35mm sized sensor?

[darich]

I recently changed from a 20D with a 1.6 crop factor to a 5D with no crop factor.

I tried my 24-70mm lens on each camera taking a shot in the garden at the 24mm end to see the comparison.

There is no doubt that the 5D has a much wider angle of view and therefore no crop factor.

 

[Alex_B]

There is no doubt that the 5D has a much wider angle of view and therefore no crop factor.

i think noone doubted this in here, did anyone?

for me at least this was one of the reasons to go for the 5D

 

[Jeff Canes]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the image sensor size is as important as people like to think it is in terms of image quality---

That right, because MPs are total per the sensor and not per of any given square unit.

 

[Digital Matt]

It's my understanding that the larger the sensor, the further spread apart each photo sensor can be, thereby reducing the amount of heat generated, and in turn reducing noise levels.

 

[Alex_B]

That right, because MPs are total per the sensor and not per of any given square unit.

but it is not MP alone which make the quality

larger pixels means usually less noise and increase dynamic range.

but larger sensor at equal number of pixels does not necessarily mean larger pixels, as technically there are spacings between pixels, which do not collect any light (at least on CMOS sensors)

as far as i remember the 1Ds Mark II and the 1Ds N Mark II have more or less the same pixel size

plus lenses have a limited resolution, and it is easier to please a larger sensor than a smaller sensor with respect to resolution of the lens in the sweet spot. however, for a given lens, relatively speaking the sweet spot is smaller for a larger sensor.

 

[Alex_B]

It's my understanding that the larger the sensor, the further spread apart each photo sensor can be, thereby reducing the amount of heat generated, and in turn reducing noise levels.

hmm, slightly different to what i quoted ... let me think again... i am quite sure the size of the pixel (photo sensor) also influences noise, not just the spacing

 

[Jeff Canes]

Alex my thinking about Fred’s comment is that smaller sensors can be and are equal to larger sensors. I figure that the 5D and 1D MIIn should have the similar size pixels and equal image quality. The 5D has both 1/3 more pixels and larger sensor (more or less). Would you agree with that? If not why?

 

[Alex_B]

I figure that the 5D and 1D MIIn should have the similar size pixels and equal image quality. The 5D has both 1/3 more pixels and larger sensor (more or less). Would you agree with that? If not why?

if the pixels are of equal built, I agree totally.

But there can be more to it than just the size, which I would not know since I do not exactly know how your 1D MIIn pixels are built and how my 5D pixels are built

However, since both cameras are the same generation in Canon's line, there is quite a probability that the sensor pixels are built in a very similar way.

 

[Digital Matt]

I believe that an 8mp sensor that is APS-C sized, outperforms a tiny point and shoot sensor with 8mp crammed into it. I believe it's because the spacing of the photo sensors. Now, technology is coming along and processing of images is getting better and better, hence Digic II. Canon's latest, non full frame options all have the same sensor size as the original D30, D60, 10D, Digital Rebel. It's basically the same sensor. What has changed is the processor.

I guess what I'm saying is, is that maybe the image processors have come far enough that sensor size doesn't play such an important role anymore. I do have a feeling though that 10mp looks better on a 5D than it would on a point and shoot.

 

[Jeremy Z]

I guess what I'm saying is, is that maybe the image processors have come far enough that sensor size doesn't play such an important role anymore. I do have a feeling though that 10mp looks better on a 5D than it would on a point and shoot.

Oh, but it does play an important role. It is like having a smaller negative. All else being equal, the larger sensor will yield a better photo. It is the negative after all. The smaller the sensor size, the more it needs to be enlarged to make a decent pic. That is why the ultrazoom cameras have such a hard time with noise. They can cram the sensor with 10 MP for marketing purposes, and for the most part, the lenses are fantastic, but the combination of the high resolution and the fact that the pixels are so darned small means that when the shots are enlarged, they don't look so great.

It is just like we found out in the 70s with the 110 cameras. There were some very good 110s made, especially by Pentax, (and I think some of the German marques as well?) But no matter what was done in the way of optics & film, the photos were inferior to even a cheapo 35 mm. The negative was just too small to make good enlargements. The same holds true for 35 mm vs medium format or large format. 35 mm is nice for carrying around, but when it comes time to make poster prints, there is no comparison.

Another example is the success of the cheap Chinese Seagull 6x6 TLRs. Cheap build, cheap lens, but since the negative is 3 1/2 times bigger...

 

[ksmattfish]

There is a lot of cool info at Cambridge in Color. It's informative, and easy to read.

Here's some about sensors.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/sensors.htm

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Here's the rest of it including: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB, RAW, white balance, and so on.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm

 

[fmw]

Oh, but it does play an important role. It is like having a smaller negative. All else being equal, the larger sensor will yield a better photo. It is the negative after all. The smaller the sensor size, the more it needs to be enlarged to make a decent pic. That is why the ultrazoom cameras have such a hard time with noise. They can cram the sensor with 10 MP for marketing purposes, and for the most part, the lenses are fantastic, but the combination of the high resolution and the fact that the pixels are so darned small means that when the shots are enlarged, they don't look so great.

No, Jeremy, it is not like film. One does not "enlarge" the sensor. It is not like a negative. One enlarges the pixels that the sensor records. The resolution is determined by the number of pixels. I'm not arguing that a larger sensor or larger pixels, given current technology, won't produce images with less noise. That seems to be the common wisdom and I have no reason to dispute it. But physically larger sensors do not record more information than smaller sensors. In order to record more information you need more pixels of whatever size. While the image made from a large 10mp sensor may have less noise than one with a small 10mp sensor, it won't have more information (resolution.)

In the film world, if you want to capture more information, you need to use a larger piece of film. No doubt about that. Film size would then correlate to pixel count but not to sensor size. I think the confusion stems from wanting film size and sensor size to correlate with one another because it seems logical on the surface. It simply isn't the case.

 

[Digital Matt]

No, Jeremy, it is not like film. One does not "enlarge" the sensor. It is not like a negative. One enlarges the pixels that the sensor records. The resolution is determined by the number of pixels. I'm not arguing that a larger sensor or larger pixels, given current technology, won't produce images with less noise. That seems to be the common wisdom and I have no reason to dispute it. But physically larger sensors do not record more information than smaller sensors. In order to record more information you need more pixels of whatever size. While the image made from a large 10mp sensor may have less noise than one with a small 10mp sensor, it won't have more information (resolution.)

In the film world, if you want to capture more information, you need to use a larger piece of film. No doubt about that. Film size would then correlate to pixel count but not to sensor size. I think the confusion stems from wanting film size and sensor size to correlate with one another because it seems logical on the surface. It simply isn't the case.

Exactly.

When it comes to sensors, not all sensors have the same resolution at a given size. There are 8mp sensors on point and shoot cameras which are 1/2 the physical size of a 6mp sensor on a DSLR.

 

[Jeff Canes]

So have we agreed on anything?

 

[usayit]

It's my understanding that the larger the sensor, the further spread apart each photo sensor can be, thereby reducing the amount of heat generated, and in turn reducing noise levels.

Think pixel density... not the number of mp a sensor has.