Big Sensor FX vs Small Sensor DX - No Diff?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Sep 21, 2008.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    At some point either in noise or at a certain size of print or both there
    must be an image quality difference with the large sensor winning. But
    this may be infrequent so what are you getting by paying $$$ for a Nikon
    D3X or a Canon 5D/2.

    Well this is what Ken Rockwell claims:

    Begin Quote
    For you techies, as you can see at my Nikon D90, D3, D300 and D200
    Sharpness Comparison, for use in daylight, the D90 renders images
    identical to the $5,000 Nikon D3.
    End Quote

    I do not think this is either true or false. It may be true under some
    circumstances and false under others. I would just like to know, from
    others who have used (tested) these camera types how frequently it is true
    and under what circumstances and how frequently it is false and under what
    circumstances.

    So I welcome your experiences.
     
    measekite, Sep 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. measekite

    measekite Guest

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:42:28 +0100, Paul wrote:

    > "measekite" <> wrote in message
    > news:VviBk.1186$...
    >
    >> Well this is what Ken Rockwell claims:

    >
    >
    > Ken Rockwell. Isn't he the Chuck Norris of photography? ;-)


    Yes, He certainly is a controversial figure. And many times he seems to
    contradict himself in different articles so it is difficult to draw
    conclusions many times based on what he says but at least he makes one
    think about things and do more research.

    >
    > Sorry, couldn't help it. It still creases me up now! My particular
    > favorite was "When Ken Rockwell brackets a shot, the three versions of
    > the photo win first place in three different categories".
     
    measekite, Sep 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. measekite wrote:
    > At some point either in noise or at a certain size of print or both
    > there must be an image quality difference with the large sensor
    > winning. But this may be infrequent so what are you getting by
    > paying $$$ for a Nikon D3X or a Canon 5D/2.
    >
    > Well this is what Ken Rockwell claims:
    >
    > Begin Quote
    > For you techies, as you can see at my Nikon D90, D3, D300 and D200
    > Sharpness Comparison, for use in daylight, the D90 renders images
    > identical to the $5,000 Nikon D3.
    > End Quote
    >
    > I do not think this is either true or false. It may be true under
    > some circumstances and false under others. I would just like to
    > know, from others who have used (tested) these camera types how
    > frequently it is true and under what circumstances and how frequently
    > it is false and under what circumstances.
    >
    > So I welcome your experiences.


    What size to /you/ need to print, and what pixel density on the print do
    you want? How much cropping capability do you need? To give a simple
    answer to your question, the image quality from DX-size sensors is very
    noticeably better than that from compact-camera sensors, even when viewed
    on a 2MP display (1600 x 1200). The extra cost of full-frame (money,
    size, weight, lenses) may not produce a significantly better image on such
    a display, but it may give you more cropping and exposure margin.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2008
    #3
  4. measekite

    Guest

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 02:41:57 GMT measekite <> wrote:

    | At some point either in noise or at a certain size of print or both there
    | must be an image quality difference with the large sensor winning. But
    | this may be infrequent so what are you getting by paying $$$ for a Nikon
    | D3X or a Canon 5D/2.
    |
    | Well this is what Ken Rockwell claims:
    |
    | Begin Quote
    | For you techies, as you can see at my Nikon D90, D3, D300 and D200
    | Sharpness Comparison, for use in daylight, the D90 renders images
    | identical to the $5,000 Nikon D3.
    | End Quote
    |
    | I do not think this is either true or false. It may be true under some
    | circumstances and false under others. I would just like to know, from
    | others who have used (tested) these camera types how frequently it is true
    | and under what circumstances and how frequently it is false and under what
    | circumstances.
    |
    | So I welcome your experiences.

    The Canon 450D, 50D, and 5D, have the 14-bit sensors. The 5D is full size,
    and that means more light capture overall (using a larger lens, of course).
    You have to decide of these differences are significant enough for what you
    want to do to make it worth the premium in price.

    I find things like sharpness, geometry, color fringing, are entirely about
    the lens in digital. Other things like color quality can often be fixed in
    editing. The cheap kit lens even on the better cameras pales for macro work
    against a genuine premium macro lens, for example. I still favor fixed focal
    length lenses for the best quality (when that's the deliberate goal).

    --
    |WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
    | by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
    | Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |
     
    , Sep 21, 2008
    #4
  5. measekite

    Me Guest

    measekite wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 04:42:28 +0100, Paul wrote:
    >
    >> "measekite" <> wrote in message
    >> news:VviBk.1186$...
    >>
    >>> Well this is what Ken Rockwell claims:

    >>
    >> Ken Rockwell. Isn't he the Chuck Norris of photography? ;-)

    >
    > Yes, He certainly is a controversial figure. And many times he seems to
    > contradict himself in different articles so it is difficult to draw
    > conclusions many times based on what he says but at least he makes one
    > think about things and do more research.
    >

    That's true, but in terms of "resolving power" 12mp Fx vs Dx, there's no
    difference. There's also almost no difference in available dynamic
    range at base ISO. The advantage comes at higher ISO, or at
    "ultra,ultra" wide angle, things that Ken fully acknowledges on his site.
     
    Me, Sep 21, 2008
    #5
  6. measekite

    Steve Guest

    On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:53:32 GMT, "David J Taylor"
    <-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

    >measekite wrote:
    >> At some point either in noise or at a certain size of print or both
    >> there must be an image quality difference with the large sensor
    >> winning. But this may be infrequent so what are you getting by
    >> paying $$$ for a Nikon D3X or a Canon 5D/2.
    >>
    >> Well this is what Ken Rockwell claims:
    >>
    >> Begin Quote
    >> For you techies, as you can see at my Nikon D90, D3, D300 and D200
    >> Sharpness Comparison, for use in daylight, the D90 renders images
    >> identical to the $5,000 Nikon D3.
    >> End Quote
    >>
    >> I do not think this is either true or false. It may be true under
    >> some circumstances and false under others. I would just like to
    >> know, from others who have used (tested) these camera types how
    >> frequently it is true and under what circumstances and how frequently
    >> it is false and under what circumstances.
    >>
    >> So I welcome your experiences.

    >
    >What size to /you/ need to print, and what pixel density on the print do
    >you want? How much cropping capability do you need? To give a simple
    >answer to your question, the image quality from DX-size sensors is very
    >noticeably better than that from compact-camera sensors, even when viewed
    >on a 2MP display (1600 x 1200). The extra cost of full-frame (money,
    >size, weight, lenses) may not produce a significantly better image on such
    >a display, but it may give you more cropping and exposure margin.


    More exposure margin maybe, but not more cropping capabilty if the FF
    number of pixels is the same as the APS-C.

    Steve
     
    Steve, Sep 21, 2008
    #6
  7. measekite

    Böwser Guest

    "measekite" <> wrote in message
    news:VviBk.1186$...
    > At some point either in noise or at a certain size of print or both there
    > must be an image quality difference with the large sensor winning. But
    > this may be infrequent so what are you getting by paying $$$ for a Nikon
    > D3X or a Canon 5D/2.
    >
    > Well this is what Ken Rockwell claims:
    >
    > Begin Quote
    > For you techies, as you can see at my Nikon D90, D3, D300 and D200
    > Sharpness Comparison, for use in daylight, the D90 renders images
    > identical to the $5,000 Nikon D3.
    > End Quote
    >
    > I do not think this is either true or false. It may be true under some
    > circumstances and false under others. I would just like to know, from
    > others who have used (tested) these camera types how frequently it is true
    > and under what circumstances and how frequently it is false and under what
    > circumstances.
    >
    > So I welcome your experiences.


    Simple: Ken is full of it. He freely admits that most of his site is total
    BS, and he makes it up on the fly with no fact checking whatsoever. He posts
    crap in order to create controversy and up his click counts so he can charge
    advertisers more. Best advice: avoid that site like the plague. If you can't
    resist, click his title bar to access the "caveat" section and read for
    yourself. But don't go any further than that lest you pollute your mind
    beyond repair.
     
    Böwser, Sep 21, 2008
    #7
  8. Steve wrote:
    []
    > More exposure margin maybe, but not more cropping capabilty if the FF
    > number of pixels is the same as the APS-C.
    >
    > Steve


    Yes, you need more pixels, but that can be one of the options with FX.
    Play it as you want.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Sep 21, 2008
    #8
  9. measekite

    PDM Guest


    > Simple: Ken is full of it. He freely admits that most of his site is total
    > BS, and he makes it up on the fly with no fact checking whatsoever. He
    > posts crap in order to create controversy and up his click counts so he
    > can charge advertisers more. Best advice: avoid that site like the plague.
    > If you can't resist, click his title bar to access the "caveat" section
    > and read for yourself. But don't go any further than that lest you pollute
    > your mind beyond repair.


    Sorry, but don't agree with you. There is a lot of good stuff on this site.
    Ken sometimes takes the p***! out of himself and there is the occasional
    contradiction but on the whole he talks sense. And one thing I know from
    personal experience is that he is dead right about the D40 D40x and D80s
    crappy exposure metering.

    PDM
     
    PDM, Sep 21, 2008
    #9
  10. measekite

    Böwser Guest

    "PDM" <pdcm99minus this > wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >> Simple: Ken is full of it. He freely admits that most of his site is
    >> total
    >> BS, and he makes it up on the fly with no fact checking whatsoever. He
    >> posts crap in order to create controversy and up his click counts so he
    >> can charge advertisers more. Best advice: avoid that site like the
    >> plague. If you can't resist, click his title bar to access the "caveat"
    >> section and read for yourself. But don't go any further than that lest
    >> you pollute your mind beyond repair.

    >
    > Sorry, but don't agree with you. There is a lot of good stuff on this
    > site. Ken sometimes takes the p***! out of himself and there is the
    > occasional contradiction but on the whole he talks sense. And one thing I
    > know from personal experience is that he is dead right about the D40 D40x
    > and D80s crappy exposure metering.


    No, he's not wrong about everything, just a good many things. And when the
    site's author freely admits to posting made-up crap, how can you trust
    anything he says? Are we all supposed to read that site and then do our own
    fact checking? Sorry, that site is to be avoided.
     
    Böwser, Sep 22, 2008
    #10
  11. measekite

    PDM Guest

    >> Sorry, but don't agree with you. There is a lot of good stuff on this
    >> site. Ken sometimes takes the p***! out of himself and there is the
    >> occasional contradiction but on the whole he talks sense. And one thing I
    >> know from personal experience is that he is dead right about the D40 D40x
    >> and D80s crappy exposure metering.

    >
    > No, he's not wrong about everything, just a good many things. And when the
    > site's author freely admits to posting made-up crap, how can you trust
    > anything he says? Are we all supposed to read that site and then do our
    > own fact checking? Sorry, that site is to be avoided.


    But don't you check out all info from websites; I know I do. There isn't a
    site out there that does not contain inaccuracies. Worst example: Wikipedia.
    People don't stop browsing this site even though there is a lot of rubbish
    on it because people generally find it useful and interesting. I know that
    if any info is important to me I check it out and expect that any reasonably
    intelligent person who has got it together would do the same. You must have
    done this to note the occasional rubbish on Ken's site.

    PDM
     
    PDM, Sep 22, 2008
    #11
  12. measekite

    Böwser Guest

    "PDM" <pdcm99minus this > wrote in message
    news:48d74a8a$...
    >>> Sorry, but don't agree with you. There is a lot of good stuff on this
    >>> site. Ken sometimes takes the p***! out of himself and there is the
    >>> occasional contradiction but on the whole he talks sense. And one thing
    >>> I know from personal experience is that he is dead right about the D40
    >>> D40x and D80s crappy exposure metering.

    >>
    >> No, he's not wrong about everything, just a good many things. And when
    >> the site's author freely admits to posting made-up crap, how can you
    >> trust anything he says? Are we all supposed to read that site and then do
    >> our own fact checking? Sorry, that site is to be avoided.

    >
    > But don't you check out all info from websites; I know I do. There isn't a
    > site out there that does not contain inaccuracies. Worst example:
    > Wikipedia. People don't stop browsing this site even though there is a lot
    > of rubbish on it because people generally find it useful and interesting.
    > I know that if any info is important to me I check it out and expect that
    > any reasonably intelligent person who has got it together would do the
    > same. You must have done this to note the occasional rubbish on Ken's
    > site.


    If the rubbish was only occasional, I might still read some of his stuff.
    But the site is *rife* with utter crap. Separating the truth from the crap
    is just too much work, as it is with Wikipedia, which is also nearly
    useless. And I've seen people wuote his site and those quotes are utter BS.
    It's a shame. His site is a sham designed to generate click counts and
    subsequent revenue for Ken.
     
    Böwser, Sep 22, 2008
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. =?Utf-8?B?U0E0MDU=?=

    Can External+Internal Lan Card be on 1 w/l on diff. network segmen

    =?Utf-8?B?U0E0MDU=?=, Oct 7, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,219
    =?Utf-8?B?U0E0MDU=?=
    Oct 7, 2005
  2. vc
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    725
    Leonidas Jones
    Feb 28, 2004
  3. Jules

    webpage diff between FF and IE

    Jules, Feb 20, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    19
    Views:
    814
    Christopher Pollard
    Feb 22, 2005
  4. John White
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    661
    S. Gione
    Nov 7, 2003
  5. David J Taylor
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    988
    Anoni Moose
    Aug 15, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page