Image Quality & Sensor Size

[donny1963]

Thank god some one spoke up on this topic, when i hear some one say that a full from camera produces cleaner images then a crop sensor camera because the sensor size is bigger, i just want to laugh..

That is simply not true they are Crop Sensor Camera's out there that blow away some Full Frame Camera's..

Photography with Applied Logic & Wisdom : The REAL SCIENCE of actual digital photography "IMAGE QUALITY"

 

[Ysarex84 78]

Thank god some one spoke up on this topic, when i hear some one say that a full from camera produces cleaner images then a crop sensor camera because the sensor size is bigger, i just want to laugh..

You mean like you recently said in this thread: here is an idea i came up with learning from Hasselblad

Joe

You have to understand..

The H5 is 5.3 microns
Vs the D850 is 4.4 microns

which is a larger dynamic range Much larger.


Dynamic Range is 14 stops True 16 bit
Which is a great deal more then the d850


h5 has greater dynamice range much better tansitional values

the optics are better in H5 then d850 becaue the lenses are larger and so the images that are sent to the sensor are
much higher quality in that way as well..

your not craming all that information in a smaller optic and not cramming the information on a small sensor the image on the h5 vs the D850 is more spread out and so giving you much more room for more information,, it's physics 101

That is simply not true they are Crop Sensor Camera's out there that blow away some Full Frame Camera's..

Photography with Applied Logic & Wisdom : The REAL SCIENCE of actual digital photography "IMAGE QUALITY"

"your not craming all that information in a smaller optic and not cramming the information on a small sensor the image on the h5 vs the D850 is more spread out and so giving you much more room for more information,, it's physics 101" --donny1963

 

[weepete]

Personally I'd love a MF camera with a digital back, I love the detail in a 100 or 200mpx image but they are simply out of my price range.

 

[Derrel]

Thank god some one spoke up on this topic, when i hear some one say that a full from camera produces cleaner images then a crop sensor camera because the sensor size is bigger, i just want to laugh..

That is simply not true they are Crop Sensor Camera's out there that blow away some Full Frame Camera's..

Photography with Applied Logic & Wisdom : The REAL SCIENCE of actual digital photography "IMAGE QUALITY"

That's basically a long list of the factors that affect image quality, but not much is explained or expounded upon, but it does reveal that there are ___many___ things that affect digital image quality. But one thing his long, non-explained grocery list fails to mention specifically is "generation" of the sensor, and also, the manufacturer of the sensor. Right now, there is a large camera maker using rather outdated sensor fabrication machinery and last-generation sensor technologies and using these sensors in its own brand of cameras, and right now, there is a sensor and camera manufacturer using state-of-the-art sensor fabrication machinery, and state-of-the-art sensor technologies, and which is using its sensors in its own cameras, as well as selling those same sensors to other camera manufacturers(to four other camera makers, that I know of,perhaps others). So-to break it into a simpler statement, the "generation" of the sensor makes a HUGE amount of difference.

Back in 2006, Canon had 24x36mm or "full-frame" s-slr cameras, and the EOS 5D was a cutting-edge camera that had been introduced for around $3,499. It was a 12.8 Megapixel camera, and at the time, its image quality was stellar! I bought a 5D in the large, single-pack, kit box for $3,998 with the 24-105 f/4 L-IS USM zoom around that time. Nikon had NO FF d-slr model; Sony was still in the P&S business; Pentax was about a decade away from offering its first full-frame d-slr. Fuji still had the S5 Pro d-slr. etc.etc..

The new Nikon D7200 1.5x APS-C camera that premiered at $1,299 has better image quality than the Canon 5D that premiered less than 10 years earlier at $3,499. The Nikon D810 (now 'last generation') premiered at around $3,599 as I recall, and is significantly better in every metric than the Canon 5D was, with 36 million pixels, not just 12.8 million pixels. Amazing dynamic range, astounding file recoverability from severe under-exposure, and ISO-invaiant sensors that create RAW files that can be lifted from almost-black to usable images...all of this is "new", and some camera makers offer this,others do not, or only in one or two high-end models.

Nikon D7200 vs Nikon D810 vs Canon EOS 5D | DxOMark

We now have __amazing__ digital cameras. Only...some manufacturers have more-amazing sensors than others. A few of the old maxims are no longer true. ETTR, or Expose To The Right has, for some users, become as tiresome as hearing about the hand-crank starting of great-grandpa's first car, or as tiresome as hearing about TV sets before remote controls were invented; ancient history.

Still: it's a great time to be involved with digital cameras. I got into digital with the Nikon D1 back in 2001; its 2.7 MP image quality was quite marginal, and the actual scene dynamic range the sensor could deal with was extremely narrow compared with what a modern Nikon can handle, which is now over 14 stops!

Comparing a same-generation sensor in APS-C size versus a same-generation FX or FF sensor, we see that there's usually some major advantages that tilt toward the larger-sized sensor, yet still, the smaller APS-C sized sensors of today are flat-out better than older FX sensors, in most image quality metrics. We've moved far enough into the digital era now though that in low light levels, at times an older-technology,lower-MP sensor (12 or 16 MP FX for example) can still offer very high image quality--especially in today's web- and phone- and tablet-based viewing environment.

 

[Dave442]

In that list of 32 items, at least 9 look to be sensor related, and of those 9 at least 2 are often directly affected by the size of the sensor. So sensor size is not something to laugh at, but it is only one of many factors to look at. I have been happy using a DX camera, it beats out what I could do years ago with 35mm as far as final print size.

 

[Derrel]

In that list of 32 items, at least 9 look to be sensor related, and of those 9 at least 2 are often directly affected by the size of the sensor. So sensor size is not something to laugh at, but it is only one of many factors to look at. I have been happy using a DX camera, it beats out what I could do years ago with 35mm as far as final print size.

Yes. About 15 or so years ago, a friend from college (mid-1980's) stopped by my house with his then brand-new and current Canon EOS 10D, which was a new, high-resolution D-SLR camera. We took it into my garage studio, and he had me shoot a family session of him and his wife and very young toddler son. He shot some of his wife, his wife and son, and I did some individual portraits of him and shot their three-person family session. After the session, we took the images and imported them into my office Mac and looked at them on my large LaCie Electron Blue computer monitor. We both absolutely marveled at the image quality, and I recall this VERY clearly: we zoomed in and zoomed in and zoomed in, and the thing we noticed was the lack of "grain", which we as long-time 35mm shooters had always been frustrated by and concerned with. I remember,very clearly, zooming in on the toddler's eyebrow area, and marveling that the image lacked "grain", and was simply pretty much pure,detailed information. We agreed right then and there, that we had _never_ seen 35mm color negative film with that degree of clarity and pure detail resolving, down to the eyebrow at 1:1 pixel level.

The Canon EOS 10D: DxO Mark Overall Sensor Performance Score: 57. Color Depth 21.2 Bits. Dynamic Range 10.9 EV. Low Light ISO Score 571. The EOS 10D was a 6.5 million pixel, CMOS sensor, and being CMOS and of that era, it had very "smooth" images, less-granular I thought, than the more common CCD cameras offered. I believe that 35mm color negative film was surpassed by the 6-MP d-slr cameras from Canon and Nikon.

Way,way below "modern" d-slr stats. But, under powerful studio flash illumination, with generous,metered exposures, using a 2,400 Watt-second power pack and three to four flash heads, the above camera was better, we both thought, than 35mm Ektachrome 64 Professional or Ektachrome 100 professional slide film, and better than any 35mm sized 100- or 160 ASA color negative film we'd ever shot. Today, with 24-MP APS-C? I think it's the equal of 1980's and 1990's medium format 120 rollfilm.

Nikon D7200 vs Canon EOS 60D vs Canon EOS 10D | DxOMark

 

[donny1963]

Thank god some one spoke up on this topic, when i hear some one say that a full from camera produces cleaner images then a crop sensor camera because the sensor size is bigger, i just want to laugh..

You mean like you recently said in this thread: here is an idea i came up with learning from Hasselblad

Joe

You have to understand..

The H5 is 5.3 microns
Vs the D850 is 4.4 microns

which is a larger dynamic range Much larger.


Dynamic Range is 14 stops True 16 bit
Which is a great deal more then the d850


h5 has greater dynamice range much better tansitional values

the optics are better in H5 then d850 becaue the lenses are larger and so the images that are sent to the sensor are
much higher quality in that way as well..

your not craming all that information in a smaller optic and not cramming the information on a small sensor the image on the h5 vs the D850 is more spread out and so giving you much more room for more information,, it's physics 101

That is simply not true they are Crop Sensor Camera's out there that blow away some Full Frame Camera's..

Photography with Applied Logic & Wisdom : The REAL SCIENCE of actual digital photography "IMAGE QUALITY"

"your not craming all that information in a smaller optic and not cramming the information on a small sensor the image on the h5 vs the D850 is more spread out and so giving you much more room for more information,, it's physics 101" --donny1963

that's completely different point i was making..
had nothing to do with this topic.. Never said the hasselblad produces shaper images because of the snesor size..

Donny

 

[donny1963]

Thank god some one spoke up on this topic, when i hear some one say that a full from camera produces cleaner images then a crop sensor camera because the sensor size is bigger, i just want to laugh..

That is simply not true they are Crop Sensor Camera's out there that blow away some Full Frame Camera's..

Photography with Applied Logic & Wisdom : The REAL SCIENCE of actual digital photography "IMAGE QUALITY"

That's basically a long list of the factors that affect image quality, but not much is explained or expounded upon, but it does reveal that there are ___many___ things that affect digital image quality. But one thing his long, non-explained grocery list fails to mention specifically is "generation" of the sensor, and also, the manufacturer of the sensor. Right now, there is a large camera maker using rather outdated sensor fabrication machinery and last-generation sensor technologies and using these sensors in its own brand of cameras, and right now, there is a sensor and camera manufacturer using state-of-the-art sensor fabrication machinery, and state-of-the-art sensor technologies, and which is using its sensors in its own cameras, as well as selling those same sensors to other camera manufacturers(to four other camera makers, that I know of,perhaps others). So-to break it into a simpler statement, the "generation" of the sensor makes a HUGE amount of difference.

Back in 2006, Canon had 24x36mm or "full-frame" s-slr cameras, and the EOS 5D was a cutting-edge camera that had been introduced for around $3,499. It was a 12.8 Megapixel camera, and at the time, its image quality was stellar! I bought a 5D in the large, single-pack, kit box for $3,998 with the 24-105 f/4 L-IS USM zoom around that time. Nikon had NO FF d-slr model; Sony was still in the P&S business; Pentax was about a decade away from offering its first full-frame d-slr. Fuji still had the S5 Pro d-slr. etc.etc..

The new Nikon D7200 1.5x APS-C camera that premiered at $1,299 has better image quality than the Canon 5D that premiered less than 10 years earlier at $3,499. The Nikon D810 (now 'last generation') premiered at around $3,599 as I recall, and is significantly better in every metric than the Canon 5D was, with 36 million pixels, not just 12.8 million pixels. Amazing dynamic range, astounding file recoverability from severe under-exposure, and ISO-invaiant sensors that create RAW files that can be lifted from almost-black to usable images...all of this is "new", and some camera makers offer this,others do not, or only in one or two high-end models.

Nikon D7200 vs Nikon D810 vs Canon EOS 5D | DxOMark

We now have __amazing__ digital cameras. Only...some manufacturers have more-amazing sensors than others. A few of the old maxims are no longer true. ETTR, or Expose To The Right has, for some users, become as tiresome as hearing about the hand-crank starting of great-grandpa's first car, or as tiresome as hearing about TV sets before remote controls were invented; ancient history.

Still: it's a greta time to be involved with digital cameras. I got into digital with the Nikon D1 back in 2001; its 2.7 MP image quality was quite marginal, and the actual scene dynamic range the sensor could deal with was extremely narrow compared with what a modern Nikon can handle, which is over 14 stops!

Comparing a same-generation sensor in APS-C size versus a same-generation FX or FF sensor, we see that there's usually some major advantages that tilt toward the larger-sized sensor, yet still, the smaller APS-C sized sensors of today are flat-out better than older FX sensors, in most image quality metrics. We've moved far enough into the digital era now though that in low light levels, at times an older-technology,lower-MP sensor (12 or 16 MP FX for example) can still offer very high image quality--especially in today's web- and phone- and tablet-based viewing environment.

That's what people seem to fail to see, image quality has so much more to do with just how big your sensor is...
They are so many factors that lead to the bottom line of the image quality..
And every camera make does it differently in some way..
you just can't Compare apples to apples that way, The reason he doesn't have that long list explained is because to explain all that would be writing a book lol
so he is not going to do that, he just wanted to give the general info on that topic..

 

[Derrel]

That's what people seem to fail to see, image quality has so much more to do with just how big your sensor is...
They are so many factors that lead to the bottom line of the image quality..
And every camera make does it differently in some way..
you just can't Compare apples to apples that way, The reason he doesn't have that long list explained is because to explain all that would be writing a book lol
so he is not going to do that, he just wanted to give the general info on that topic..

Yes,he is correct_ digital image quality is dependent on MUCH more than "just" the sensor! Lenses, software, etc.. This is a fantastic time to be involved with digital imaging! Digital cameras now are wayyyyy better than they were 15 or even 10 years ago. And the software tools we have today are wayyyyy easier to use, and easier to do complex things with! So many things can now be done with 1- or 2- or 3-click software operations! Presets for removing lens defects or faults, for example; I have a 1975 or so Nikkor 500mm f/8 catadioptric lens; I've developed my own Lightroom preset to eliminate the corner dimming that that and other mirror lenses are well-known for, so I can literally select 10 or 15 or 40 image shot with the 500mm mirror lens, and apply my very own Lightroom "500-8-Optimize" preset to my raw files, and BAM! I've eliminated the problems that lens has.

I recall when just opening RAW files was impossible for most image editing applications. Today? Easy-peasey, and the choices of RAW developers are myriad.

I'm familiar with The Angry Photographer's YouTube channel. I think he did a good post in laying out 32 things he feels affect digital image quality. He's quite often very interesting.

 

[Braineack]

once we're done here, we can talk about reach again...

 

[donny1963]

That's what people seem to fail to see, image quality has so much more to do with just how big your sensor is...
They are so many factors that lead to the bottom line of the image quality..
And every camera make does it differently in some way..
you just can't Compare apples to apples that way, The reason he doesn't have that long list explained is because to explain all that would be writing a book lol
so he is not going to do that, he just wanted to give the general info on that topic..

Yes,he is correct_ digital image quality is dependent on MUCH more than "just" the sensor! Lenses, software, etc.. This is a fantastic time to be involved with digital imaging! Digital cameras now are wayyyyy better than they were 15 or even 10 years ago. And the software tools we have today are wayyyyy easier to use, and easier to do complex things with! So many things can now be done with 1- or 2- or 3-click software operations! Presets for removing lens defects or faults, for example; I have a 1975 or so Nikkor 500mm f/8 catadioptric lens; I've developed my own Lightroom preset to eliminate the corner dimming that that and other mirror lenses are well-known for, so I can literally select 10 or 15 or 40 image shot with the 500mm mirror lens, and apply my very own Lightroom "500-8-Optimize" preset to my raw files, and BAM! I've eliminated the problems that lens has.

I recall when just opening RAW files was impossible for most image editing applications. Today? Easy-peasey, and the choices of RAW developers are myriad.

I'm familiar with The Angry Photographer's YouTube channel. I think he did a good post in laying out 32 things he feels affect digital image quality. He's quite often very interesting.

Yeah Correct, Vignetting the french word, i have a preset too, the first thing i do when i import all my images is i select all the Raw Images and hit the preset to fix that first thing on all images weather i'm going to keep the image or not, that way i don't have that one correction to do when i do my post..

As far as my statement above tho how ever i was not talking about Hasselblad, that is a entire different animal, i was talking about Full frame and crop sensors and micro 4 3rd's sensors, NOT hasselblad Medium format that is an entire thing, that is a different sensor all in it's class and doesn't record images in the same way as the full from or crop sensors. for one thing it's true 16 bit color range recording vs 8 bit you can't compare the medium format vs the full from because it's not a fair comparison, that's like comparing an I3 processor vs the I9 processor , or saying 16 gigs of memory is just as good as 32..

so comparing a Full frame camera vs a medium format camera is not a fair comparison, they are 2 different classes of Camera..

 

[donny1963]

Thank god some one spoke up on this topic, when i hear some one say that a full from camera produces cleaner images then a crop sensor camera because the sensor size is bigger, i just want to laugh..

You mean like you recently said in this thread: here is an idea i came up with learning from Hasselblad

Joe

You have to understand..

The H5 is 5.3 microns
Vs the D850 is 4.4 microns

which is a larger dynamic range Much larger.


Dynamic Range is 14 stops True 16 bit
Which is a great deal more then the d850


h5 has greater dynamice range much better tansitional values

the optics are better in H5 then d850 becaue the lenses are larger and so the images that are sent to the sensor are
much higher quality in that way as well..

your not craming all that information in a smaller optic and not cramming the information on a small sensor the image on the h5 vs the D850 is more spread out and so giving you much more room for more information,, it's physics 101

That is simply not true they are Crop Sensor Camera's out there that blow away some Full Frame Camera's..

Photography with Applied Logic & Wisdom : The REAL SCIENCE of actual digital photography "IMAGE QUALITY"

"your not craming all that information in a smaller optic and not cramming the information on a small sensor the image on the h5 vs the D850 is more spread out and so giving you much more room for more information,, it's physics 101" --donny1963

As far as my statement above tho how ever i was not talking about Hasselblad, that is a entire different animal, i was talking about Full frame and crop sensors and micro 4 3rd's sensors, NOT hasselblad Medium format that is an entire different thing, that is a different sensor all in it's class and doesn't record images in the same way as the full from or crop sensors. for one thing it's true 16 bit color range recording vs 8 bit you can't compare the medium format vs the full from because it's not a fair comparison, that's like comparing an I3 processor vs the I9 processor , or saying 16 gigs of memory is just as good as 32..

so comparing a Full frame camera vs a medium format camera is not a fair comparison, they are 2 different classes of Camera..

Medium format camera records images differently, it's the same idea yes a lens circle to the sensor but the workings of the sensor is different and it's color range and other ranges of tone and other values are different..
that's like trying to race a lamborghini with a old 68 chevelle, 2 different vehicle in it's class, not a fair race

 

[Ysarex84 78]

As far as my statement above tho how ever i was not talking about Hasselblad, that is a entire different animal, i was talking about Full frame and crop sensors and micro 4 3rd's sensors, NOT hasselblad Medium format that is an entire different thing, that is a different sensor all in it's class and doesn't record images in the same way as the full from or crop sensors.

No. They work exactly the same way.

for one thing it's true 16 bit color range recording vs 8 bit

No, complete nonsense. Specifically what FF or crop sensor digital camera is currently 8 bit? Name it with a link to the specs. And what pray tell is "true 16 bit"? How is that different from false 16 bit? What's true about it? Do you even understand to what 16 bit refers and what possible difference it makes?

you can't compare the medium format vs the full from because it's not a fair comparison, that's like comparing an I3 processor vs the I9 processor , or saying 16 gigs of memory is just as good as 32..

so comparing a Full frame camera vs a medium format camera is not a fair comparison, they are 2 different classes of Camera..

Medium format camera records images differently,

No. They work exactly the same way.

Joe

it's the same idea yes a lens circle to the sensor but the workings of the sensor is different and it's color range and other ranges of tone and other values are different..
that's like trying to race a lamborghini with a old 68 chevelle, 2 different vehicle in it's class, not a fair race

 

[donny1963]

No they don't work the same, the Hasselblad medium format delivers pixel size of 5.3 microns where full frame only 4.1 Microns.. dynamic range is 14 stops and TRUE 16 bit, unlike full fame is NOT!!

Correction, i didn't mean 8 bit, i meant 12 and 14 bit for full frame and crop sensors..

the Nikon D3 and D300 are both capable of recording in both 12-bit and 14-bit modes. The method of recording 14-bit files on the D300 is substantively different from that for recording 12-bit files; in particular, the frame rate slows by a factor 3-4. Reading out the sensor more slowly allows it to be read more accurately, and so there may indeed by a perceptible improvement in D300 14-bit files over D300 12-bit files (specifically, less read noise, including pattern noise). That does not, however, mean that the data need be recorded at 14-bit tonal depth -- the improvement in image quality comes from the slower readout, and because the noise is still more than four 14-bit levels, the image could still be recorded in 12-bit tonal depth and be indistinguishable from the 14-bit data it was derived from.

Hasselblad does not record image in the same way as the full frame or crop sensor, yes it does in the same general way, but not exactly, they are different factors in the medium format because it is different more dynamic range, the 5.3 microns vs the 4.1 microns, the speed that the sensor picks up the image and filters and all that.
they make different sensors because, because sensors record in different ways thus giving you different results..
this is a fact..

ADVANTAGES OF A LARGER SENSOR
A larger sensor has a larger area to gather light and the pixels are not so tightly packed as in a smaller format sensor. The larger sensor area means the individual pixels can be larger, too. For example, on a 50 megapixel Hasselblad CMOS camera, the pixel size is about 5.3 microns. Compare that to the pixel size on a standard high resolution DSLR and the size is about 4.14 microns. Thus, low light performance is much better, because the signal to noise ratio is favorable. In plain English that translates to 28 percent greater light capturing capacity.

But that’s not all. A larger sensor provides much greater dynamic range, which gives a larger transitional tonal value, greater tonal accuracy, and better color accuracy. The dynamic range on a medium format camera is 14-stops more than that of a DSLR! The images shot are true 16-bit.

A larger sensor provides room to produce larger lenses, which are easier to make, and thus the optical quality of such lenses is superior. Add to this the benefit that medium format lenses can deliver a shallower depth of field when compared to full-frame DSLRs at the same aperture settings. Even at smaller apertures the quality of the images produced are sharp and devoid of diffraction, thanks to the superior optical quality.

Besides the advantage in pixel count, the much larger area of the medium-format sensors gives them an advantage in image noise. A larger sensor area can collect more light (photons) than a smaller one when you use the same shutter speed and aperture. And the more light, the higher the signal-to-noise (S/N) ratio. That’s because photonic noise (the noise carried by light itself and the main source of noise in most digital images with current cameras) increases as the square root of the signal: If you have 4 photons of signal, you’ll get 2 photons of noise, for a photonic S/N ratio of 2:1. If you have 100 photons of signal, noise will be 10 photons, for a 10:1 S/N ratio. If you have 10,000 photons of signal, you get 100 photons of noise, for a photonic S/N ratio of 100:1. A better S/N ratio means fewer fine details and steps of dynamic range are lost to noise, and that means better image quality, including higher resolution for a given pixel count (because less detail is lost to noise). Of course, there are other sources of image noise, but from a photonic noise standpoint, bigger is better.

Nearly all medium-format digital cameras are 16-bit devices, while DSLRs are 14- or 12-bit. This means the medium-format cameras can provide a smoother range of tones (especially important in portrait work, but almost always a good thing), theoretically, 65,536 tones or color shades per channel versus 16,384 for 14-bit and 4,096 for 12-bit cameras.

(JPEGs from any camera are 8-bit—just 256 tones from black to white—one of many reasons to shoot RAW.) Of course, some of these steps are lost to noise (if the difference from one step to the next is less than the noise level, you won’t be able to differentiate those steps), but still, 16-bit medium-format images can reproduce a smoother range of tones and colors than 14- and 12-bit DSLR images.

This is a Fact and Undisputed!!!!
this is how it is... This is why a hassy goes for 40k vs your best full frame camera maybe 8 k at most..
there is a reason why the hassy is 5 times the price, it's not because of it's name..

 

[Braineack]

No they don't work the same, the Hasselblad medium format delivers pixel size of 5.3 microns where full frame only 4.1 Microns.. dynamic range is 14 stops and TRUE 16 bit, unlike full fame is NOT!!

You didn't answer how they record images differently...

You're throwing out logical fallicies.