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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"rafeb" wrote: Eric Gill wrote: No, of course not. There is nothing about digital that makes it show lens defects more readily. Actually, there's some evidence that typical 35mm lenses don't have the resolution needed to properly "feed" the best CMOS/CCD sensors. Yes. At frequencies up to about 2/3 of the Nyquist frequency for the sensor, sensors are very good at taking full advantage of the MTF of the lens: digital has much less noise than film has grain. The interesting point is that pretty much regardless of the resolution of a sensor, a better lens will produce a better image. This is because MTFs combine multiplicatively: the system MTF at a given frequency is the product of the sensor/film MTF and the lens MTF. There's a review on Luminous Landscape of the Canon 17-35 vs. the 16-35, and the difference is clearly visable on the 3MP D30. So the idea that it's a _resolution_ issue is basically incorrrect, it's an MTF issue, since better lenses have better contrast across the whole frequency range. There's no question that modern CMOS/CCD sensors capture far more information per unit area than film. Well, no. They capture more _useful_ information, but in terms of _limiting resolution_, film can exhibit vanishingly faint traces in resonse to insanely high contrast targets. The advantage of film, of course, is that it's relatively easy to scale, simply by moving to a larger format. One point here, is that in both film and digital, one runs into diminishing returns. It's harder to provide the resolution across the whole frame for larger formats. Also, assuming the same technology, if you reduce the pixel pitch by a factor of 1.414, you only increase the noise by a factor of 1.414, so cameras like the 300D/10D, with their usable ISO 400 and outrageously clean ISO 100 will seem less attractive than something like the D2x with its usable ISO 100 and 12MP. This makes the MP game a slippery slope. So whereas you used to have an FZ10 with a respectably clean ISO 50, you now have an extra MP and visible noise. To get back to the diminishing returns bit, that means that you really want a wider pixel pitch on your MF back than on your full-frame dSLR, and a wider pixel pitch on your full-frame dSLR than your APS-C dSLR. But at which point, since the D2x has a usable ISO 100, most people won't see the advantage of a similarly priced full-frame camera with 16.7 MP and a stronger AA filter (to avoid Moiré more of the time) whose only advantage is slightly lower noise and usable higher ISOs. (Note that the above is only significant/interesting assuming that the D2x sensor will appear in a D100 class body, and the 1Dsmk2 sensor will appear in a US$3,000 class body, both of which I consider likely.) Sigh. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
paul wrote: Eric Gill wrote: There *is* an issue that makes over f/16 impractical on most digital bodies, where a Hassy can easily do f/45. This can make a big difference shooting certain subjects, such as rooms, when the entire field needs to have good focus. Why is that? I've used f/22, 36, 45 on my D70 with various lenses. You've got to get the dust off the sensor though. As the aperture starts to get really small, the entire image starts to get blurrier and blurrier. There comes a point where you lose more to diffraction than you gain by theoretical DOF. IOW, the smaller the aperture (or higher the f-stop), the greater the depth that is in near-maximum focus, but the less sharp that the maximum can be. -- John P Sheehy |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... "There's no question that modern CMOS/CCD sensors capture far more information per unit area than film. You're out of your ****ing mind. Film grains are hundreds of times smaller than sensors. No, he's quite right. Consider a 16x24mm area of ISO 400 film and what an 8x10 print from that would look like: seriously disgusting. Now look at an 8x10 print from a 6 or 8MP Canon or Nikon dSLR at ISO 400: maybe not as good as MF at 8x10, but nowhere near as problematic as half-frame 35mm. Now consider a 6.6 x 8.8 area of ISO 100 film printed at 8x10 and look at an 8x10 from the Sony F717. An even larger difference, although the Sony's pretty poor compared to the dSLR. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message oups.com... "There's no question that modern CMOS/CCD sensors capture far more information per unit area than film. You're out of your ****ing mind. Film grains are hundreds of times smaller than sensors. No, he's quite right. Consider a 16x24mm area of ISO 400 film and what an 8x10 print from that would look like: seriously disgusting. Now look at an 8x10 print from a 6 or 8MP Canon or Nikon dSLR at ISO 400: maybe not as good as MF at 8x10, but nowhere near as problematic as half-frame 35mm. Now consider a 6.6 x 8.8 area of ISO 100 film printed at 8x10 and look at an 8x10 from the Sony F717. An even larger difference, although the Sony's pretty poor compared to the dSLR. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
rafeb wrote in news:4241fb95$0$8853
: Actually, there's some evidence that typical 35mm lenses don't have the resolution needed to properly "feed" the best CMOS/CCD sensors. This debate is raging as we speak on r.p.d. Harumph. Higher quality lenses yield higher quality images - sharper, more vibrant color without any post processing - on my cameras, and that's all the debate I'm interested in. See the link I posted about the Distagon on Canon dSLR. While I would sure as hell hope he gets even better images on that 1ds than I do on my 10 or 20D, the Distagon certainly shows its quality on any body I've tried them on. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
rafeb wrote in news:4241fb95$0$8853
: Actually, there's some evidence that typical 35mm lenses don't have the resolution needed to properly "feed" the best CMOS/CCD sensors. This debate is raging as we speak on r.p.d. Harumph. Higher quality lenses yield higher quality images - sharper, more vibrant color without any post processing - on my cameras, and that's all the debate I'm interested in. See the link I posted about the Distagon on Canon dSLR. While I would sure as hell hope he gets even better images on that 1ds than I do on my 10 or 20D, the Distagon certainly shows its quality on any body I've tried them on. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
"There's no question that modern CMOS/CCD sensors capture far more information per unit area than film. You're out of your ****ing mind. Film grains are hundreds of times smaller than sensors. http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=...utpu t=gplain "The average size of these grains varies from about 0.5 micro-metre (um) in diameter for slow emulsions such as are used in print films, up to about 1.5um in diameter for fast emulsions suach as are used in X-ray films." [...] "The mean grain-size in emulsions used for camera films in colour photography can be regarded as about 1 um in diameter;" Note: pixel sizes range from 2 to 10um. I'll leave the arithmetic to you. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Mar 2005 16:10:42 -0800, wrote:
"There's no question that modern CMOS/CCD sensors capture far more information per unit area than film. You're out of your ****ing mind. Film grains are hundreds of times smaller than sensors. Even if "grain size" were relevant or definable, I challenge you to cite a specific grain size in microns for any common commercial film. You'd have to explain why any decent, modern film scanner can clearly resolve grain patterns and dye clouds, even in top-notch, low-speed chromes. You'd have to explain why an area of silicon 3.75mm square can capture about the same degree of detail as a square of film 6.35m square -- and with far less noise. (Ratio of areas ~3:1) Fuji Reala has an MTF-50 of ~60 lp/mm. The CMOS sensor in a Canon 20D has 3504 photosites in the long (22.5 mm) dimension. That's 156 sensors per mm. The image detail from a Canon 1Ds MkII simply blows away anything you'll ever see from 24x36 mm of film. Period. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FS: Schneider Large-Format Lens TRADE!!! | Bill Gillooly | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 2 | February 20th 05 06:43 AM |
f/8 is the magic aperture for sharpness | paul | Digital SLR Cameras | 13 | January 25th 05 06:47 PM |
Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs | KM | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 724 | December 7th 04 09:58 AM |
Copy/Macro Lens for this camera | Mr. Bill | Large Format Equipment For Sale | 0 | February 16th 04 07:18 PM |
FS: 8 Nikon lenses including 80-200 Nikkor 2.8 zoom and accessories | Henry Peña | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | November 11th 03 06:20 PM |