Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters!

Reply
Thread Tools

D-SLR Sensor Resolution and Sensor Size Comparison Size Matters!

 
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2004
"Steven M. Scharf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<1dYoc.19654$(E-Mail Removed) hlink.net>...
> I put a chart on http://sigmasd10.com that shows the differences in
> resolution and actual sensor size of various digital SLRs. I have reproduced
> it below (use mono-spaced font).
>
> Model Megapixels Sensor Size (mm)
> -------------------------------------------------
> Sigma SD-9, SD-10 3.4 21x14 (58% of full frame)


That is optical MPs, the SDs both natively output 13.72MP at 75%
interpolated.

All the rest in the list are only 75% interpolated resolutions...

> Nikon D2H 4 24x16 (67% of full frame)
> Olympus E1 5 18x14 "4/3"
> Canon EOS-300D 6 23x15
> Canon EOS-10D 6 23x15
> Nikon D70 6 24x16 (67% of full frame)
> Nikon D100 6 24x16 (67% of full frame)
> Fuji S3 Pro 6 23x16
> Pentax *ist D 6 24x16 (67% of full frame)
> Canon EOS-1D Mark II 8.2 29x19 (80% of full frame)
> Canon EOS-1Ds 11 36x24 (full frame)
> Kodak DCS SLR/n 13.5 36x24 (full frame)
> Kodak DCS SLR/c 13.5 36x24 (full frame)
>
> For reference, the APS frame size is 30x17 mm
>
> The number of megapixels relates directly to picture quality and the ability
> to do large enlargements. For very large enlargements (> 8 x10) you'll want
> to choose a camera with at least 6 Mp. For professional work that requires
> 20"x30" enlargements you'll want at least 8 Mp.
>
> Sensor size also matters. The cheaper cameras use smaller sensors, cramming
> more pixels into a smaller area, because these are less expensive to
> manufacture. You get more sensors per wafer when you have a smaller sensor
> size.


Smaller sensor size is dramatically better assuming the same lens, it
is small sensor pitch (the lateral distance between two) that is cheap
and inferior. You are hopelessly confused, but don't feel too bad,
most people are also lost when it comes to these fairly complex
concepts.

Simga uses all 3 dimensions to pack sensors vs only 2D for all Bayers,
so Sigma's snesor pitch (higher is better) is utterly enormous
compared to all Bayers (including full frame) even after Sigmas
massively higher sensor count. This is why Sigma images are totally
noise free at ISO 100, while Canon is awash in noise at ISO 100, and
Nikon can't even do ISO 100.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robertwgross
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2004
Steve, it certainly seems to me that there is a new candidate for Chief
Technology Officer of the Nordic Group. (G.P.)

---Bob Gross---
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2004

"George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> "dylan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

news:<X85pc.368$cJ4.330@newsfe1-win>...
> > "when shooting at F2.8 with a wideangle on the 1Ds, the corners
> > will have very little actual image information. A very good F8 shot with
> > a 6MP camera might contain more image detail in the corners."
> >
> > Can you explain a bit more, are you saying a 35mm frame doesn't have

detail
> > in the corners ?

>
> The smaller the sensor the better, provided it takes 35mm format
> lenses, because optically the lens is dramatically better in the
> middle. Wiegh that consideration with the total sensor count,
> obviously optical pixels is better. That is why Sigma, having both
> the highest number of optical pixels (interpolation is meaningless,
> only optical MPs matter) and the smallest sensor size, is several
> steps ahead of anything offered by any other manufacturer.
>
> The Kodak 14n (3.3MP optical; 13.5MP interpolated) has almost as many
> MPs as the Sigma SDs (3.43 optical; 13.72MP interpolated), but it is
> full frame which is makes the optical quality totally unacceptable by
> comparison. Assuming the same MPs even the optical resolution over
> the respective image areas, croppers are dramatically better cameras.
>
> IOWs, Sigma builds the only pro quality DSLRs currently available.


http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...-20040511.html

Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bart van der Wolf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2004

"Robertwgross" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Steve, it certainly seems to me that there is a new candidate for Chief
> Technology Officer of the Nordic Group. (G.P.)


He's already employed full-time:
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...-20040511.html

Bart

 
Reply With Quote
 
Greg Campbell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-14-2004
Bart van der Wolf wrote:
> "George Preddy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message


>>IOWs, Sigma builds the only pro quality DSLRs currently available.



> http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilber...-20040511.html
>
> Bart


Alternately, take your pick from one or a combination of:

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame84.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame47.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame16.html

At times I fear 'we' are outmatched. In the presense of a master
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html
we are all doomed!

-Greg


 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Howland
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2004
George Preddy wrote:

> The smaller the sensor the better, provided it takes 35mm format
> lenses, because optically the lens is dramatically better in the
> middle. Wiegh that consideration with the total sensor count,
> obviously optical pixels is better. That is why Sigma, having both
> the highest number of optical pixels (interpolation is meaningless,
> only optical MPs matter) and the smallest sensor size, is several
> steps ahead of anything offered by any other manufacturer.
>
> The Kodak 14n (3.3MP optical; 13.5MP interpolated) has almost as many
> MPs as the Sigma SDs (3.43 optical; 13.72MP interpolated), but it is
> full frame which is makes the optical quality totally unacceptable by
> comparison. Assuming the same MPs even the optical resolution over
> the respective image areas, croppers are dramatically better cameras.
>
> IOWs, Sigma builds the only pro quality DSLRs currently available.


Haha what nonsense George. Keep 'em coming. Still no example
photographs of your own for us George? A scan from a disposable camera
would do, if that's all you have.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Martindale
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2004
"Stanley Krute" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>One note Re: your chart: your sensor size column
>percentages might be a bit misleading, on the large
>side, for folks. That's because you're giving percentages
>along just one dimension of the sensor, rather than
>the area of each sensor. For example, the Nikon D70 sensor,
>at 24x16, is (24/36)*(16/24) = 4/9, or approx. 44% of full frame,
>not 67%.


So it's 67% of the dimensions, but 44% of the area. Most people would
say that's 67% of the size, not 44% of the size.

If you switch lenses from 50 to 100 mm focal length on an SLR, is the
image twice as large or four times as large? If you look through 7x35
binoculars, would you say that things look 7 times larger or 49 times
larger?

Normally, "size" refers to scale factor, or linear magnification, not
area.

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
DJ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2004
On 14 May 2004 14:39:12 -0700, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (George Preddy) wrote:

>"dylan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<X85pc.368$cJ4.330@newsfe1-win>...
>> "when shooting at F2.8 with a wideangle on the 1Ds, the corners
>> will have very little actual image information. A very good F8 shot with
>> a 6MP camera might contain more image detail in the corners."
>>
>> Can you explain a bit more, are you saying a 35mm frame doesn't have detail
>> in the corners ?

>
>The smaller the sensor the better, provided it takes 35mm format lenses


Goerge's Earth is flat, and he lives on the under-side.
 
Reply With Quote
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (Dave Martindale) wrote in message news:<c84ake$ft3$(E-Mail Removed)>...
> "Stanley Krute" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
> >One note Re: your chart: your sensor size column
> >percentages might be a bit misleading, on the large
> >side, for folks. That's because you're giving percentages
> >along just one dimension of the sensor, rather than
> >the area of each sensor. For example, the Nikon D70 sensor,
> >at 24x16, is (24/36)*(16/24) = 4/9, or approx. 44% of full frame,
> >not 67%.

>
> So it's 67% of the dimensions, but 44% of the area. Most people would
> say that's 67% of the size, not 44% of the size.


Most people would say 44% of the area is 44% of the size.
 
Reply With Quote
 
George Preddy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-15-2004
(E-Mail Removed) (Robertwgross) wrote in message news:<(E-Mail Removed)>...
> Steve, it certainly seems to me that there is a new candidate for Chief
> Technology Officer of the Nordic Group.


Looks like another person was fooled by Bayer manufacturers and didn't
know. Bayer sensors were interpolated.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Comparison of 2 files and generating the output based on comparison Deepu Perl Misc 1 02-07-2011 03:09 PM
question about relationship between sensor size and print size. ftran999 Digital Photography 8 02-22-2007 03:37 PM
Used canned air on my dSLR sensor and there are residues on the sensor, what to do now? gtagle@gmail.com Digital Photography 14 10-03-2006 09:37 PM
sensor size vs resolution freightcar Digital Photography 9 02-05-2006 01:40 AM
Eclips cleaner and Sensor Swabs to clean your digital Camera Sensor? IMKen Digital Photography 7 06-22-2004 08:00 PM



Advertisments