Anynone care to comment on this hypothesis. bobn2 etc?

[Erik Magnuson]

Well, yes, but did you ever see an 8x10" digital camera?

Via scanning backs. Or you can do it via roughly 10x10 stitching with FF.

There's one stop difference between DX and FX

So the answer was not the bald "no", but instead "not much difference."

 

[Bmoon]

http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/megapixel-hallucinations/

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

He is right in that the D7000 captures the same amount of light as the D800's DX crop (the not normalized values). But not on the whole sensor size, which is what matters.

He further claims that if you downsize to a small print size the d880 is better. He also writes that if you size to what he calls "a 16Mp print" (sic!) the D800 "starts to show its weakness", but forgets that the D7000 does it even more noticeable. The truth is that the D800 is better at all comparable print sizes from the D7000. To compare the cameras you need to normalize the print size (or web image size).

He does not seem to have a clue about what he is talking about or then he is just an arrogant DX fan boy trying to prove that his D7000, or other DX camera, is the best knowing it is not the case.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

Thanks for the flattering description in the last paragraph

That article has three very important implications:
1. Had manufacturers avoided going too far with the megapickles (24mp aps-c anyone?) then we'd probably have smaller sensors that rival full frame. The D700 for example is a 7-year old technology and yet the D800 can't touch it in terms of pure pixel-level quality. Surely they could have already done that level of quality with aps-c by now.

1. Who consistently prints larger than 16mp? I've seen billboard-sized prints from a point and shoot camera and I have seen a video of a 12Mp Nikon image printed 5 storeys high.
2. Sensor size has got nothing to do with light gathering capability at all. It's a myth.

It is only the size of the sensor that determines how much light falls on the sensor. With technology improvments you can improve the quality of the individual pixels (or pickels as you scientifically put it ), but the advantage of sensor size remains. We are already that far in Bayer sensor technology that it would be very hard if not impossible to get the same quality out of a DX sensor than a modern full frame sensor (and then there would again be room to improve the full frame sensor as well).

You keep talking about 16 MP prints. This does not tell anything about print size, Print size is expressed in length units times length units.

For optimal quality with for instance a good Epson printer you need to print at 360 dpi (360ppi file) , the print quality is even slightly improved with 720 ppi. Based on this you can calculate how many pixels you would need to get an optimal print at different sizes.

If you only print small you do not need that many megapixels, but the larger sensor will give you other advantages such as increased dynamic range, less noise, better control of DOF etc. The advantage with billboards is that they typically are at a distance where you can't get up close to se how good the print is.

Sensor size definitely has to do with light gathering. you need to read up on physics 101.

Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

You mention physics but you do not believe the math in my post?
If you can't handle the math then try this:
http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/debunking-the-myth-of-full-frame-superiority-part-2/

So what was the math in your post? Do you mean the graphs from DxO labs.

The link you provide is more of the same uninformed misinformation.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

If you can't read then I doubt if you know physics or math. I have no intention of further educating you. Thanks for wasting my time.

Thank you for the reply. I will try to educate you regarding the reference to film in you last link. You do not need different emulsion films for different size film because the light gathered per, for instance, a square mm of film is the same regardless of format. But the larger the format the more square mm there are. So the larger sensor gathers more light over its total surface, q.e.d.

This is the same train of thought as the DX crop from a D800 vs. the full frame.

Capisce?

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

ROFL! And what has that got to do with photography? What has total light gathered got to do with photographic exposure

Nothing exposure is irrelevant across formats

or anything remotely related to photography?

Things like DR, noise and the visual size of the grain noise

you know things that are important to some photographers

Please explain and I will listen. Heck, the world will listen to your genius.

I'll go grab some popcorn... nyahaha!!!

 

[AM4L]

This should scientifically address this.

Loading…

www.invensense.com

 

[Erik Magnuson]

My film example was to address the myth of "better light gathering" capability. Larger film of course has benefits but that is not what I was trying to explain there.

If I put an array of 18x24 cups in a field to collect rain and a 24x36 array of the same size cup, then both might collect 2cm per cup (rains a lot here) but which array has better water gathering capability? What if the array is 48x72 smaller cups so that they cover the same area? Each cup may now have only 0.5cm of water but has the total water gathering capability changed?

That article is all about light gathering vs format size in which I concluded that this is immaterial. If total amount of light has anything remotely to do with photographic exposure

It has to do with what exposure is acceptable for the given purpose (size of output vs. noise.) If you have sufficient light that even the smaller sensor can produce an essentially noiseless image, then additional light gathering is irrelevant.

But it doesn't. The same "rule" applies to any format. Why? Because all that matters is f-stop and shutter speed which results in a constant LIGHT PER UNIT AREA given a constant ambient light source. Total amount of light is meaningless.

Total light is only meaningless if you never look at the total image. How do you view your images?

 

[Flashlight]

Well, yes, but did you ever see an 8x10" digital camera?

Via scanning backs. Or you can do it via roughly 10x10 stitching with FF.

10x10 stitching with a pinhole... OK

There's one stop difference between DX and FX

So the answer was not the bald "no", but instead "not much difference."

The answer was "Well, no. By that time (f/22,f/32) diffraction will equalize the images of all sensor sizes.", which still seems quite accurate ;-)

 

[dtmateojr]

My film example was to address the myth of "better light gathering" capability. Larger film of course has benefits but that is not what I was trying to explain there.

If I put an array of 18x24 cups in a field to collect rain and a 24x36 array of the same size cup, then both might collect 2cm per cup (rains a lot here) but which array has better water gathering capability? What if the array is 48x72 smaller cups so that they cover the same area? Each cup may now have only 0.5cm of water but has the total water gathering capability changed?

Wrong again. Do you understand how a rain gauge works? Size of cup does not matter. It will collect rain of the same height. I have explained that here:

https://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/rain-can-teach-us-photography/

That article is all about light gathering vs format size in which I concluded that this is immaterial. If total amount of light has anything remotely to do with photographic exposure

It has to do with what exposure is acceptable for the given purpose (size of output vs. noise.) If you have sufficient light that even the smaller sensor can produce an essentially noiseless image, then additional light gathering is irrelevant.

That's a bit short-sighted. What matters is light PER unit area. Of course you need to have light but you stopped thinking there. Think further. That light is spread inside the sensor chamber. Light intensity is what you need to consider. Light intensity is affected by focal length but volume remains constant. That is very basic photography.

But it doesn't. The same "rule" applies to any format. Why? Because all that matters is f-stop and shutter speed which results in a constant LIGHT PER UNIT AREA given a constant ambient light source. Total amount of light is meaningless.

Total light is only meaningless if you never look at the total image. How do you view your images?

Same as you do. The only difference is that I understand it better than a lot of people here.

--
Erik

 

[Erik Magnuson]

10x10 stitching with a pinhole... OK

With pinhole vignetting you'd probably need more than 10x10 ;-)

 

[Kaj E]

Nobody here argues that there is any difference between the DX crop from a full frame camera and a technically corresponding DX camera. The whole discussion is about the "light gathering" (in bold in the "author's" "article") of full frame vs. DX crop.

In addition you can look at his summary in the first link.

Do you agree with those points? In my opinion they are at best an indication of clouded logic. Also read how he tries to dispute that a full frame sensor collects more light in his second link where he refers to film.

 

[David314]

Same as you do. The only difference is that I understand it better than a lot of people here.

 

[dtmateojr]

http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/05/19/megapixel-hallucinations/

--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b
http://i.pbase.com/o4/21/489821/1/53232844.SydneyPanoVertSmall.jpg

He is right in that the D7000 captures the same amount of light as the D800's DX crop (the not normalized values). But not on the whole sensor size, which is what matters.

He further claims that if you downsize to a small print size the d880 is better. He also writes that if you size to what he calls "a 16Mp print" (sic!) the D800 "starts to show its weakness", but forgets that the D7000 does it even more noticeable. The truth is that the D800 is better at all comparable print sizes from the D7000. To compare the cameras you need to normalize the print size (or web image size).

He does not seem to have a clue about what he is talking about or then he is just an arrogant DX fan boy trying to prove that his D7000, or other DX camera, is the best knowing it is not the case.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

Thanks for the flattering description in the last paragraph

That article has three very important implications:
1. Had manufacturers avoided going too far with the megapickles (24mp aps-c anyone?) then we'd probably have smaller sensors that rival full frame. The D700 for example is a 7-year old technology and yet the D800 can't touch it in terms of pure pixel-level quality. Surely they could have already done that level of quality with aps-c by now.

1. Who consistently prints larger than 16mp? I've seen billboard-sized prints from a point and shoot camera and I have seen a video of a 12Mp Nikon image printed 5 storeys high.
2. Sensor size has got nothing to do with light gathering capability at all. It's a myth.

It is only the size of the sensor that determines how much light falls on the sensor. With technology improvments you can improve the quality of the individual pixels (or pickels as you scientifically put it ), but the advantage of sensor size remains. We are already that far in Bayer sensor technology that it would be very hard if not impossible to get the same quality out of a DX sensor than a modern full frame sensor (and then there would again be room to improve the full frame sensor as well).

You keep talking about 16 MP prints. This does not tell anything about print size, Print size is expressed in length units times length units.

For optimal quality with for instance a good Epson printer you need to print at 360 dpi (360ppi file) , the print quality is even slightly improved with 720 ppi. Based on this you can calculate how many pixels you would need to get an optimal print at different sizes.

If you only print small you do not need that many megapixels, but the larger sensor will give you other advantages such as increased dynamic range, less noise, better control of DOF etc. The advantage with billboards is that they typically are at a distance where you can't get up close to se how good the print is.

Sensor size definitely has to do with light gathering. you need to read up on physics 101.

Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

You mention physics but you do not believe the math in my post?
If you can't handle the math then try this:
http://dtmateojr.wordpress.com/2014/06/10/debunking-the-myth-of-full-frame-superiority-part-2/

So what was the math in your post? Do you mean the graphs from DxO labs.

The link you provide is more of the same uninformed misinformation.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

If you can't read then I doubt if you know physics or math. I have no intention of further educating you. Thanks for wasting my time.

Thank you for the reply. I will try to educate you regarding the reference to film in you last link. You do not need different emulsion films for different size film because the light gathered per, for instance, a square mm of film is the same regardless of format. But the larger the format the more square mm there are. So the larger sensor gathers more light over its total surface, q.e.d.

This is the same train of thought as the DX crop from a D800 vs. the full frame.

Capisce?

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

ROFL! And what has that got to do with photography? What has total light gathered got to do with photographic exposure

Nothing exposure is irrelevant across formats

Yet you keep talking about total volume. You are funny. Or, you do not understand photography at all.

or anything remotely related to photography?

Things like DR, noise and the visual size of the grain noise

you know things that are important to some photographers

Pffft! That's light intensity not volume. Think.

WTH, why am I even trying to educate you...

Please explain and I will listen. Heck, the world will listen to your genius.

I'll go grab some popcorn... nyahaha!!!

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Wrong again. Do you understand how a rain gauge works?

If you dump out all of the cups into a barrel (because, science) which barrel has more total water? (Yeah, my second example was wrong because my cup was from the Tardis; bigger on the inside ;-)

What matters is light PER unit area.

Matters for what purpose? I'm talking about how the same size print will appear. Or same size screen image. You know, how we photographers tend to show our work to people?

Same as you do. The only difference is that I understand it better than a lot of people here.

Simple question then: You make an A3 print from a D7000 shot at ISO3200. Then you make an A3 print from a D800 shot at ISO6400. How would you compare these prints? A lot of people would say "put them on a wall and stand the same distance away." What difference would they see in the prints? With your superior understanding, how are they doing it wrong?

 

[dtmateojr]

Same as you do. The only difference is that I understand it better than a lot of people here.

 

[Luke Kaven]

You're repeating the most debunked concepts every brought forth on the subject. So many beginners fall into the same trap.

You need to read Emil Martinec's papers on noise. I mean that in all seriousness. You can't really enter into this discussion until you've assimilated that much.

It would also be good if you stopped referring to people who know more than you do as "grasshopper." You haven't got it yet.

 

[dtmateojr]

Wrong again. Do you understand how a rain gauge works?

If you dump out all of the cups into a barrel (because, science) which barrel has more total water? (Yeah, my second example was wrong because my cup was from the Tardis; bigger on the inside ;-)

What matters is light PER unit area.

Matters for what purpose? I'm talking about how the same size print will appear. Or same size screen image. You know, how we photographers tend to show our work to people?

Same as you do. The only difference is that I understand it better than a lot of people here.

Simple question then: You make an A3 print from a D7000 shot at ISO3200. Then you make an A3 print from a D800 shot at ISO6400. How would you compare these prints? A lot of people would say "put them on a wall and stand the same distance away." What difference would they see in the prints? With your superior understanding, how are they doing it wrong?

 

[dtmateojr]

You're repeating the most debunked concepts every brought forth on the subject. So many beginners fall into the same trap.

You need to read Emil Martinec's papers on noise. I mean that in all seriousness. You can't really enter into this discussion until you've assimilated that much.

It would also be good if you stopped referring to people who know more than you do as "grasshopper." You haven't got it yet.

Do you have a counter-argument or are you just trolling?

 

[Luke Kaven]

You're repeating the most debunked concepts every brought forth on the subject. So many beginners fall into the same trap.

You need to read Emil Martinec's papers on noise. I mean that in all seriousness. You can't really enter into this discussion until you've assimilated that much.

It would also be good if you stopped referring to people who know more than you do as "grasshopper." You haven't got it yet.

Do you have a counter-argument or are you just trolling?

Others have given good counterarguments. If you don't understand them, then you need remediation. As I said: read Emil Martinec's papers on noise in digital cameras. That was a helpful suggestion. If you're as smart as you think you are, then reading those papers should be a breeze for you.

 

[dtmateojr]

You're repeating the most debunked concepts every brought forth on the subject. So many beginners fall into the same trap.

You need to read Emil Martinec's papers on noise. I mean that in all seriousness. You can't really enter into this discussion until you've assimilated that much.

It would also be good if you stopped referring to people who know more than you do as "grasshopper." You haven't got it yet.

Do you have a counter-argument or are you just trolling?

Others have given good counterarguments. If you don't understand them, then you need remediation. As I said: read Emil Martinec's papers on noise in digital cameras. That was a helpful suggestion. If you're as smart as you think you are, then reading those papers should be a breeze for you.

Could you please repost the link. I might have missed that. Thanks.

 

[Luke Kaven]

You're repeating the most debunked concepts every brought forth on the subject. So many beginners fall into the same trap.

You need to read Emil Martinec's papers on noise. I mean that in all seriousness. You can't really enter into this discussion until you've assimilated that much.

It would also be good if you stopped referring to people who know more than you do as "grasshopper." You haven't got it yet.

Do you have a counter-argument or are you just trolling?

Others have given good counterarguments. If you don't understand them, then you need remediation. As I said: read Emil Martinec's papers on noise in digital cameras. That was a helpful suggestion. If you're as smart as you think you are, then reading those papers should be a breeze for you.

Could you please repost the link. I might have missed that. Thanks.

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/

 

[dtmateojr]

You're repeating the most debunked concepts every brought forth on the subject. So many beginners fall into the same trap.

You need to read Emil Martinec's papers on noise. I mean that in all seriousness. You can't really enter into this discussion until you've assimilated that much.

It would also be good if you stopped referring to people who know more than you do as "grasshopper." You haven't got it yet.

Do you have a counter-argument or are you just trolling?

Others have given good counterarguments. If you don't understand them, then you need remediation. As I said: read Emil Martinec's papers on noise in digital cameras. That was a helpful suggestion. If you're as smart as you think you are, then reading those papers should be a breeze for you.

Could you please repost the link. I might have missed that. Thanks.

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/

I have read that before. I have read better articles on noise. They are not in conflict with my arguments at all. If you think there is something in there that debunks my articles then please point it out in here. I am hungry and very open to new knowledge.

 

[Tom_Bruno]

If you can't read then I doubt if you know physics or math. I have no intention of further educating you. Thanks for wasting my time.

Man! What arrogance! I'm well versed in physics and math, and need no education at this level. It seems you do. Your "debunking" is revealing a bunko artist at work, and not a very clever one at that. .

Albert Einstein once famously said "I don't believe in mathematics. You can prove anything with mathematics." He had jerks like you in mind.

You're not talking here to ignoramuses. If you want to make a point, then communicate it intelligently. Not by low-grade insults and fuzzy self-referential nonsense. The only thing you've proved here is your own substandard mental and human abilities.

But I suppose this is your prime intention, namely wasting our time. I guess you got me. Here I am wasting time on a numbskull.

Here's a thought. Apply for a job at DxO labs. You'll give them a laugh for the day.
---------------
Tom B