-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Anynone care to comment on this hypothesis. bobn2 etc?
- Thread starter Lance B
- Start date
Robert Palmqvist
Leading Member
I think there is many valid points but I don't shoot FX based on SNR but on DOF and available glass. I have been shooting with D4, D700, D800 and D7000. I don't need normalization to know what they all do well and where they fall short. Just use them for what they where made for, get out and shoot instead of normalize graphs (even if it might be tempting from an analytical point of view) and you will soon find out for yourself (e.g. If you prefer the D7000 over the D800 etc.). If the camera gets the job done then it's a good enough camera. Be it FF, crop, old, new, retro or vintage...
Notice he doesn't compare the d7000 directly with the d4
and up scaling the d4 to the d800 doesn't take into account resolution
he doesn't touch on the real situations where smaller sensors are just as good as larger sensors
Hi Lance, put me down as an idiot who just can't appreciate good scientific analysis. If Demo Mateo can produce better images from my D7000 than he can from my D800 I would like to see them.
It all sounds impressive on paper but I live in the visual world and there is a vast difference between the quality and dynamic range abilitlies of the two cameras. I'll stick my head in the sand and be happy with the inferior sensor on the D800,
It all sounds impressive on paper but I live in the visual world and there is a vast difference between the quality and dynamic range abilitlies of the two cameras. I'll stick my head in the sand and be happy with the inferior sensor on the D800,
LOL. Same here, mate!
arachnophilia
Senior Member
and so what?
doesn't output to a standard size represent, you know, real world use?
doesn't output to a standard size represent, you know, real world use?
Kaj E
Forum Pro
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 blowing smoke 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
Last edited:
I
inasir1971
Guest
The Web - empowering crackpots and cretins for over two decades.
D
dtmateojr
Guest
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.
- 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.
- Sensor size has got nothing to do with light gathering capability at all. It's a myth.
D
dtmateojr
Guest
P.S.
I own a full frame and a medium format camera too. They produce the same crap. Have a go through my gallery and see if you can pick which one was captured with a point and shoot, a m43, aps-c or full frame or film: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dtmateojr
I own a full frame and a medium format camera too. They produce the same crap. Have a go through my gallery and see if you can pick which one was captured with a point and shoot, a m43, aps-c or full frame or film: https://www.flickr.com/photos/dtmateojr
You will be able to save an awful lot of money by just keeping the P&S then.
Kaj E
Forum Pro
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 itThanks 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.
- 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.
- Sensor size has got nothing to do with light gathering capability at all. It's a myth.
), 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
Last edited:
Flashlight
Veteran Member
...if you're talking about the same image content (FOV, DOF, noise, DR, movement blur etc.) sensor size doesn't matter.
D
dtmateojr
Guest
Kaj E
Forum Pro
D
dtmateojr
Guest
Grevture
Senior Member
He claims to debunk myths, when he is actually perpetuating old misunderstandings.
Moreover, it seem to written specifically to provoke debate. Look at the repeated use of phrases like "full frame superiority" which smell a lot like flame bait.
There will probably always be a small group of people who will spend lot of time and effort devising yet more advanced "theories" to disprove fairly simple basic facts of life. Like the one that a larger area will be hit by more light then a smaller one, all else being equal.
The notion that a larger area for gathering light can be very beneficial is not something invented recently by proponents of full frame digital cameras. It has been a fairly well established fact throughout the photographic history, from the ye' old days of glass plates, through all the years of film and into the digital era.
The dude you linked to is just a recent addition to the photographic version of the flat earth society
Reilly Diefenbach
Forum Pro
Kaj E
Forum Pro
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.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.So what was the math in your post? Do you mean the graphs from DxO labs.You mention physics but you do not believe the math in my post?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 itThanks 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.
- 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.
- Sensor size has got nothing to do with light gathering capability at all. It's a myth.
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
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/
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
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
Last edited:
Flashlight
Veteran Member
Yes but the resulting image from the larger format has less DOF so you're comparing apples with oranges. Once you compensate for that both total surfaces receive the same amount of light.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum