FF sensors: is 80MP needed?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ilya Zakharevich, Oct 14, 2006.

  1. With proliferation of half-frame 10MP cameras, a natural question is:
    what is the MP count starting from which the higher resolution of the
    sensor does not help to *significantly* improve the total lens+sensor
    resolution. Of course, this depends on the lens, so it makes sense to
    discuss the diffraction-bounded region of f-stops.

    Short answer: with a f/16 diffraction-bound lens, the total resolution
    should start to level out with 30MP full frame sensor
    (one similar in MTF-relative-to-pixel-count to current
    generation of sensors; see P.S. for other possibilities).

    One way to do this in experimental fashion, is to compare shots made
    with an "ideal lens" and a real-life sensor, to shots made with an
    "ideal sensor" and a real-life lens. Since in practice "defects"
    contributed by the lens and the sensor combine, this would compare the
    relative magnitude of these defects.

    One can use the result of this comparison like this: of course,
    increasing the resolution of sensor would bring some improvement in
    the total resolution in a very large region (keywords are `cut-off
    spacial frequency', and `Nyquist limit'). However, at some point the
    benefits will start to level out; our target is to find this point.
    We assume that it is close to the point where "defects" contributed by
    the lens are comparable to "defects" contributed by the sensor.

    First experiments (lens which provides much better resolution than
    real sensor): it is easy if you believe the "short answer" above: any
    resolution charts shot with a decent lens would be in this ballpark.
    To avoid circular reasoning, one should do more; e.g., compare
    resolution charts shot with half-frame 3MP sensor to those shot with
    16 MP FF sensor; one can easily see that at 100% magnification, there
    is little difference, thus the contribution of lens is negligible indeed.
    Judging by these shots, one can give a simple model [**] of a digital
    sensor of today; to provide a different resolution, just rescale.

    The second scenario (ideal sensor, real lens) is also easy to obtain:
    good film is an ideal sensor media when used in 4x5in (or larger)
    format (at least with strongly stepped down lens). I use (wonderful)
    data in

    http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/large_mosaics/

    as a source of "high-quality" image (digital mosaic), comparing it to
    a "low-quality" (1/2 ;-) image (4x5in Velvia shot made with aperture
    f/64).

    The comparison shows:

    A) Resolution of the film shot is very similar to the resolution of
    high-quality shot scaled down to 16 MPixel JPEG [*].

    B) Resolution of the film shot is very similar to a (simulated) image
    taken with 30 MPixel digital camera [**]

    [Of course, the possibility to redo the shot on a 30MP FF digital
    camera assumes a presence of f=22mm tilt lens with good
    performance at f/16. Performance at f/16 is not a big deal; but
    I suspect tilt-f=22mm lens is not available; one would need a
    tilt sensor to compensate).

    [This assumes that the film shot Roger did has no significant out-of-focus
    and blur areas. Since he says it took 6hours to set up this shot, I assume
    this holds.]

    ===========================

    Since 4x5in format is very easy to extrapolate (up to f/32 there is no
    significant dependence on the quality of the lens design), this allows
    to predict "digital equivalents" of other shots (of course, to do this
    one needs to assume that the film shot is in ideal focus; I hope we
    can trust Roger on this; he says he was waiting for 5 hours for ideal
    conditions to make this shot ;-):

    f/96: 15 MPixel sensor;
    f/64: 30 Mpixel sensor;
    f/48: 60 Mpixel sensor;
    f/32: lower than 120 Mpixel sensor (abberrations start to feel);
    f/22: about 120 Mpixel sensor (assuming lens resolution
    saturates near f/22, and ).

    ===========================

    One can also rescale the numbers above to 24x36mm formfactor with
    typical DSLR-type fixed-focal-length lenses:

    f/22: 15 MPixel sensor;
    f/16: 30 Mpixel sensor;
    f/11: less than 60 Mpixel sensor;
    f/8: about 60 Mpixel sensor (assuming lens resolution
    saturates near f/8).

    With highest-quality rangefinder-type lenses (AFAIK, these are
    available with f about 45mm and above):

    f/22: 15 MPixel sensor;
    f/16: 30 Mpixel sensor;
    f/11: 60 Mpixel sensor;
    f/8: less than 120 Mpixel sensor;
    f/5.6: about 120 Mpixel sensor (assuming lens resolution
    saturates near f/5.6).

    With high-quality zoom lenses:

    f/22: 15 MPixel sensor;
    f/16: less than 30 Mpixel sensor;
    f/11: about 30 Mpixel sensor (assuming lens resolution
    saturates near f/11).

    (All these number assume some "theoretically sound" behaviour of MTF
    in the region N steps down the optimal resolution of the lens:

    2 steps) Practically diffraction-bound resolution;
    1 step) Slightly less than diffraction-bound resolution;
    0 steps) About the same as diffraction-bound resolution when
    closed 1 step more.

    Of course, any particular lens with show some variations, but AFAIK,
    the variations are negligible)

    ===========================

    Here is some more info on how I interpret Roger's short. Velvia at
    1/64 is more or less an ideal sensor; it has practically no noise, and
    practically ideal MTF. So the film shot is equivalent to, e.g., f/16
    24x36mm shot made with an ideal sensor.

    The "high-resolution" shot is made at f/11; since we shrank it 2.5x, the
    diffraction doesn't matter; likewise for focussing errors. So, essentially,
    it is "an ideal image" used with the given sensor. So one can see that
    an ideal (diffraction-, abberration-, and focus-error-less) shot made
    with 30 MPixel sensor is very similar to f/16 shot made with an ideal sensor.

    ===========================

    [*] I took the crop of high quality image, reduced it to 29% linear size,
    then enlarged it to 345% (to get the initial size). Then I compared
    it with the film quality image. [Replacing 29% with 25% or 33%
    produces images which differ significantly from the film image:
    worse looking and better looking correspondingly.]

    [**] To simulate a shot made with an "ideal lens" and a digital sensor
    similar in construction to today's sensors: take a "reasonable
    quality" image; scale it down several times; you get a very high
    quality image. Now blur it to reduce MTF at high spacial frequencies.

    My experiments show that the following convolution matrix produces
    results very similar to real shots (tested with resolution chart
    shots from DPReview): [assumes fixed-width fonts; should be divided
    by 13.5]:

    1 1 1
    1 5.5 1
    1 1 1

    (Convolution with this function reduces the MTF 3 times at 2/3 of
    cut-off-frequency of the sensor.)

    Now: this is what I did: I took the crop of high quality image,
    reduced it to 40% linear size, then enlarged it to 250% (to get
    the initial size). Then I compared it with the film quality image.

    Enjoy,
    Ilya

    P.S. Of course, only the "sensors of today's construction" are
    covered. And with high MP count, there is no need to
    (significant!) decreases in resolution and "sensibility" implied
    by anti-aliasing filters (AAF *are* needed with the minuscule MP
    counts of todays's sensors). E.g., one can easily show that
    about 40MP FF sensors, there would be no need in AAF (at least
    when used with SLR-type lenses). This would improve the
    resolution [#] similar (?) to about 1.6x increase of MP count.

    So with such a sensor, one gets (for SLR fixed-focus lenses):

    f/22: 10 MPixel sensor;
    f/16: 20 Mpixel sensor;
    f/11: less than 40 Mpixel sensor;
    f/8: about 40 Mpixel sensor (assuming lens resolution
    saturates near f/8).

    Similarly, with rangefinder-type lenses, the beginning-of-leveling-out
    point would be about 80MP (needed at f/8 and f/5.6 shots).

    [#] (Actually, removing AAF would also *significantly* increase
    sensitivity [measured via the exposition needed to achieve a
    certain visible S/N level], but this deserves a separate message...)
    Ilya Zakharevich, Oct 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ilya Zakharevich

    Rich Guest

    Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    > With proliferation of half-frame 10MP cameras, a natural question is:
    > what is the MP count starting from which the higher resolution of the
    > sensor does not help to *significantly* improve the total lens+sensor
    > resolution. Of course, this depends on the lens, so it makes sense to
    > discuss the diffraction-bounded region of f-stops.
    >




    > resolution [#] similar (?) to about 1.6x increase of MP count.
    >
    > So with such a sensor, one gets (for SLR fixed-focus lenses):
    >
    > f/22: 10 MPixel sensor;
    > f/16: 20 Mpixel sensor;
    > f/11: less than 40 Mpixel sensor;
    > f/8: about 40 Mpixel sensor (assuming lens resolution
    > saturates near f/8).


    Makes sense. Most camera lenses are not that great when it comes to
    their optical quality. Otherwise, they would maximize their resolution
    at their widest opening, there would be no overbearing aberrations to
    require the lens be stopped down to f8.

    >
    > Similarly, with rangefinder-type lenses, the beginning-of-leveling-out
    > point would be about 80MP (needed at f/8 and f/5.6 shots).
    >
    > [#] (Actually, removing AAF would also *significantly* increase
    > sensitivity [measured via the exposition needed to achieve a
    > certain visible S/N level], but this deserves a separate message...)


    You'll find that professional optical sources are more "honest" about
    what is needed to support high megapixel count cameras with small
    pixels than consumer camera makers. You need a lens capable of at
    least 100lp/mm to support a 5um pixel size. I doubt 1/4 of the lenses
    offered by most mfgs meet this spec. So, what is someone going to do
    with 80 megapixels?
    Rich, Oct 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ilya Zakharevich

    frederick Guest

    Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    <snip>

    You can theorise as much as you like, but if you just observe results,
    then you can see that 6-8mp aps-c dslrs meet or exceed 35mm colour
    transparency, 16/17mp 36x24 sensor is near 645, 20+mp larger format 20+
    mp(PhaseOne sensor) exceeds 645, 39mp PhaseOne comes very close to 4x5.
    If you want to use monochrome film - a material that has incomparably
    inconvenient performance compared with even the cheap digital cameras
    that they now sell at the supermarket - and you want to take photos only
    of test charts, then you can possibly prove that better resolution is
    possible with film. For people who want to take photographs, that is
    now seldom true and in any case irrelevant.
    frederick, Oct 14, 2006
    #3
  4. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    Rich
    <>], who wrote in article <>:
    > You'll find that professional optical sources are more "honest" about
    > what is needed to support high megapixel count cameras with small
    > pixels than consumer camera makers. You need a lens capable of at
    > least 100lp/mm to support a 5um pixel size. I doubt 1/4 of the lenses
    > offered by most mfgs meet this spec. So, what is someone going to do
    > with 80 megapixels?


    Note that I consider exactly the opposite problem: now which lens
    would "support" a given sensor (BTW, I have no idea what "support"
    will mean), but what sensor will get "almost all" out of the given
    lens.

    E.g., assuming 5um pixel size, this would be about 35MP FF sensor.
    The charts show that it will get "practically all" the resolution out
    of a decent zoom lens (maybe even with major postprocessing); one will
    be able to get better results out of a "usual" fixed-focal SLR lens
    with more pixel count, but not *much* better.

    It would not be able to get enough data out of a "best resolution lens".

    [Even assuming that "supporting a sensor" would make any sense (do
    not see how, since MTF of a lens and of a sensor combine),
    considering a lens which supports a sensor is, in most cases,
    silly. Sensors are cheap (the semiconductor part of FF CMOS sensor
    costs about $100 to produce; the total assembly may be more
    expensive, but it would not be comparable to price of decent lenses...)]

    Yours,
    Ilya
    Ilya Zakharevich, Oct 14, 2006
    #4
  5. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    frederick
    <>], who wrote in article <1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1>:
    > You can theorise as much as you like, but if you just observe results,
    > then you can see that 6-8mp aps-c dslrs meet or exceed 35mm colour
    > transparency


    Irrelevant. You are discussing lens+sensor vs lens+film. I'm
    discussing lens+sensor vs lens+ideal_sensor.

    > 39mp PhaseOne comes very close to 4x5.


    IMO, this makes absolutely no sense without discussing the lens
    settings used. Note that my experiment shows that 4x5in USED WITH
    f/64 would not benefit MUCH from more than about 20MP non-AA sensor;
    probably would not benefit AT ALL from more than 30MP non-AA sensor.

    With different f-stops, the situation is (proportionally) different.

    Hope this helps,
    Ilya
    Ilya Zakharevich, Oct 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Ilya Zakharevich

    Greg \_\ Guest

    In article <1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:

    >39mp PhaseOne comes very close to 4x5.


    & and your proof exists < ? >

    > If you want to use monochrome film - a material that has incomparably
    > inconvenient performance compared with even the cheap digital cameras
    > that they now sell at the supermarket


    Right <smirk :^>
    --
    Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
    and never looking back.

    www.gregblankphoto.com
    Greg \_\, Oct 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Ilya Zakharevich

    Matt Clara Guest

    "frederick" <> wrote in message
    news:1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1...
    > Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    > <snip>
    >
    > You can theorise as much as you like, but if you just observe results,
    > then you can see that 6-8mp aps-c dslrs meet or exceed 35mm colour
    > transparency,


    Sorry, fella, but I shoot weddings with both film and digital, and what you
    say here simply isn't true.
    Matt Clara, Oct 15, 2006
    #7
  8. Ilya Zakharevich

    frederick Guest

    Matt Clara wrote:
    > "frederick" <> wrote in message
    > news:1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1...
    >> Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> You can theorise as much as you like, but if you just observe results,
    >> then you can see that 6-8mp aps-c dslrs meet or exceed 35mm colour
    >> transparency,

    >
    > Sorry, fella, but I shoot weddings with both film and digital, and what you
    > say here simply isn't true.
    >
    >

    Good - I've been waiting for some evidence.
    Please post some scans from your 35mm negs.
    frederick, Oct 15, 2006
    #8
  9. Ilya Zakharevich

    frederick Guest

    Greg "_" wrote:
    > In article <1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:
    >
    >> 39mp PhaseOne comes very close to 4x5.

    >
    > & and your proof exists < ? >
    >
    >> If you want to use monochrome film - a material that has incomparably
    >> inconvenient performance compared with even the cheap digital cameras
    >> that they now sell at the supermarket

    >
    > Right <smirk :^>

    yawn.
    25 iso monochrome....
    zzzzzz
    frederick, Oct 15, 2006
    #9
  10. Ilya Zakharevich

    frederick Guest

    frederick, Oct 15, 2006
    #10
  11. Ilya Zakharevich

    Father Kodak Guest

    On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:23:16 -0400, "Matt Clara" <>
    wrote:

    >"frederick" <> wrote in message
    >news:1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1...
    >> Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    >> <snip>
    >>
    >> You can theorise as much as you like, but if you just observe results,
    >> then you can see that 6-8mp aps-c dslrs meet or exceed 35mm colour
    >> transparency,

    >
    >Sorry, fella, but I shoot weddings with both film and digital, and what you
    >say here simply isn't true.


    Matt,

    How would you modify the frederick's statement, based on your
    experience? E.g. would a 10 mp APC-C D SLR meet/exceed 35 mm color
    transparency.

    Father Kodak
    Father Kodak, Oct 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Ilya Zakharevich

    Matt Clara Guest

    "Father Kodak" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:23:16 -0400, "Matt Clara" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>"frederick" <> wrote in message
    >>news:1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1...
    >>> Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
    >>> <snip>
    >>>
    >>> You can theorise as much as you like, but if you just observe results,
    >>> then you can see that 6-8mp aps-c dslrs meet or exceed 35mm colour
    >>> transparency,

    >>
    >>Sorry, fella, but I shoot weddings with both film and digital, and what
    >>you
    >>say here simply isn't true.

    >
    > Matt,
    >
    > How would you modify the frederick's statement, based on your
    > experience? E.g. would a 10 mp APC-C D SLR meet/exceed 35 mm color
    > transparency.
    >
    > Father Kodak
    >
    >


    I haven't used 10 mp, so I don't know, but I suspect it would lack in one
    way, and that's the same way the 6-8 mp cameras do: upon enlargement they
    begin to break down rather quickly. To me this speaks to overall levels of
    infomation present in the two mediums, but it could be any number of
    reasons. Enlargement, of course, isn't the reason digital is eclipsing
    35mm, and even there it's good enough for some purposes. I still shoot my
    formals as well as some select other shots with medium-format film precisely
    because it can be blown up poster-size with little detraction to the image,
    provided it's a sharp, well exposed negative, of course.
    Matt Clara, Oct 15, 2006
    #12
  13. Ilya Zakharevich

    Greg \_\ Guest

    In article <1160942573.106890@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:

    > Greg "_" wrote:
    > > In article <1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> 39mp PhaseOne comes very close to 4x5.

    > >
    > > & and your proof exists < ? >
    > >
    > >> If you want to use monochrome film - a material that has incomparably
    > >> inconvenient performance compared with even the cheap digital cameras
    > >> that they now sell at the supermarket

    > >
    > > Right <smirk :^>

    > yawn.
    > 25 iso monochrome....
    > zzzzzz


    Reasonably few B&W shooting photographers shoot 25 asa BW film on a
    consistent, none I know personally.
    --
    Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
    and never looking back.

    www.gregblankphoto.com
    Greg \_\, Oct 16, 2006
    #13
  14. Ilya Zakharevich

    Greg \_\ Guest

    In article <1160943104.100931@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:

    > Greg "_" wrote:
    > > In article <1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> 39mp PhaseOne comes very close to 4x5.

    > >
    > > & and your proof exists < ? >

    >
    > oops - missed that.
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
    > http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html


    Have I told you I am not impressed with the work of his I have seen. I
    am also not impressed with the quality of the tests of his I have seen
    over the years.
    --
    Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
    and never looking back.

    www.gregblankphoto.com
    Greg \_\, Oct 16, 2006
    #14
  15. "Greg "_"" <grey_egg@greg_photo.com> wrote:
    >> >> If you want to use monochrome film - a material that has incomparably
    >> >> inconvenient performance compared with even the cheap digital cameras
    >> >> that they now sell at the supermarket
    >> >
    >> > Right <smirk :^>

    >> yawn.
    >> 25 iso monochrome....
    >> zzzzzz

    >
    > Reasonably few B&W shooting photographers shoot 25 asa BW film on a
    > consistent, none I know personally.


    That's because most of them have been discontinued. Panatomic X and Tech Pan
    are history. (I think there's still an Agfa film in production, though.)

    Panatomic-X is the reason I hate 35mm. At 11x14, Plus-X in 645 looks way
    better than Panatomic X in 35mm, and is two stops faster. ISO 25 gets real
    painful when you want to use either a red filter or a polarizer.

    Nowadays, TMX 100 is close to what the ISO 25 films used to be in terms of
    grain and resolution, although some people complain they don't like its
    tonal rendition. TMX 100 in 6x7 will edge out the 5D, though.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Oct 16, 2006
    #15
  16. Ilya Zakharevich

    Scott W Guest

    Matt Clara wrote:
    > I haven't used 10 mp, so I don't know, but I suspect it would lack

    in one
    > way, and that's the same way the 6-8 mp cameras do: upon enlargement they
    > begin to break down rather quickly. To me this speaks to overall levels of
    > infomation present in the two mediums, but it could be any number of
    > reasons. Enlargement, of course, isn't the reason digital is eclipsing
    > 35mm, and even there it's good enough for some purposes. I still shoot my
    > formals as well as some select other shots with medium-format film precisely
    > because it can be blown up poster-size with little detraction to the image,
    > provided it's a sharp, well exposed negative, of course.


    This seems like a bit of bait and switch to me, you seem to claim that
    35mm film is better then an 8 MP DSLR but then you say you are using MF
    film. Clearly MF will easily beat an 8 MP DLSR but I have yet to see a
    color image from 35mm film that beats a 8 MP DSLR and the vast majority
    of 35mm film scans fall far short of a 8 MP DSLR.

    Scott
    Scott W, Oct 16, 2006
    #16
  17. Greg "_" wrote:

    > In article <1160943104.100931@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Greg "_" wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>39mp PhaseOne comes very close to 4x5.
    >>>
    >>>& and your proof exists < ? >

    >>
    >>oops - missed that.
    >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
    >>http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html

    >
    >
    > Have I told you I am not impressed with the work of his I have seen. I
    > am also not impressed with the quality of the tests of his I have seen
    > over the years.


    Yeah, I agree. At luminous-landscape, we saw 3 megapixels
    beating 35mm , then it was 6 megapixels, then....
    Seems like the latest digital beats whatever was out before
    regardless of facts.
    Kinda like a marketing department ;-).

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Ilya Zakharevich wrote:

    > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to
    > frederick
    > <>], who wrote in article <1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1>:
    >
    >>You can theorise as much as you like, but if you just observe results,
    >>then you can see that 6-8mp aps-c dslrs meet or exceed 35mm colour
    >>transparency

    >
    >
    > Irrelevant. You are discussing lens+sensor vs lens+film. I'm
    > discussing lens+sensor vs lens+ideal_sensor.


    Theory is fine, but you must consider all factors.
    One factor you have not considered, and is a source of
    confusion in many of the film versus digital religious wars is
    not just resolution, but tonality and signal-to-noise ratio.
    Digital has a much higher signal-to-noise ratio and that
    greatly influences perceived image detail. Digital
    also has much greater dynamic range.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Oct 16, 2006
    #18
  19. Ilya Zakharevich

    frederick Guest

    Greg "_" wrote:
    > In article <1160943104.100931@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:
    >
    >> Greg "_" wrote:
    >>> In article <1160802542.137637@ftpsrv1>, frederick <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> 39mp PhaseOne comes very close to 4x5.
    >>> & and your proof exists < ? >

    >> oops - missed that.
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml
    >> http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html

    >
    > Have I told you I am not impressed with the work of his I have seen. I
    > am also not impressed with the quality of the tests of his I have seen
    > over the years.


    Would you like to qualify your "lack of being impressed" by some
    objective measure of your own, or reference to other qualified
    comparisons that have been done - where the results may better suit your
    apparent agenda.
    Or are we better just to dismiss your opinion as hot air?
    frederick, Oct 16, 2006
    #19
  20. Ilya Zakharevich

    frederick Guest

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > Digital
    > also has much greater dynamic range.


    How dare you keep saying that - when believing the reverse is the raison
    d'ĂȘtre for the quaint obsession some have for 35mm.
    frederick, Oct 16, 2006
    #20
    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. Silverstrand

    Ultra Fan Commander w/Thermal Sensors

    Silverstrand, Aug 5, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    834
    Silverstrand
    Aug 5, 2005
  2. Alan F Cross

    Cleaning sensors - an anti-static solution?

    Alan F Cross, Jul 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    839
    Crownfield
    Sep 29, 2003
  3. Tony Whitaker

    Canon CMOS Sensors vs CCDs - A No-Brainer?

    Tony Whitaker, Sep 4, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    552
    eddie.m
    Sep 11, 2003
  4. Hul Tytus

    info about image sensors and how they're organized?

    Hul Tytus, Sep 19, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    326
    Hul Tytus
    Sep 21, 2003
  5. Georgette Preddy
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    514
    Ray Fischer
    Jun 13, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page