Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007.

  1. Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
    of data?

    Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
    4/3"?

    Thanks
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    > Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
    > of data?
    >
    > Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
    > 4/3"?
    >
    > Thanks


    What ISO do you want to use?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 80-400 probably

    > Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    >> Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and
    >> 12mp of data?
    >>
    >> Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or
    >> even 4/3"?
    >>
    >> Thanks

    >
    > What ISO do you want to use?
    >
    > David
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    >> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    >>> Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and
    >>> 12mp of data?
    >>>
    >>> Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or
    >>> even 4/3"?
    >>>
    >>> Thanks

    >>
    >> What ISO do you want to use?
    >>
    >> David


    [top-posting corrected]

    > 80-400 probably
    >


    80 - perhaps OK
    400 - noise limited

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 11, 2007
    #4
  5. Paul D. Sullivan

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:55:19 GMT, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

    > Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
    > of data?
    >
    > Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
    > 4/3"?


    You've asked this question before, but worded a bit differently.
    I thought that you understood the many answering replies, but . . .

    The answer is that it depends. On the photographer. On the
    photographer's expectations. On the year. On the types of pictures
    you'll take. On all sorts of things, and for some photographers,
    not only will a 1/1.8" sensor forever be insufficient, some only
    accept FF sensors, deeming even APS-C sensors deficient due to their
    "insanely small pixels". Many others think that 1/1.8" sensors are
    more than sufficient for their needs, even with their large numbers
    of small pixels. The answers you get can only represent
    individual's preferences, and while it's unfortunate, you really
    have to form your own preferences by examination and testing, either
    of your own images or those taken by other photographers. If your
    preferences are formed by agreeing with someone that makes a good
    case for why *that individual* likes a particular type of sensor,
    you'll never have the satisfaction of discovering for yourself what
    works for *you*. Some find it simpler to be followers, becoming
    disciples of a photographic guru. And if that guru suddenly decides
    that not only are 4/3" sensors too small, now even APS-C sensors are
    as well, followers will follow to the Full Frame Promised Land, even
    if they've never made a single print any larger than 8" x 10" and
    have no desire to ever do so.

    If you can't afford to buy and try many cameras, you could easily
    download images produced by those 1/1.8", 2/3" and 4/3" sensors, and
    determine for yourself if they're lacking in the resolution that you
    want, or are too noisy at high ISOs for your purposes. I think
    that this has been suggested before. The answers that you're
    seeking will come from people whose tastes differ. That doesn't
    mean that some are right and that the others are wrong. What I'm
    trying to say is that at some point you need to end the asking and
    do your own tasting.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 11, 2007
    #5
  6. I prefer top posting for quick replies so people do not have to
    scroll all the way down. :)

    thanks for the reply.

    > Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    >>> Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    >>>> Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and
    >>>> 12mp of data?
    >>>>
    >>>> Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or
    >>>> even 4/3"?
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks
    >>>
    >>> What ISO do you want to use?
    >>>
    >>> David

    >
    > [top-posting corrected]
    >
    >> 80-400 probably
    >>

    >
    > 80 - perhaps OK
    > 400 - noise limited
    >
    > David
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007
    #6
  7. I was asked to be more specific, so I chose a specific sensor
    size and two specific resolutions.

    > You've asked this question before, but worded a bit
    > differently. I thought that you understood the many
    > answering replies, but . . .
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007
    #7
  8. Paul D. Sullivan

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:06:06 GMT, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

    >> You've asked this question before, but worded a bit
    >> differently. I thought that you understood the many
    >> answering replies, but . . .

    >
    > I was asked to be more specific, so I chose a specific sensor
    > size and two specific resolutions.


    But my reply was to your OP, the first one in this thread. It had
    nothing to do with David's reply that asked about the ISO you want
    to use. Or was the more specific question one that was posed in
    another thread? If so, you might have have included some "in
    context" quotes.

    It appears that you missed the "big picture" of my last reply, one
    that might have had you see that introspection would be more
    beneficial than asking more specific questions. But that's what
    works for me, and evidently doesn't or won't for you. As I hinted,
    implied, suggested . . . I think that previous replies contained
    enough information to answer to your new, specific questions,
    assuming that you'd spend enough time digesting them.
     
    ASAAR, Feb 11, 2007
    #8
  9. Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    > I prefer top posting for quick replies so people do not have to
    > scroll all the way down. :)
    >
    > thanks for the reply.


    On my screen, both your comment and my replies fitted without scrolling.
    I do agree that we see far too many posts where the dross in not
    sufficiently trimmed. I prefer to keep the text in top-to-bottom order of
    writing, as used in most Western books, newspapers, magazines etc. for the
    last several centuries.

    I'm glad you found my answer useful.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 11, 2007
    #9
  10. I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since
    they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling
    down. Hard to please everyone, it seems. :)

    Anyway, thanks.

    > Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    >> I prefer top posting for quick replies so people do not have
    >> to scroll all the way down. :)
    >>
    >> thanks for the reply.

    >
    > On my screen, both your comment and my replies fitted without
    > scrolling. I do agree that we see far too many posts where the
    > dross in not sufficiently trimmed. I prefer to keep the text
    > in top-to-bottom order of writing, as used in most Western
    > books, newspapers, magazines etc. for the last several
    > centuries.
    > I'm glad you found my answer useful.
    >
    > David
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007
    #10
  11. Paul D. Sullivan

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:55:19 +0000, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:

    > Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
    > of data?
    >
    > Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
    > 4/3"?
    >
    > Thanks


    I should expect that all other things being equal, a larger chip would
    result in less noise. I think that's probably as far as one can take that.
     
    ray, Feb 11, 2007
    #11
  12. "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    news:HsEzh.1970$ov2.166@trndny06...
    >I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since they
    >only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling down. Hard
    >to please everyone, it seems. :)


    Not really, if messages and answers are properly trimmed down
    to the bare essence, there should be no issues. All it takes is a bit
    of snipping and a sense for nettiquette and logic.

    --
    Bart
    ..
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Feb 11, 2007
    #12
  13. Paul D. Sullivan

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 13:01:27 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
    <> wrote:

    >I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since
    >they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling
    >down. Hard to please everyone, it seems. :)


    I really wonder at people who seem to think pressing the down-arrow
    key or the page-down key is just so difficult.

    --
    Rudy Giuliani began seeking
    the GOP presidential nomination
    on Tuesday. He's pro-choice,
    pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control
    and he did a skit in drag that
    is on the Internet. If Osama
    bin Laden hadn't attacked him
    Pat Robertson would have.
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 11, 2007
    #13
  14. Paul D. Sullivan

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:30:49 GMT, "Paul D. Sullivan"
    <> wrote:

    >80-400 probably


    Define "sufficient".
    It depends on what you find acceptable.
    You can go to many sites that review cameras and look at the
    representative pictures, and even at specific pictures designed to
    show noise (I assume you're worried about noise from these sensors at
    the ISOs you mention). Decide for yourself, because we really can't
    decide for you.
    If the noise is acceptable to you, then the sensor is sufficient for
    your needs.
    It really is that simple.

    --
    Rudy Giuliani began seeking
    the GOP presidential nomination
    on Tuesday. He's pro-choice,
    pro-gay marriage, pro-gun control
    and he did a skit in drag that
    is on the Internet. If Osama
    bin Laden hadn't attacked him
    Pat Robertson would have.
     
    Bill Funk, Feb 11, 2007
    #14
  15. There is no solid concensus. Some people get irritated that they
    have to scroll, and get mad at people who don't top post.

    Some people freak out about how quotes are done, like in Outlook
    Express, some don't care. I use OE-QuoteFix and that seems to
    satisfy most folks.

    I prefer Plain Text, others like colors and bolding text and what
    not. Some like to send HTML messages and get mad at others who
    don't like to view all that stuff.

    Life happens. It's just not worth stressin' over. There are so
    many more important things, so sometimes I try not to nitpick.
    It just upsets folks and unless it's something that is a core
    value or belief, letting it slide is something I can live with.
    :)

    > "Paul D. Sullivan" <> wrote in message
    > news:HsEzh.1970$ov2.166@trndny06...
    >> I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that
    >> since they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed
    >> scrolling down. Hard to please everyone, it seems. :)

    >
    > Not really, if messages and answers are properly trimmed down
    > to the bare essence, there should be no issues. All it takes
    > is a bit of snipping and a sense for nettiquette and logic.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007
    #15
  16. Fair enough. :)

    > I should expect that all other things being equal, a larger
    > chip would result in less noise. I think that's probably as
    > far as one can take that.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007
    #16
  17. Maybe it's the funky locations of the arrow keys on different
    laptops or also the different finger pad things. I know that I
    just totally can't get used to having to hold down a blue
    function toggle to be able to type in F1, F2, etc on some things.
    I just try to go along with what makes sense.

    I see their point - scrolling can be a total pain, so I listen
    and am like "ok, I can adjust - to you the thing is valid and
    that's cool"

    Like how some people totally freak out if someone misspells or
    mis capitalizes or uses apostrophe's wrong. I try to focus on
    what is being said. If I can understand what they are trying to
    communicate, that's pretty much good enough for me.

    Some people get mad at windbags who spend more time trying to
    articulate an answer around the question or criticizing the
    question itself instead of just answering the thing, and some get
    mad at people who don't get into lots of detail because they
    think if they give a short answer they are just "blowin' them
    off" and stuff.

    Human behavior is just wacky all over the place. I just keep
    eatin, sleepin and grinnin. Seems to get me through the day. :)

    >> I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since
    >> they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling
    >> down. Hard to please everyone, it seems. :)

    >
    > I really wonder at people who seem to think pressing the
    > down-arrow key or the page-down key is just so difficult.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007
    #17
  18. Ok. I was actually not looking for a terribly specific answer,
    just a general one like "It seems that 1/1.8" is really not that
    effective about 6mp, in my opinion" or something like that. Or
    maybe "I think 1/1.8" sorta maxes out at 8mp in general before
    you get to a point of diminishing returns." No biggie. Thanks
    for the reply though - I do appreciate it.

    >> 80-400 probably

    >
    > Define "sufficient".
    > It depends on what you find acceptable.
    > You can go to many sites that review cameras and look at the
    > representative pictures, and even at specific pictures
    > designed to show noise (I assume you're worried about noise
    > from these sensors at the ISOs you mention). Decide for
    > yourself, because we really can't decide for you.
    > If the noise is acceptable to you, then the sensor is
    > sufficient for your needs.
    > It really is that simple.
     
    Paul D. Sullivan, Feb 11, 2007
    #18
  19. ? "ASAAR" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:...
    > On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:55:19 GMT, Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
    >
    > > Is a 1/1.8" (7.18 x 5.32 mm) sensor sufficient for 10mp and 12mp
    > > of data?
    > >
    > > Or would a larger sensor be preferrable, such as a 2/3" or even
    > > 4/3"?

    >
    > You've asked this question before, but worded a bit differently.
    > I thought that you understood the many answering replies, but . . .
    >
    > The answer is that it depends. On the photographer. On the
    > photographer's expectations. On the year. On the types of pictures
    > you'll take. On all sorts of things, and for some photographers,
    > not only will a 1/1.8" sensor forever be insufficient, some only
    > accept FF sensors, deeming even APS-C sensors deficient due to their
    > "insanely small pixels". Many others think that 1/1.8" sensors are
    > more than sufficient for their needs, even with their large numbers
    > of small pixels. The answers you get can only represent
    > individual's preferences, and while it's unfortunate, you really
    > have to form your own preferences by examination and testing, either
    > of your own images or those taken by other photographers. If your
    > preferences are formed by agreeing with someone that makes a good
    > case for why *that individual* likes a particular type of sensor,
    > you'll never have the satisfaction of discovering for yourself what
    > works for *you*. Some find it simpler to be followers, becoming
    > disciples of a photographic guru. And if that guru suddenly decides
    > that not only are 4/3" sensors too small, now even APS-C sensors are
    > as well, followers will follow to the Full Frame Promised Land, even
    > if they've never made a single print any larger than 8" x 10" and
    > have no desire to ever do so.
    >
    > If you can't afford to buy and try many cameras, you could easily
    > download images produced by those 1/1.8", 2/3" and 4/3" sensors, and
    > determine for yourself if they're lacking in the resolution that you
    > want, or are too noisy at high ISOs for your purposes. I think
    > that this has been suggested before. The answers that you're
    > seeking will come from people whose tastes differ. That doesn't
    > mean that some are right and that the others are wrong. What I'm
    > trying to say is that at some point you need to end the asking and
    > do your own tasting.
    >

    AFAIK the OP wants an unbiased, blanket opinion?
    I don't think that's possible in today's world.It's not like asking a
    question of pure physics, "how many HP of motorage needs that deep well"?It
    depends on what anyone likes, and many other regulars here suggest to read
    reviews of cameras, and go to a shop and see for yourself how that camera
    "feels" in your hand.I bought a Kodak CX 7300 because then I didn't have
    more money, now with 144 euros I'd get at least 5 MP (the CX 7300 is 3.2)and
    I'm making lots of A4s.



    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
     
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Feb 11, 2007
    #19
  20. Paul D. Sullivan

    Alfred Molon Guest

    In article <HsEzh.1970$ov2.166@trndny06>, Paul D. Sullivan says...
    > I keep hearing from students and folks with laptops that since
    > they only have 800 vertical pixels, they get annoyed scrolling
    > down. Hard to please everyone, it seems. :)


    Agree. Often messages are not trimmed, so you have to scroll down all
    the way, so top posting is better. But some people are very religious
    about this issue.
    --

    Alfred Molon
    ------------------------------
    Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E300, E330, E400 and E500 forum at
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
     
    Alfred Molon, Feb 11, 2007
    #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. dave

    1.3 crop 12MP canon this fall

    dave, May 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    684
    Skip M
    May 4, 2005
  2. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,424
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  3. JimW

    12mp and 24 zoom

    JimW, Apr 18, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    382
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    429
    nospam
    Apr 7, 2012
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,122
    J. Clarke
    Jun 7, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page