| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/25/2005 03:17:55 PM · #26 |
the original quote was about the sensor sites not the pixels you'll see on the computer. there is a significant difference between the two cameras.
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 03:30:33 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
What kyebosh means is pixel density. IE. physical size of photosite. |
The two are not the same. |
That's kyebosh's point. :-)
|
|
|
|
08/25/2005 03:32:06 PM · #28 |
|
|
|
08/25/2005 03:33:31 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
What kyebosh means is pixel density. IE. physical size of photosite. |
The two are not the same. |
That's kyebosh's point. :-) |
My bad. Sorry guys, I was looking at the wrong white sheet.
|
|
|
|
08/26/2005 01:09:39 AM · #30 |
No worries. It was a legitimate possibility that they had taken the same size photosites and merely spaced them out.
On the other hand, it would have been very silly. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 02:06:23 AM · #31 |
| not really that silly, spacing them would (in theory) produce less noise than making them larger. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 11:41:17 AM · #32 |
CVT said: not really that silly, spacing them would (in theory) produce less noise than making them larger.
I'm sorry cvt, and I'm sorry for the slight hijack, but I don't see how merely spacing pixels would decrease noise. Close pixels usually exacerbates the blooming problems of blown highlights. Spaced photosites that were not actually larger would lead to loss of fine detail.
Increasing the size of the photosites increases their light gathering ability, this affects their natural sensitivity without having to add anything (via ISO charge boosting which amplifies the signal of the photosite itself by flooding it with more electrons, hence multiplying inaccuracies and pixel value differences with a blanket adjustment).
The larger the photosite, the less noise you have naturally.
I hadn't looked for pixel pitch yet on the 1.3x 1d II sensor as it is still well out of my price range, but if it is indeed 8.4u, it will definitely have much better noise than the 20D naturally. This means less detail will be lost with the noise reduction and the sensor will be more versatile in taking pictures in lower light.
The 20D has very close pixels, but very low noise. This is not accomplished naturally, this is accomplished through wicked algorithms and very likely some clever noise mapping done in-factory.
I would imagine that the sensors of the 5D and the 1D II are pretty close in pixel pitch.
I really probably should have started my own thread. Sorry. |
|
|
|
08/26/2005 01:15:13 PM · #33 |
Smaller photosites also result in the camera being diffraction limited sooner.
On the above web page, hover over "ƒ/11" to set the size of the airy disk. Now hover over "Canon EOS 1DMkII / 5D" and "Canon EOS 20D / 350D" to see the difference in photosite size. Notice that on the 1D Mk II / 5D, the airy disk fits almost entirely in the photosite. On the 20D / 350D, diffraction is just starting to occur as the airy disk extends into the surrounding photosites. As the aperture gets smaller, the effect gets more and more pronounced.
Message edited by author 2005-08-26 13:16:30. |
|
|
|
08/27/2005 08:45:37 AM · #34 |
Wow EddyG. What an amazing website that is at Cambridge in Colour!
Sweet. Thanks! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 12:53:24 PM EDT.
