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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steven M. Scharf, May 14, 2004.

  1. Hey Dilbert, here something really funny... Foveon's 16MP prototype
    was monochromatic, it had 16M monochromatic sensors arranged in a 2D
    pattern. You would have to classify it as 16 full color MPs, because
    you could put a color mosiac in front of it.

    Now that is truly hillarious.
    George Preddy, May 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. The "advantage" of a smaller sensor is that it is shooting through the
    part of the lens with the least aberration. Of course you're paying a
    big price for this, because the smaller the sensor, the larger the
    crop factor. So if you really want wide angle, you'd have to go to say
    a 12-20 lens, rather than say a 17-35, which be prohibitively

    The reason why the professional cameras use full-frame sensors is
    because the pros won't put up with these crop factors. They already
    know about the issues at the edges, and compensate for them, the CA
    problem is not unique to digital.

    Canon EOS-1D Mark II is a compromise for a lower cost camera, but
    nothing like the compromises on the Sigma SD10 or the Olympus E1, both
    solidly in the consumer D-SLR category.

    If there is a good thing about the smaller sensors, it's that you can
    use lower quality lenses with less problems, which of course is a good
    thing for consumer level cameras. Olympus and Sigma don't have any
    professional grade lenses, so don't expect full frame D-SLRs from
    either of them.

    Sigma is building a new model with a full frame 13.5Mp Kodak sensor,
    but it uses the Canon lens mount, so you can use the professional
    Canon L lenses. This is being sold by Kodak as the DCS-SLR/c. It has
    potential, and it's much less than the EOS-1Ds, but the Nikon version
    had noise issues at higher ISO settings. It's a good strategy for
    Kodak, especially for studio photographers who generally have been
    using either Canon or Nikon film cameras, and for studio photographers
    who were using the original Foveon studio camera (Canon mount). In a
    studio, you're generally not shooting at higher ISO settings anyway,
    and the Kodak DCS/c is about 1/2 the price of a Canon EOS-1Ds.
    Steven Scharf, May 15, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Not only that. If a sensor is 1/K the size of the 35 frame, you need to
    enlarge the image you get by an additional factor of K to get the same
    size print, which means that the lens resolution *also* needs to be a
    factor of K better just to keep the print resolution the same. Thus
    the center of the image needs to be quite a bit sharper than the edges
    for this to even break even.

    Dave Martindale, May 15, 2004
  4. You didn't know that shooting center glass was better? Why do you
    guys post here? Is there no Bayer user with any knowledge of
    I've posted hundreds, isn't that enough?
    George Preddy, May 15, 2004
  5. I can say that again.
    George Preddy, May 15, 2004
  6. Talking to yourself? Why?

    Bart van der Wolf, May 15, 2004
  7. Steven M. Scharf

    Steve Moody Guest

    Why does Sigma not know that the sd9 is a 13.72 mega pixel camera?
    Why is it that we sigma and everyone but you think that the sd9 is a
    3.43 mega pixel camera? Could it be that you are clueless?

    Steve Moody, May 16, 2004
  8. Steven M. Scharf

    Steve Moody Guest

    The Bayer sensor in the Digital Rebel has 6.3 million effective


    The Foveon sensor in the sd9 has 3.43 million effective pixels.


    Buy a clue. Steal a clue. Borrow and clue. Copy a clue. Make a
    clue. Whatever you do, George, GET A CLUE.

    To get 13.73 mega pixels from the sd9, the image has to be
    Steve Moody, May 16, 2004
  9. You are terrified to touch this subject, it so clearly proves you've
    been wrong from the start. I'll say it again...

    Foveon's prototype 16MP fully monochrome sensor would have been called
    a "full color 16MP" sensor by Bayer DSLR manufacturers--simply because
    they would place a plastic mosiac filter in front of it to block 67%
    of the light.
    George Preddy, May 16, 2004
  10. Steven M. Scharf

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    No, it would be called a color *camera* if it had a CFA over it.
    First of all, they don't block that much light. Secondly, your beloved
    SD9 blocks 70% of the light by not having microlenses. This is worse
    than losing light quantity; you are losing spatial information, not just
    JPS, May 16, 2004
  11. Apparently, reading comprehension is still a challenge to you.

    The question was why are you talking to yourself? You seem to be developing
    a Multiple Personality Disorder, so do seek help before it gets worse.


    Bart van der Wolf, May 16, 2004
  12. Even you know it would be called "16MP full color" by lowly Bayer
    manufacturers. Now, that, is a joke.

    Why? Because they'd block 67% of the light from hitting it.
    Georgette Preddy, May 16, 2004
  13. Apparently you've given up.
    Georgette Preddy, May 16, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.