that bigger film formats are better than small ones. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
rafe b wrote:
On 7 Jan 2006 01:20:47 -0800, "John" wrote: What is the main difference between a full size sensor (EOS 5d) and a smaller sensor size (Nikon D200). Is a smaller sensor worse in getting light/resolution compared to a full size sensor? Why is a full size sensor more preferable? In the same way that bigger film formats are better than small ones. Not exactly. But in a way yes. A larger sensor is just that a larger sensor. Assuming the same number of pixels and equivalent lens focal length and aperture you may expect at least one difference and that would be a reduce DOF of the larger sensor system. However other dynamics come into play and usually full size sensors (same number of pixels) will produce a better result do to physical constraints. However a larger sensor will often have more pixels so it will be recording more information. The best way to answer this question is to actually work with both combinations and see what works best for you. It is the same sort of questions about using 4x5 or 2¼ and using a faster film speed in the 4x5 or not etc. Much of the difference is very difficult to describe or quantify. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com -- Joseph Meehan Dia duit |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
"Joseph Meehan" wrote:
rafe b wrote: On 7 Jan 2006 01:20:47 -0800, "John" wrote: What is the main difference between a full size sensor (EOS 5d) and a smaller sensor size (Nikon D200). Is a smaller sensor worse in getting light/resolution compared to a full size sensor? Why is a full size sensor more preferable? In the same way that bigger film formats are better than small ones. Not exactly. But in a way yes. A larger sensor is just that a larger sensor. Assuming the same number of pixels and equivalent lens focal length and aperture you may expect at least one difference and that would be a reduce DOF of the larger sensor system. With the larger sensor, you just stop down one more stop and use a higher ISO. The smaller system gets bitten by diffraction earlier than the larger one, so can't be stopped down as far, and the larger pixels in the larger sensor mean that you get the same image quality (noise) at the higher ISO that the smaller sensor gets at the lower ISO. The larger format gives you the option of using a lower ISO (with better noise) at a slower shutter speed, of course. That's assuming the pixel count is the same. With a higher pixel count, things are a tad more complicated. Then it's more like film, where you have to work harder with the larger format to get the full advantage of that larger format. However other dynamics come into play and usually full size sensors (same number of pixels) will produce a better result do to physical constraints. However a larger sensor will often have more pixels so it will be recording more information. The best way to answer this question is to actually work with both combinations and see what works best for you. It is the same sort of questions about using 4x5 or 2¼ and using a faster film speed in the 4x5 or not etc. Much of the difference is very difficult to describe or quantify. It looks to me that larger formats are even more of an improvement in digital than they are in film. In film, larger formats have worse film flatness problems, both at capture and during projection printing or scanning, and lenses are often funkier. But digital resolutions are so low that providing adequate contrast at the max resolution of the sensor usually isn't terribly difficult. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 13:34:42 GMT, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote: The best way to answer this question is to actually work with both combinations and see what works best for you. It is the same sort of questions about using 4x5 or 2¼ and using a faster film speed in the 4x5 or not etc. Much of the difference is very difficult to describe or quantify. It's not really all that mystical, except maybe to Ilya. It's a good question and worth debating, because it's so fundamental. As photographers, we're gatherers of light. Big cameras gather more light than small ones, and it almost always shows in the end, if you care enough to look closely. This applies in a totally fair, just, equitable and non-discriminatory manner to both film and digital cameras. [A serious question to the OP: do you care enough to look closely?] It goes without saying that "bigness" is a mixed blessing. Think about it. It's not about f-stops after all, is it? It's about how much glass you're willing to carry to get the shot. In the specific context of digicam sensors, what reallly matters most is the size of the individual sensels. If you cram more sensels into the same area, each one then gets smaller and thus collects less light. Better to use more silicon, but that gets expensive, etc. Ilya thinks we can make sensels infinitesimally small. Methinks he's been hitting a bit heavy on Ye Olde Cracke Rock. Some of the best minds on this NG have tried argue with him, but he persists. Ilya knows that light is the thing, but he thinks we can just harvest less and use it more efficiently. Or something. The only way around this is to address the underlying physics and technology. That doesn't happen from one product cycle to the next. Back to the OP. Full frame sensors have the advantage of working "as designed" with existing 35 mm lenses. Which, amazingly, is also hotly debated around here. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006 23:00:00 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote: It looks to me that larger formats are even more of an improvement in digital than they are in film. In film, larger formats have worse film flatness problems, both at capture and during projection printing or scanning, and lenses are often funkier. But digital resolutions are so low that providing adequate contrast at the max resolution of the sensor usually isn't terribly difficult. Good point about the film flatness issues. The theoretical advantage of "more film" is never fully realized because bigness has other, unintended consequences. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
John wrote:
What is the main difference between a full size sensor (EOS 5d) and a smaller sensor size (Nikon D200). Is a smaller sensor worse in getting light/resolution compared to a full size sensor? Why is a full size sensor more preferable? Thanks, --j At the pixel level, given the same number of pixels between the two cameras, the larger camera has larger pixels which collect more light giving a higher signal-to-noise ratio and larger dynamic range, See: Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter? Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter Larger pixels also are more forgiving regarding lens aberrations, and diffraction. Its a quality win win situation at the cost of bulk, weight, and cost of the larger camera. The D200 has 6.1 micron pixel pitch and the 5D has 8.2. Both are working in the sweet spot for great imaging (6 to 9 micron range) which gives great signal-to-noise and large enough pixels that lens performance is great. The 5D, having more pixels and that are slightly larger has theoretically better numbers (but I don't know for sure because the full well capacity and read noise have yet to be published). In any case both should be great cameras, given good lenses. Some more info with digital camera specs: The Signal-to-Noise of Digital Camera images and Comparison to Film http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...ignal.to.noise Roger photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
"John" wrote in message
oups.com... What is the main difference between a full size sensor (EOS 5d) and a smaller sensor size (Nikon D200). Is a smaller sensor worse in getting light/resolution compared to a full size sensor? Why is a full size sensor more preferable? Thanks, --j Large sensors make the optics a lot easier. It is much easier to make a high f number lens then a low one, as the sensor size get larger you can go to higher f number for a number of reasons, the light gathering of each pixels is larger so you need less light, diffraction is less of a problem, and you can still get small DOF when needed with out going to very small f numbers. As a reference point the cameras on the mars rover use 12 micron pixels and an f 20 lens. Because of the high f number they can get away with using a Cooke triplet and still be diffraction limited. Scott |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote: As photographers, we're gatherers of light. Big cameras gather more light than small ones, and it almost always shows in the end, if you care enough to look closely. This applies in a totally fair, just, equitable and non-discriminatory manner to both film and digital cameras. Except that if you fix subject distance, field of view, and depth of field, the total amount of light across the frame tends to be more or constant (independent of the frame size). Larger formats can 'store' more light. But once you find a system that is big enough to handle the amount of light you've got, there is no point of selecting even bigger systems. -- That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
sensor size
"Philip Homburg" wrote in message
.phicoh.net... In article , rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote: As photographers, we're gatherers of light. Big cameras gather more light than small ones, and it almost always shows in the end, if you care enough to look closely. This applies in a totally fair, just, equitable and non-discriminatory manner to both film and digital cameras. Except that if you fix subject distance, field of view, and depth of field, the total amount of light across the frame tends to be more or constant (independent of the frame size). This is true Larger formats can 'store' more light. But once you find a system that is big enough to handle the amount of light you've got, there is no point of selecting even bigger systems. This is not complete true. If you fix the subject distance, field of view and depth of field then a larger sensor will be using a lens at a higher f number, this can either reduce the cost of the lens or if you keep the cost the same improve the quality. There is a limit to this of course since the lens can get pretty large, but not as large as you might think since the aperture of the lens would stay the same. In the end there is a trade off between the cost of larger sensors and the cost of the lenses that are used. As the number of pixels increase the need for a larger sensor is going to also increase, not just for capturing more light but also to keep the cost of the lens within reason. Scott |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|