Any Advantage to Full Frame?

Started Aug 26, 2014 | Questions thread
KSV Veteran Member • Posts: 3,351
Re: I would argue
2

MisterHairy wrote:

KSV wrote:

MisterHairy wrote:

KSV wrote:

MisterHairy wrote:

KSV wrote:

MisterHairy wrote:

KSV wrote:

MisterHairy wrote:

KSV wrote:

MisterHairy wrote:

romfordbluenose wrote:

5th street wrote:

Matsu wrote:

A larger recording surface allows for larger reproduction and more overall dynamic range.

This is something I've been puzzling over and I don't understand. If each sensor has 24 MP then it seems to me that (unlike film where a larger film has more sensitive area to be exposed to light) if the larger sensor (D610) has the same number of pixels as the smaller sensor (D5300 or D7100), the resolution should be the same. For example if you took identical photos with the two size sensors, the ability to crop and enlarge a part of the photo would be equal. The large sensor camera and the small sensor camera (with the same total pixel count) could be printed with roughly equal success on large paper. Of course, in the case of the D810, the greater pixels would lead to better enlargements. I'm using common sense with this and might be overlooking something.

This comment applies to your term "larger reproduction".

I don't understand enough about dynamic range vs pixel count to comment. I would appreciate further explanation. Thanks.

The difference is the size of the pixels which is important. Larger pixels can take more light, improve dynamic range, produce less noise and improve IQ and detail.

The D610 and D810 both have better noise characteristics than the D700 so clearly, "pixel" size is not the controlling factor.

You may respond that the D700 is older technology, and while that is a valid comment, when comparing contemporary technology, the larger sensor always produces the better print, and the resolution of the sensor becomes immaterial after a point.

Of course, to prove this to yourself, you would have to process and print the images to see.

Up until 6400 D700 and Df returning pretty much the same results. So "old" technologies not that bad after all. High ISO improvements in Df IMHO because of noise reduction on sensor. Both D610 and D810 shows worse results than Df regarding high ISO and frankly D610 looks better to me than D810. Df sensor (D4 technology) is older then D610. So size of pixel is paramount -bigger is indeed better - and you cannot fool laws of physics.

I continuously print A3+ and I do know from practice that 12MP are plenty even with moderate crop. So I do believe that we saturated with resolution and I indeed prefer better pixels rather then more of them. YMMV and can do so on big margin.

I have a D810 and a Df and if I shoot an image on each at ISO6400, correctly exposed, and print them both at the same size, the Df image does not look any better. That is with a critical eye as well. This is precisely what I have been doing this past weekend.

I bought the Df precisely because it is very clean but when printing, even at 16x10, that advantage disappears.

We are past the point of discussing "better pixels". It is now about "better sensors".

"Better sensor" indeed must contain "better pixels".

If you believe that you have the same results from lower-res sensor why then I need higher-res one? Just to battle with mammoth files? So-called "crop freedom" evaporates once you digitally enlarge image ultimately enlarging noise as well

Why are you talking about resolution when the actual discussion is about sensor size?? You do rather seem to be missing the point.

And no. A better sensor gives better overall images, not better "per-pixel" images. The two are not the same. Maybe you don't get that and that is why you are talking about resolution (in terms of pixel counts) and that is fine, but it is not the point.

Ok, I agree that Df sensor is better then D610 and D8x0. My theory that it is better because bigger pixels and I do not need exact exposure, correctly dowmsampling and accurate postprocessing, but rather can use images directly from camera with minimum adjustment to exposure if necessarily. And I prefer this simplicity. What next?

I am very happy for you. Now, if your Df's sensor were twice as large (and the lenses could cover it) then the images would be even better.

Absolutely! We just need to be sure that pixel count remains the same. Or still better came back to golden number 12MP

Not at all. If you doubled the area of the sensor and thus doubled the pixel count to 32MP (keeping pixel pitch unchanged therefore) then your printed images would still look better (previous lens caveat remembered) than the "vanilla" Df. People forget the importance of reproduction ratio and can mistakenly attribute the benefit of a lower ratio to larger pixels.

It is correct. However if we double area and keep pixelcount the same (thus reducing pixel pitch and increase pixel size) then we have yet even better printed image.

So we are in agreement that keeping the same pixel pitch the same and expanding the area of the sensor to reduce reproduction ratio will improve the quality of the output. This is good and is consistent with my original comment of "the larger sensor always produces the better print, and the resolution of the sensor becomes immaterial after a point.". So long as both of our imaginary sensors have enough linear resolution for the required print dimensions then both will be expected to be better than the Df of real life.

All good. Thanks.

If we keep pixel size the same then increasing sensor size is for sure improve print quality. If we keep pixelcount the same and increase sensor size (thereby increasing pixel size) it improve print quality even more. If we keep sensor size the same and increase pixelcount then it may improve print quality if we have not enough pixel to start with (at this stage we have plenty). If we increase sensor size and decrease pixel size then it depends - too many variables, but generally I incline to think that it will improve print quality. Generally I fully agree that increasing sensor size will improve print output, my point that it improve it even more if we increase pixel size at the same time, providing as you said linear resolution is good enough.

 KSV's gear list:KSV's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D700 Nikon Df Nikon AF Nikkor 24mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
KSV
KSV
KSV
KSV
KSV
KSV
KSV
KSV
KSV
KSV
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow