Posted by Darren White on August 23, 2007 at 3:20 PM
if you have 2 sensors
one sensor is 12mp and not full frame
one sensor is 12mp and Full Frame
Which one will let you enlarge with more detail...
This really has me baffeled!
Posted by Curtis Knight on August 23, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I might be way off base here, but I beleive the real advantage to full frame in this situation is higher dynamic range, lower noise, and higher sensitivity, because the pixels are larger and/or further apart.
the closer the pixels are the more they interfere with each other (I think this is a heat issue). almost like ink dots bleeding into each other...
I don't think the enlargement capability is affected other than noise might show up more...
Posted by David Schoen on August 23, 2007 at 4:04 PM
I would agree with Curtis. Additionally, if you put equivalent lenses on the D3 and D300, shoot the same subject and print, the D3 because of the higher dynamic range, should produce a significantly better image with less artifact.
Posted by Hans Hibbard on August 23, 2007 at 5:44 PM
This is the "Silly Season" when camera makers conspire to drive us cash strapped husbands and wives (that be those of us who shoot) to spend ungodly amounts of money on "new toys". Our spouses go completely bonkers during this time...
All joking aside I think if I were looking for the most bang for the buck in getting the "best" resolution possible for large prints I'd go for the camera from my mfr of preference that provides the highest resolution - aka a full frame sensor. If "reach and/or speed" is the highest priority then go for the smaller sensor with the higher speed/performance.
I can't help but wonder if the prices for the previous top dog camera from Nikon/Canon won't drop down to a more cost effective range. A Canon 1Ds Mk II @ 16 megapixels/full frame starts to look pretty inviting especially since I already have a Canon 1D Mk II @ 8 megapixels/1.6 crop factor. Same functionality has its appeal!! Both these cameras have the same functionality - buttons/menus. Keeps my bonehead brain from screwing me up!!
Posted by Edward Thomas on August 24, 2007 at 2:22 AM
Well, considering this is as much science as astrology, I'll give it a go...
As I understand it, total pixels is obviously not the same as pixel density. 12MP on a DX size sensor should resolve about what 16-24 MP's on a FF sensor. But I'm specifically talking about resolution only, i.e. lines per millimeter for example. There are other considerations like noise, etc.
So, to keep your brain from melting, think of it this way. A 12MP DX size sensor should resolve about 2200-2300 LPM. Which, is about what a 16mp FF sensor resolves.
Ironically, at this point in time, most 35mm based lenses can't resolve at this level. So really, barring a significant improvement in lens quality, DX sensors bigger than 14MP and FF sensors beyond 24MP are kind of overkill, and are lens limited.
The future should be mostly advanced by progress in IQ other than MP's or resolution, but in color accuracy and depth, etc. Remember, our digital images are computer interpretations that are based on extremely complex algorithms. Advances in these algorithms will also add to IQ. As will maybe probably completely new sensor technology altogether.
So the short answer to your question is the 12MP DX sensor should allow you to enlarge your image with greater resolution. As for any other qualities in your print, you must consult a licensed astrologer...
The resolution on both is the same, 12MP, so enlargement will also be the same because it's determined by resolution not sensor size. That being said image QUALITY between the two may be different because on the smaller sensor you're cramming in the same number of pixels and the lens may have a hard time resolving that fine detail. This adds to the equation the quality of the lenses you're using.......An excellent lens on a smaller sensor will produce better image quality than a junk lens on a larger sensor.
On a size by size comparison looking at pure numbers both can print at the exact same size however image quality may be better on the larger sensor which may allow you to upsample the image further? Thare are more factors than just sensor size when talking about image quality, (RAW, Image processing, coversion within the camera....etc).
Posted by Darren White on August 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM
I realize that Michael, but I was talking about straight out of the camera....if I were to take the 5D and put it up against the D300 and take side by side photos on the exact same settings, which would produce the best image at 20x30....and the answer is the 5D because less noise....at least this is what I have learned from reading...
Posted by Sean Watson on August 24, 2007 at 11:10 PM
There are 3 things you can do with bigger pixel sites:
1. Less noise at a given ISO
2. More dynamic range
3. Cheaper to manufacture (maybe passed on as value to the consumer; maybe kept as a bigger profit margin; maybe used to offset extra cost to make bigger chips)
You're also assuming that Canon and whoever makes Nikon's sensor (Sony?) are on equal footing in terms of chip manufacturing technology. More than likely if you were to hold cost and noise level fixed, one would have better dynamic range. I have no way of knowing who's better.
There are a number of factors to consider with sensor size. A lot of this has already been covered. Here's my take:
1. DX advantages
1.1. FF lens on DX sensor
1.1.1. Higher quality center of the lens used
1.1.2. Cheaper/Lighter lens available for a given magnification and max aperture
1.1.2.1. 300 F/4 on a DX sensor vs 500 F/4 on a FF sensor; 500 is much bigger/heavier
1.1.3. Higher magnification available at given max aperture/price
1.1.3.1. 200 F/2 would be like a 320 F/2; 400 F/2.8 would be like a 640 F/2.8; 600 F/4 would be like a 950 F/4
1.2. DX lens
1.2.1. Cheaper to make (some combo of the following)
1.2.1.1. Cheaper to buy
1.2.1.2. Higher quality at same price
1.2.1.3. More profit for manufacturer
1.2.2. Lighter
1.2.3. Smaller
1.2.4. ultrawide variety makes up for crop factor
1.2.4.1. 10.5, 12-24
2. FF advantages
2.1. Lower density for same # of pixels
2.1.1. Less demanding on lens; lower res needed (fewer lines per inch of needed)
2.1.2. Bigger pixels are better (some combo of of the following)
2.1.2.1. Less noise at given ISO
2.1.3.2. Bigger dynamic range
2.1.3.3. More levels within existing dynamic range
2.1.3.4. Pixels aren't better, just cheaper (lower price or higher profit)
2.2. More pixels at same density
2.2.1. More data; can get many DX advantages by just cropping
3. Cuts both ways (both a plus and a minus for DX)
3.1. Crop factor
3.1.1. Higher magnification on available lenses
3.1.1.1. For any particular lens you have or can buy, it'll seem "longer" for DX. That's good if you want a longer lens and bad if you want a wider one.
3.1.2. DX has wider DOF at same effective magnification
3.1.2.1. Good if you want deep DOF, bad if you want shallow focus.
A lot of the above is an either/or kind of thing.
The thing that worries me is that the whole bigger pixels = better pixels point is hard to measure. So are the claims that DX can be higher quality and the max line pairs a lens can resolve threshold. In other words, I don't know if it's safe to assume that because you could theoretically do better in some areas with FF or DX, the manufacturer actually did.
Either the camera/lens combo produces images that are high enough quality or it doesn't. I generally think my D2x and my D200 both do a spectacular job in terms of quality. Or, I guess to be more accurate, I generally assume any lack of quality is my fault rather than hardware limitations.
Clear as mud? The moral of the story is that both have advantages and if you think about it too much, you'll confuse yourself for no good reason and start spouting nonsense 'til the nice men in the clean white coats come to help you out.
Posted by Darren White on August 24, 2007 at 11:56 PM
I have pretty much given up on trying to nail it down.....right now I shoot a little 6mp D70....I get good prints.....no one has ever complained on any prints up to 16x20.....
if I upgrade to a D300 I am sure I will not suffer any......I am totally out of the loop as far as what zooms and crops mean.....what ever is in my viewfinder is what I shoot. I only use one lens so I don't need to do all those conversion factors.....it really is crazy to try and figure it all out...
I think the real issue here is how many lenses you would like to backpack around for the shooting that you will most likely do. I'm not sure of the Nikon lens lineup, but the Canon lenses let you go down to 16mm (16-35) as their widest zoom before you get into primes or fish lenses (not including 3rd party lenses). So the thinking for me was to get as wide as I could with a Canon lens. That's why I've been pining for a full frame camera all this time.
As for Nikon, don't they have a 12-24 mm? That way you could go really wide assuming the distortion or vignetting doesn't get extreme once stopped down. But ask other Nikonians around here about their lens setup, I thought I heard that you could effectively cover your FL range (up to 200 mm) with just two lenses (Rick?).
So for backpacking and such, the less you need to carry the better. I carry 3 lenses now (17-40, 50, 70-200) but will probably start saving for the 24-105 soon. But that's now three sizable lenses to tote around. And that's why you probably won't see me with a 1D series camera anytime soon - size & weight matter alot. Especially those of us who don't b/p like Marc Adamus does
Kevin
Posted by Tom Kloster on August 25, 2007 at 1:53 PM
"I have pretty much given up on trying to nail it down.....right now I shoot a little 6mp D70....I get good prints.....no one has ever complained on any prints up to 16x20..... "
There's your answer, Darren! I'm not sure who made the very insightful comment about the approaching crazy season of new products and marketing blitzes, but if you're happy with your D70 -- and others are happy with the photos that you're producing with it -- then the real issue is marketing, not substance.
I've been through this so many times with computers over the past 30 years, that I really just have to laugh at how much money I've poured into "essential" new technology. Not that I've stopped getting suckered in, mind you, but I'll bet I could have cut out every other computer/software upgrade I've purchased, and produced exactly the same quality of material by using "outdated" equipment a bit longer. BTW, I've never replaced a computer due to a mechanical failure, so I've only got my vanity and thirst for the "latest" to blame..! Right now, I'm trying out the "skip a phase" approach, although I also recognize that with computers, the technology curve (at least on a practical level) has flattened out a lot in the past five years.
The same is about to be true for cameras -- whether the "normal" pixel range for a DSLR settles out at 12 megapixel or 24, it will stop at some point for most photography, simply because of the human limits in appreciating the difference. I think we're at the tail end of the DSLR "revolution", and that from this point forward, it will be about better price points, better interfaces and better lens quality. The feature I'm looking for is a fully-integrated PC/camera combo that allows me to completely customize the interface on the camera, drag-and-drop, so that I don't have to walk through somebody else's logic path to find routine functions. I hopeful that this sort of feature will come as soon as megapixels aren't enough to entice us to buy new cameras.
Tom
Posted by Ned Fenimore on August 25, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Discussion
12 repliesif you have 2 sensors
one sensor is 12mp and not full frame
one sensor is 12mp and Full Frame
Which one will let you enlarge with more detail...
This really has me baffeled!
the closer the pixels are the more they interfere with each other (I think this is a heat issue). almost like ink dots bleeding into each other...
I don't think the enlargement capability is affected other than noise might show up more...
All joking aside I think if I were looking for the most bang for the buck in getting the "best" resolution possible for large prints I'd go for the camera from my mfr of preference that provides the highest resolution - aka a full frame sensor. If "reach and/or speed" is the highest priority then go for the smaller sensor with the higher speed/performance.
I can't help but wonder if the prices for the previous top dog camera from Nikon/Canon won't drop down to a more cost effective range. A Canon 1Ds Mk II @ 16 megapixels/full frame starts to look pretty inviting especially since I already have a Canon 1D Mk II @ 8 megapixels/1.6 crop factor. Same functionality has its appeal!! Both these cameras have the same functionality - buttons/menus. Keeps my bonehead brain from screwing me up!!
As I understand it, total pixels is obviously not the same as pixel density. 12MP on a DX size sensor should resolve about what 16-24 MP's on a FF sensor. But I'm specifically talking about resolution only, i.e. lines per millimeter for example. There are other considerations like noise, etc.
So, to keep your brain from melting, think of it this way. A 12MP DX size sensor should resolve about 2200-2300 LPM. Which, is about what a 16mp FF sensor resolves.
Ironically, at this point in time, most 35mm based lenses can't resolve at this level. So really, barring a significant improvement in lens quality, DX sensors bigger than 14MP and FF sensors beyond 24MP are kind of overkill, and are lens limited.
The future should be mostly advanced by progress in IQ other than MP's or resolution, but in color accuracy and depth, etc. Remember, our digital images are computer interpretations that are based on extremely complex algorithms. Advances in these algorithms will also add to IQ. As will maybe probably completely new sensor technology altogether.
So the short answer to your question is the 12MP DX sensor should allow you to enlarge your image with greater resolution. As for any other qualities in your print, you must consult a licensed astrologer...
On a size by size comparison looking at pure numbers both can print at the exact same size however image quality may be better on the larger sensor which may allow you to upsample the image further? Thare are more factors than just sensor size when talking about image quality, (RAW, Image processing, coversion within the camera....etc).
1. Less noise at a given ISO
2. More dynamic range
3. Cheaper to manufacture (maybe passed on as value to the consumer; maybe kept as a bigger profit margin; maybe used to offset extra cost to make bigger chips)
You're also assuming that Canon and whoever makes Nikon's sensor (Sony?) are on equal footing in terms of chip manufacturing technology. More than likely if you were to hold cost and noise level fixed, one would have better dynamic range. I have no way of knowing who's better.
There are a number of factors to consider with sensor size. A lot of this has already been covered. Here's my take:
1. DX advantages
1.1. FF lens on DX sensor
1.1.1. Higher quality center of the lens used
1.1.2. Cheaper/Lighter lens available for a given magnification and max aperture
1.1.2.1. 300 F/4 on a DX sensor vs 500 F/4 on a FF sensor; 500 is much bigger/heavier
1.1.3. Higher magnification available at given max aperture/price
1.1.3.1. 200 F/2 would be like a 320 F/2; 400 F/2.8 would be like a 640 F/2.8; 600 F/4 would be like a 950 F/4
1.2. DX lens
1.2.1. Cheaper to make (some combo of the following)
1.2.1.1. Cheaper to buy
1.2.1.2. Higher quality at same price
1.2.1.3. More profit for manufacturer
1.2.2. Lighter
1.2.3. Smaller
1.2.4. ultrawide variety makes up for crop factor
1.2.4.1. 10.5, 12-24
2. FF advantages
2.1. Lower density for same # of pixels
2.1.1. Less demanding on lens; lower res needed (fewer lines per inch of needed)
2.1.2. Bigger pixels are better (some combo of of the following)
2.1.2.1. Less noise at given ISO
2.1.3.2. Bigger dynamic range
2.1.3.3. More levels within existing dynamic range
2.1.3.4. Pixels aren't better, just cheaper (lower price or higher profit)
2.2. More pixels at same density
2.2.1. More data; can get many DX advantages by just cropping
3. Cuts both ways (both a plus and a minus for DX)
3.1. Crop factor
3.1.1. Higher magnification on available lenses
3.1.1.1. For any particular lens you have or can buy, it'll seem "longer" for DX. That's good if you want a longer lens and bad if you want a wider one.
3.1.2. DX has wider DOF at same effective magnification
3.1.2.1. Good if you want deep DOF, bad if you want shallow focus.
A lot of the above is an either/or kind of thing.
The thing that worries me is that the whole bigger pixels = better pixels point is hard to measure. So are the claims that DX can be higher quality and the max line pairs a lens can resolve threshold. In other words, I don't know if it's safe to assume that because you could theoretically do better in some areas with FF or DX, the manufacturer actually did.
Either the camera/lens combo produces images that are high enough quality or it doesn't. I generally think my D2x and my D200 both do a spectacular job in terms of quality. Or, I guess to be more accurate, I generally assume any lack of quality is my fault rather than hardware limitations.
Clear as mud? The moral of the story is that both have advantages and if you think about it too much, you'll confuse yourself for no good reason and start spouting nonsense 'til the nice men in the clean white coats come to help you out.
if I upgrade to a D300 I am sure I will not suffer any......I am totally out of the loop as far as what zooms and crops mean.....what ever is in my viewfinder is what I shoot. I only use one lens so I don't need to do all those conversion factors.....it really is crazy to try and figure it all out...
I think the real issue here is how many lenses you would like to backpack around for the shooting that you will most likely do. I'm not sure of the Nikon lens lineup, but the Canon lenses let you go down to 16mm (16-35) as their widest zoom before you get into primes or fish lenses (not including 3rd party lenses). So the thinking for me was to get as wide as I could with a Canon lens. That's why I've been pining for a full frame camera all this time.
As for Nikon, don't they have a 12-24 mm? That way you could go really wide assuming the distortion or vignetting doesn't get extreme once stopped down. But ask other Nikonians around here about their lens setup, I thought I heard that you could effectively cover your FL range (up to 200 mm) with just two lenses (Rick?).
So for backpacking and such, the less you need to carry the better. I carry 3 lenses now (17-40, 50, 70-200) but will probably start saving for the 24-105 soon. But that's now three sizable lenses to tote around. And that's why you probably won't see me with a 1D series camera anytime soon - size & weight matter alot. Especially those of us who don't b/p like Marc Adamus does
Kevin
There's your answer, Darren! I'm not sure who made the very insightful comment about the approaching crazy season of new products and marketing blitzes, but if you're happy with your D70 -- and others are happy with the photos that you're producing with it -- then the real issue is marketing, not substance.
I've been through this so many times with computers over the past 30 years, that I really just have to laugh at how much money I've poured into "essential" new technology. Not that I've stopped getting suckered in, mind you, but I'll bet I could have cut out every other computer/software upgrade I've purchased, and produced exactly the same quality of material by using "outdated" equipment a bit longer. BTW, I've never replaced a computer due to a mechanical failure, so I've only got my vanity and thirst for the "latest" to blame..! Right now, I'm trying out the "skip a phase" approach, although I also recognize that with computers, the technology curve (at least on a practical level) has flattened out a lot in the past five years.
The same is about to be true for cameras -- whether the "normal" pixel range for a DSLR settles out at 12 megapixel or 24, it will stop at some point for most photography, simply because of the human limits in appreciating the difference. I think we're at the tail end of the DSLR "revolution", and that from this point forward, it will be about better price points, better interfaces and better lens quality. The feature I'm looking for is a fully-integrated PC/camera combo that allows me to completely customize the interface on the camera, drag-and-drop, so that I don't have to walk through somebody else's logic path to find routine functions. I hopeful that this sort of feature will come as soon as megapixels aren't enough to entice us to buy new cameras.
Tom