Not just Nikon

Moderated by: chrisbet,

Sensor sizes

Author	Post

Posted by Judith: Sun Aug 31st, 2014 02:02

1^st Post

Someone in my local photography group emailed out this link to a video about sensor size. I found it quite interesting to see the different digital sensor sizes laid out side-by-side compared to the sizes of old negatives. I have a very visual mind so seeing it like this made a lot more sense to me than people just talking about it on a forum! :thumbsup:

You may of course disagree with what he says but I liked his visual aids.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PHYidejT3KY?list=UUZHbHSrpq6d2sd_jA3M7_bg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And here's his accompanying article (which I haven't had time to read yet):

http://dedpxl.com/crop-or-crap-math-or-moment/

Posted by Judith: Sun Aug 31st, 2014 02:03

2^nd Post

Hmmm...looks like the embed code didn't work - here is link to the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHYidejT3KY&list=UUZHbHSrpq6d2sd_jA3M7_bg

Posted by Robert: Sun Aug 31st, 2014 08:11

3^rd Post

Thanks for posting Judith.

The quest for a small sensor really took off with digital, before that 110 film was about as small as the 'sensor' size went. Size seems to be driven by convenience, image quality by what is achievable. I wouldn't use my iPhone photographs for anything other than snapshots when I don't have a 'proper' camera to hand. I have used both to take the same subject under the same conditions and there is no comparison.

One question seems to be begging: Where do we go from HERE?

I suspect the IQ from the iPhone size sensors will improve but is there sufficient imperative to go smaller, after all it's small enough to fit in a matchbox now, apart from covert stuff, I can't see any need to go smaller, so, are camera designers due to be retired once they have an iPhone sensor up to it's maximum practical resolution and IQ? This stuff has limits, the laws of physics will get in the way of development eventually, not to mention the laws of diminishing returns.

For me the D200 takes a very acceptable photograph. If I had a pot of money I might be tempted to get a D3 but I don't see any reason to go beyond that for my needs.

I think the most pertinent point the chap in the video makes is that the most important part of the photography process is the nut behind the camera.

It's said, an amateur worries about the gear, a pro worries if the client will pay up and the master worries about the light.

I have to admit I haven't read the article yet either... I suspect it will make my head hurt! LOL o.O

Back to the manuscript! ;-)

____________________
Robert.

Posted by jk: Sun Aug 31st, 2014 10:34

4^th Post

This may make it even easier to visualise.

Attachment: image.jpg (Downloaded 32 times)

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted by Robert: Sun Aug 31st, 2014 15:04

5^th Post

jk wrote:
This may make it even easier to visualise.

Well it might have it it had been 1:1 actual life size and included Nikon DX and FX frame sizes, oh, and the micro, 'phone camera sizes...

I would but I just haven't the time right now! o.O

____________________
Robert.

Posted by jk: Sun Aug 31st, 2014 15:26

6^th Post

Visualization depends on screen size and resolution.
You cant make some thing 1:1 on screen unless you change screen resolution and size.

APS-C ((Standard) x1.5 mag relative to FX) = Nikon DX
FX = 36mm x 24mm Actual size may be +/- 1mm
DX = 23mm x 15mm Actual size may be +/- 1mm

Phone sizes are variable by make and like you say barely imaging devices!
I am sure that some people will disagree with this but if you look at the image on an A4 print then it is horrible.

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted by jk: Mon Sep 1st, 2014 08:17

7^th Post

For the film enthusiasts.

Attachment: image.jpg (Downloaded 24 times)

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

Posted by Robert: Tue Sep 2nd, 2014 01:48

8^th Post

Thanks JK, that is within 5% the right size on my screen. Gives a good impression of actual frame sizes for comparison. What was the 24 X 18? I think 110 was smaller than that and of course 60 X 45 was a very popular medium format size with a range of cameras like the Bronica 645.

One thing we have to remember is the film resolution didn't really change that much over the recent timescale. Granted in the early days the grain was pretty coa**e but once it had reached a plateau in the development it was pretty much the same whatever format you used, so larger format WAS better from an IQ point of view, to that extent film and digital are a bit different.

From a digital point of view larger photosites gather more light and are less susceptible to electronic noise, so from that aspect they are better.

But, what really matters, to me anyway, is how good the user needs the image to be. Most digital images are displayed and viewed on computer screens, which tend not to be ten foot wide.

I have made prints from my D200 which are cropped and more than 30 inches across the diagonal, which have drawn admiring viewers to exclaim at the quality of the image. The lab told me I could go bigger, I don't need more than that.

____________________
Robert.

Posted by jk: Tue Sep 2nd, 2014 08:59

9^th Post

Yes I agree with you on the film and grain thing.

I had 35mm Nikon, 6x6 Hasselblad and 5x4" MPP . It was difficult to see the difference between 6x6 and 5x4 but there was a just about discernible difference. However between 35mm and 6x6 it became more obvious as the 6x6 images tended to look smoother (creamier).
However when you check the convenience factor then 35mm wins out big time.

In digital unless you really push the ISO then there is a small difference when you compare FX and DX. If you look at the MF options then there are no real 6x6 digital backs other than the early ones. Most MF backs are either 44x33 (645 like) or similar sizing but vary from 12MP to 200MP. Results are staggeringly good but this is because they are frequently used in studio with flash and the iRAW mages are also 16bit. That said in studio with my D3 shooting with flash I get very good detailed results from 12bit RAW images of only 12MP.
So who need more other than pixel gazers and art editors!
I know that I couldnt afford a full digital Hasselblad outfit but I do have a very comprehensive Nikon and Fuji outfit that can yield better image quality than I can shoot some days.

____________________
Still learning after all these years!
https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none

1st new

This is topic ID = 1087
Nikon DSLR Forums > Camera and Lens Forums > Cameras > Sensor sizes	Top
Users viewing this topic

Current theme is Blue

A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you.