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
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
Back in the day, photographers would extol (or decry) the virtues (or vices)
of the various films on the market. In reading the posts here, I haven't noticed any discussion about the subjective quality of the various sensors in the various cameras out there. I suppose I'm really thinking about color rendition. Before digital, what film you chose was important and could be quite the topic of discussion. Now it seems that people are more concerned with card compatibilitiy than color quality. In a recent thread several posters said they wanted to use the same card in different cameras - but I've not noticed discussion about which sensor gives a more pleasing rendition. I can still remember the time when you carried an extra camera JUST to have a different film with you! Has this been discussed and I've just missed it? or does modern electronic white-balancing mean that color rendition issues are no longer a concern? Steve |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
mrsgator88 wrote:
Back in the day, photographers would extol (or decry) the virtues (or vices) of the various films on the market. In reading the posts here, I haven't noticed any discussion about the subjective quality of the various sensors in the various cameras out there. It's because the people that frequent this group mainly focus on high ISO noise. I suppose I'm really thinking about color rendition. Exactly why I chose the camera I did. No, the color doesn't perfectly match a test chart but I love the color saturation I get from this camera. Before digital, what film you chose was important and could be quite the topic of discussion. Now it seems that people are more concerned with card compatibilitiy than color quality. Actually it's noise performance that has taken center stage. Has this been discussed and I've just missed it? or does modern electronic white-balancing mean that color rendition issues are no longer a concern? Not at all, it's just ignored because it's too subjective. It's easy to measure noise at 1600ISO and chose a camera based on that. -- Stacey |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:32:32 GMT, "mrsgator88"
wrote: Back in the day, photographers would extol (or decry) the virtues (or vices) of the various films on the market. In reading the posts here, I haven't noticed any discussion about the subjective quality of the various sensors in the various cameras out there. I suppose I'm really thinking about color rendition. Before digital, what film you chose was important and could be quite the topic of discussion. Now it seems that people are more concerned with card compatibilitiy than color quality. In a recent thread several posters said they wanted to use the same card in different cameras - but I've not noticed discussion about which sensor gives a more pleasing rendition. I can still remember the time when you carried an extra camera JUST to have a different film with you! Has this been discussed and I've just missed it? or does modern electronic white-balancing mean that color rendition issues are no longer a concern? Steve There is so much going on *after* the sensor does its job that the major differences are caused by the camera model (and its firmware) than by the sensors themselves. The only real differences, anyway, are CCD vs CMOS, and even there, any differences are overshadowed by the in-camera processing. IMO, of course. Maybe there *is* a controversy here. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:32:32 GMT, "mrsgator88"
wrote: Back in the day, photographers would extol (or decry) the virtues (or vices) of the various films on the market. In reading the posts here, I haven't noticed any discussion about the subjective quality of the various sensors in the various cameras out there. I suppose I'm really thinking about color rendition. Before digital, what film you chose was important and could be quite the topic of discussion. Now it seems that people are more concerned with card compatibilitiy than color quality. In a recent thread several posters said they wanted to use the same card in different cameras - but I've not noticed discussion about which sensor gives a more pleasing rendition. I can still remember the time when you carried an extra camera JUST to have a different film with you! Has this been discussed and I've just missed it? or does modern electronic white-balancing mean that color rendition issues are no longer a concern? Steve All the sensor and A/D section of the camera does is count the number of photoelectrons captured--a more or less accurate measure of the tones in the scene photographed-- and create a black and white raw image. It's not at all like fiilm where there are real physical and chemical differences between the various brands. If the only thing you use is the jpgs straight out of the camera, the color quality is determined by the firmware in the camera and the characterristics of whatever printer you use. And if you use a higher end photoeditor correctly you can set you color quality just about any way you like. jpc |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
mrsgator88 wrote:
Has this been discussed and I've just missed it? or does modern electronic white-balancing mean that color rendition issues are no longer a concern? Steve No, it is just as much an issue as it ever was. White balance only sets hue- there is still the saturation issue. And the problems in hue with films were not nearly the issue that saturation was- for instance, Kodachrome vs Ektachrome. The difference is that now the home enthusiast can do color correction. While the amateur photographer could adjust contrast when working with black and white, those few amateurs working in color darkrooms didn't have much to work with on color editing, save using different films as you mention. With the proper color management systems today, a home digital darkroom can actually do a fairly good job of maintaining accurate color. That being said, I still haven't done such a setup, though as I see monitor calibration devices dropping in price, I am about ready to. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
mrsgator88 wrote:
Back in the day, photographers would extol (or decry) the virtues (or vices) of the various films on the market. In reading the posts here, I haven't noticed any discussion about the subjective quality of the various sensors Oh but there are. You only have to look at the Foveon vs Bayer religious wars here ;-) And in addition there are a several of flavours of Bayer mask filter Classical additive RG,GB Custom additive RG,EB (SonY) (where E is a different shade of green/cyan they call emerald) Classical subtractive CM,YG (some video sensors) And lastly Fuji's interpolated sensor installed with pixels running diagonally and interpolated. The distinction is more that very few amateur photographers know which type of sensor mask is included in their camera. And so many other factors affect image quality that it is largely irrelevant. Regards, Martin Brown |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
Stacey wrote:
mrsgator88 wrote: Back in the day, photographers would extol (or decry) the virtues (or vices) of the various films on the market. In reading the posts here, I haven't noticed any discussion about the subjective quality of the various sensors in the various cameras out there. It's because the people that frequent this group mainly focus on high ISO noise. So glad you can straighten out "the people". We monolithic goose-stepping incantors of all things high ISO...... -- John McWilliams |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 08:39:52 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote: Stacey wrote: mrsgator88 wrote: Back in the day, photographers would extol (or decry) the virtues (or vices) of the various films on the market. In reading the posts here, I haven't noticed any discussion about the subjective quality of the various sensors in the various cameras out there. It's because the people that frequent this group mainly focus on high ISO noise. So glad you can straighten out "the people". We monolithic goose-stepping incantors of all things high ISO...... And Canon. Don't forget Canon. -- Bill Funk replace "g" with "a" |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
Well, when shooting in RAW, everything is post process. For example. in 20
seconds you can give an image all the colour saturation you want, and more. Whether the colours are accurate when you print them, well that is a different story because it depends on how well your monitor is set up. "mrsgator88" wrote in message . com... Back in the day, photographers would extol (or decry) the virtues (or vices) of the various films on the market. In reading the posts here, I haven't noticed any discussion about the subjective quality of the various sensors in the various cameras out there. I suppose I'm really thinking about color rendition. Before digital, what film you chose was important and could be quite the topic of discussion. Now it seems that people are more concerned with card compatibilitiy than color quality. In a recent thread several posters said they wanted to use the same card in different cameras - but I've not noticed discussion about which sensor gives a more pleasing rendition. I can still remember the time when you carried an extra camera JUST to have a different film with you! Has this been discussed and I've just missed it? or does modern electronic white-balancing mean that color rendition issues are no longer a concern? Steve |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Differences in sensor "quality"
"Martin Brown" schreef in bericht ... mrsgator88 wrote: Back in the day, photographers would extol (or decry) the virtues (or vices) of the various films on the market. In reading the posts here, I haven't noticed any discussion about the subjective quality of the various sensors Oh but there are. You only have to look at the Foveon vs Bayer religious wars here ;-) Foveon the sensors were stacked and something in between to stop the colors going to the other layers. How I have no clue. But Foveon didn't make it. And in addition there are a several of flavours of Bayer mask filter Classical additive RG,GB Most camera's are now RG, GB so that is probably the best ??? There probably are only slight differences between R- G- B- Custom additive RG,EB (SonY) (where E is a different shade of green/cyan they call emerald) But this has not catched on either. Classical subtractive CM,YG (some video sensors) There were some picture camera's which had this setting, I would think that with CMYG, there would be more sensitivity left for the sensor. (Or more photon's) But this didn't catch on either. (If my memory is correct the Canon G1 had this configuration.). And lastly Fuji's interpolated sensor installed with pixels running diagonally and interpolated. Holding your camera turned in a 45 degree angle will give you diagonal sensors as wel. This wil give a higer resolution in one direction, but a lower resolution in the directions 90 degrees on that direction. Fuji claimed that in our world the direction which fuji had the highest resolution was also the direction that mattered. (I don't think so). The distinction is more that very few amateur photographers know which type of sensor mask is included in their camera. And so many other factors affect image quality that it is largely irrelevant. I totaly agree with that most filters are now RG GB they probably are all very similar. So that processing is a bigger factor than the RG GB and sensor together. (Offcourse taking sensors which are developed years apart there is some difference). So the filter is more important for the color than the sensor, but filters are pretty much similar I guess. ben Regards, Martin Brown |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF / AF-D differences? | sid derra | Digital Photography | 5 | March 5th 06 04:33 PM |
Minolta 5d vs 7d, what are differences? | Bob Harrington | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | October 28th 05 04:56 AM |
Minute differences make for strange errors | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 11 | November 22nd 04 01:02 AM |
Minute differences make for strange errors | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 11 | November 22nd 04 01:02 AM |
Q: Hanimex Rondette 35mm projectors - 1500 vs 1800 differences ? | Simon Prince | Other Photographic Equipment | 0 | November 7th 04 12:02 AM |