If so, then longer reach by more MP would likely a myth ?
Sorry Joe, I don't get it here. What direction ?
Well, it's okay.
Yes.
LOL ;D
Effective reach is a function of the pixel density, not the number of pixels -- the greater the pixel density, the greater the reach. However, for the same framing without cropping, the image with the greater number of pixels will have the advantage.
The 40D, being more modern, if anything, should have a more efficient sensor and/or more efficient microlens covering, which means that it "should" have less that a 1/3 stop difference in per-pixel noise over the 20D, if anything, and certainly not more.
Entirely possible. But if the f-ratio and shutter speed are the same, the images should be exposed the same, regardless of the gain, for the same scene.
You're right.
Yes, I agree. 40D is more modern, so it must be more efficient.
Yes, I set them in the same f-ratio & shutter speed.
Actually it is an advantage. The 40D's inbody flash is practically useless unless you want to use the camera as P&S
Why is that ?
That's true. You get what you paid for.
--that is if you do understand it.
--
http://www.pbase.com/zylen
'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and
beat you with experience'
how can you compare this scenario to the chicken and the egg? with the chicking and the egg, there is a paradox..which one came first? the chicken or the egg?
My only logical explanation for this is that the chickens were made first by God or similar powerfull and intelligent being who can program the DNA to produce the chickens..then those chickens can reproduce by making eggs.--
--
maybe so but your subject is sharper with the 40D..even the hair is soft with the 5D..In his case I do prefer the 40D shot as I think the DOF is too shalow with the 5D.
Well, a more modern sensor doesn't have to be more efficient, but one would think it would be at least as efficient.
Yes.
Wish I had an answer for you, but that one has me stumped.
More pixels will yield more detail. And while each pixel will not be receive as much light, the total light will be the same, so total image noise, for the same sensor efficiency, will also be the same.
In theory, it's possible, but the current implementation of Foveon technology has technological hurdles that prevent it. Under the worst of conditions, a Bayer array will only capture 1/3 of the light that falls on it, but in practice, a Bayer sensor captures about half of the light that falls on it, since there is more green light than the other colors in most circumstances, thus doing better than the 33% efficiency you would think.
Well, I did say "kinda like" -- at least it was better than saying "it's kinda like why the chicken crossed the road". : )how can you compare this scenario to the chicken and the egg? with
the chicking and the egg, there is a paradox..which one came first?
the chicken or the egg?
it is a paradox because you can't have chicken without the egg and
you can't have eggs without chickens.
so..which one came first?
OK, let's presume there's a God for a moment that designed the entire Universe (well, now the Multiverse, as we're coming to understand), including chickens. Let's also presume that God had some sort of purpose with this design, rather than "Hey, let's see what happens!"
For the same perspective and f-ratio, yes. Well, there! You got it!
Yeah, I hear you. I argue with myself all the time with the same results. : )
I agree completely. I want all the reach I can get. The 40D gets me 60% closer than any FF camera. In fact, I've posted before that if I see cameras all moving to full frame in the future, I'll stock up on some non-FF specimens.
No. The size of the sensor is irrelevant to the resolving power (often called "reach"). It's the size of the pixels that matters. It happens that the smaller sensors tend to have smaller pixels, but not by nearly as much as the 1.6-crop factor would lead you to believe. The larger sensors tend to have more pixels.
That is not likely. Canon likes to announce cameras at big trade shows. It is expected to announce the 5D MKII in photokina 08. The 45D, or successor to the 40D, will likely be introduced at next year's PMA, held in Feb. 08.
The viewfinder of full frame cameras are bigger than APS-C. And the medium format cameras are bigger still. Bigger viewfinders let you see more of the picture you are taking and also in better detail. That makes for more accurate focusing and framing.
Yes they are. And they can shoot much faster than the 5D as well.
The difference is there, but it is not huge. It is not the same order of magnitude as the difference between the 20D and the digicams that have tiny sensors. Noise is lower with the 5D at high ISO settings, but the difference is slight. The main advantage of the 5D is that you can use full frame wide angle lenses without having to buy APS-C only glass. Most APS-C only glass are not as fast as their full frame equivalent in focal length and zoom range. To many people, the 20D and 40D are good enough. For those who are not satisfied with good enough, they would want the 5D. The difference between a Mercedes Benz or BMW and many Japanese cars costing half as much is slight, but the differences are there and they are real. It is up to the buyer to decide whether he/she wants to pay a lot more for a slight difference in performance.
The 5D has pixels that are nearly twice as big as those on the 450D. Both have about 12 million pixels. Big pixels mean better signal/noise ratio, better dynamic range and lower noise at high ISO settings. Since the 5D has a sensor that is about twice as big as that of the 40D, the image formed on the 5D sensor does not have to be enlarged quite as much as the same image from the 40D. We know for that a bigger negative produces sharper prints with less noise. This holds true in the digital era as well. Further, it has been known for a long time that the bigger the negative, the less sharp a lens would need to be. That is because the human eye can only resolve about 6 line pairs per mm. A negative that need to be enlarged 10 times would therefore need a lens that must resolve at least 60 lp/mm. A negative that is large enough to produce 10" prints without enlargement, on the other hand, would only need a lens that can resolve no more than 10 lp/mm. So, you don't need a razor shapr lens on a large sensor but you would need them on a smaller sensor. That means an average lens can produce good results on the 5D, whereas you would need L glass on a 40D sensor to produce the same results.
Good point, and thanks for Anastigmat's post directly below yours which amplifies the case. It's not exactly 1.6. Plus the lower noise on the FF does allow more uprezzing. But I still love that extra reach right out of the camera. I suppose a clean FF 30 MP camera will be better for me than a 10 MP cropped-sensor camera.
If you do not need it, you can always crop it out of the final print. But it is impossible to recover what was excluded. Say, you are shooting a bird, and you excluded part of the tail. It is not possible to get the tail back into the final print.
Not only that, but some tilt-shift lenses work best when they are on a full frame. A 28mm tilt and shift lens is much more useful than a 45mm tilt and shift.
Yes, but there is no Ef-S tilt and shift lens. An excellent 24-105mm L lens is a much less useful 38mm zoom on the 20D.
Precisely. It is important when shooting wildlife and sports to have low noise at high ISO settings.
The higher pixel density does not always translate into greater details. Greater pixel density means the sensor can resolve more line pairs per mm. But that also puts more demand on the lens, which must also resolve enough to take advantage of the sensor's resolution. Bob Atkins calculated that the 8mp 1.6x Canon sensor, IIRC, has a resolution equal to about 70 line pairs per mm. The 40D would be slightly higher in resolution than 70 lp/mm So, a telephoto lens must be capable of at least 70 line pairs per mm to take full advantage of the 1.6x crop sensor. The 5D, on the other hand, is not as demanding on the lens because its sensor has lower resolution and because images from it do not have to be enlarged as much as an image from the 40D sensor. The 5D is like a mini-medium format camera, and it is well known that medium format camera lenses need not be as sharp as 35mm lenses to produce a sharp image because of the larger negative.
It is no doubt that sensor technology will improve. But keep in mind that these improvements can also be implemented on the full frame DSLR cameras. That means the gap between full frame and 1.6x crop cameras of the same generation will likely remain the same. The 40D is one generation ahead of the 5D, but the 5D MKII will have the same technological advances found in the 40D. The 40D has closed the gap somewhat on the 5D in terms of image quality, but the 5D MKII should widen the gap again.
they help reduce the amount of humans on Earth..amount is still growing so fast that it is obvious moskitos are losing the battle.Well, I did say "kinda like" -- at least it was better than sayinghow can you compare this scenario to the chicken and the egg? with
the chicking and the egg, there is a paradox..which one came first?
the chicken or the egg?
it is a paradox because you can't have chicken without the egg and
you can't have eggs without chickens.
so..which one came first?
"it's kinda like why the chicken crossed the road". : )
OK, let's presume there's a God for a moment that designed the entire
Universe (well, now the Multiverse, as we're coming to understand),
including chickens. Let's also presume that God had some sort of
purpose with this design, rather than "Hey, let's see what happens!"
So, given all that, I have one question: where do mosquitos and
flies fit in?
Maybe there was a good reason for them...as well as virus
--
--
Well, there you go. He should have kept the dinosaurs and skipped the mosquitos, then. : )
Well, maybe. OK, explain Mullets and bell bottoms, then. What kind of God would allow that? : )Maybe there was a good reason for them...as well as virus
