| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/25/2008 08:57:45 AM · #1 |
Here are the comparisons:
Nikon D200, 10.2 MP, sensor 23.6 x 15.8 mm, surface = 372.88 mm^2, pixel density = 0.027 pixel.micrometer^-2
Nikon D200 with focal length of 200 mm x 1.5 (crop factor) = 300 mm, resolution of 10.2 MP
Nikon D300, 12.3 MP, sensor 23.6 x 15.8 mm, surface = 372.88 mm^2, pixel density = 0.032 pixel.micrometer^-2
Nikon D300 with focal length of 200 mm x 1.5 (crop factor) = 300 mm, resolution of 12.3 MP
Canon 5D, 12.8 MP, sensor 35.8 x 23.9 mm, surface = 855.62 mm^2, pixel density = 0.014 pixel.micrometer^-2
Canon 5D with focal length of 200 mm x 1.0 = 200 mm, resolution of 12.8 MP, or at 300 mm with a resolution of 5.22 MP
a FF sensor with pixel density of 0.027 pixel.micrometer^-2, then the resolution will be 23 MP.
a FF sensor with pixel density of 0.032 pixel.micrometer^-2, then the resolution will be 27.4 MP.
Advantage of FF : lower pixel density for the same amount of MP, larger sensor surface.
Drawback of FF: not as interesting as DX for longer focal lengths (unless you can afford very expensive glass), very expensive
Future: FF sensors need more MP (24 MP or more) for cropping, less expensive
Advantage of DX: cheaper solution at longer focal lengths with more than reasonable resolution.
Drawback of DX: larger pixel density (noise is still pretty well controlled with more recent DX cameras), pixel density limitation, ultra wide angles.
Future: I am not sure about it, I think the DX format will remain popular for a while. When the FF sensor will become affordable, that would be another story.
Message edited by author 2008-03-25 09:10:11. |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 09:12:11 AM · #2 |
To be honest,
That is a lot of spec,
But I have seen the picture quality of the FF and DX sensors.
I must say that the FF is much superior to the DX.
But well that is my opinion.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 09:41:38 AM · #3 |
This is funny IMO... Nikon a year or two back ruled out they wanted to go FF digital because all their bodies were DX and Canon had the mixed formats (EF & EFS)... now they have a FF body things seem to be in the same spot as Canon.
I think there will prob remain 2 levels for a few years but I am certainly minimising the crop lenses.... it was my biggest issue with the 10-22 and that is my only crop lens.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 10:56:16 AM · #4 |
| As long as the DX lenses remain compatible with FX cameras then I am ok with a mixed lineup. |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 11:40:03 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Advantage of FF : lower pixel density for the same amount of MP, larger sensor surface.
Drawback of FF: not as interesting as DX for longer focal lengths (unless you can afford very expensive glass), very expensive
Future: FF sensors need more MP (24 MP or more) for cropping, less expensive |
Another advantage of FF is higher ISO (this is where lower noise comes into play)
With two stops higher ISO (that yields equivalent IQ) your f/5.6 lenses can work in low light like an f/2.8 lens did, and the f/2.8 can do what an f/1.4 used to do....except for the AF sensors and optical stuff like distortion, color fringing, etc.
Sounds like what we need are f/4 cross point sensors replacing the f/2.8 ones for all the nice f/4 "L" glass out there.
|
|
|
|
03/25/2008 12:07:06 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by hankk:
Another advantage of FF is higher ISO (this is where lower noise comes into play)
|
Yes, but this seems to be a direct consequence of larger sensor. Assuming no 'noise' filter is used, higher is the pixel density, higher is the noise. In other words, it is not surprising to have relatively low noise for the 5D because the pixel density is fairly low compared to the last generation of cameras equipped with DX sensors. I wonder how the noise would be for a 30 MP FF sensor, i.e. when the pixel density is about 0.035 pixel.micrometer^-2.
Although I do not give a lot of importance for the noise issue, I have heard that the D300 was handling it pretty well.
Message edited by author 2008-03-25 12:08:12. |
|
|
|
03/25/2008 02:23:58 PM · #7 |
Comparing 35mm and APS-C formats on telephoto "pixels on the subject" alone misses some important points. The pixel density is much higher for a 12Mpx APS-C camera (approx. 5.3 to 5.4µm pitch) than for, for example, the Canon 5D (8.24µm pitch) or even the 1DsMkIII (6.4µm pitch), but that doesn't mean the "acuity" of the final image is the same, so the total detail rendered in the subject can't be compared, unless you have additional information about the quality of the lens used, the strength of the AA filter installed, and the effectiveness of other image-chain components like micro-lenses.
In practice, since lenses are limited in the frequency of detail they can effectively render, the differences are less than what would be anticipated. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/28/2025 05:27:56 PM EST.
