Sensor vs glass quality vs MP

[Rick58]

"It's often said that "It's never the camera, dummy!", and to an extent that's true - a good photographer can get a good image out of almost any combination of hardware. The 'new and improved' hardware only makes it possible for the talented artist to create across a wider range of situations. For example, Michaelangelo or DaVinci could probably paint a decent picture with an eight-color palette. But give them 65 or 128 or a thousand and they can make an even BETTER picture. Same would go for a photographer. A Karsh or Adams or Steichen could probably do wonders with a 1DX or a top notch Nikon or Leica or whatever. But they also did pretty damn good with the relatively 'ancient' hardware they did use."

Well said!

 

[MLeeK]

bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)

Ok, now that's really confusing. DOF isn't strictly the aperture and distance in digital?

No, sensor size also has a large effect on DOF. Think about a point and shoot with manual capabilities. It's VERY hard to get shallow DOF images because of the sensor size on them.

 

[cgipson1]

Yes indeed thanks, more shallow = better performance =)

Better performance for Portraiture or similar, but worse performance for Macro shooters. So no... not better performance, just more or less DOF!

ahhhhh yes sir! But i shoot people....such as my assistant =)

Arrgghhh... she's yellow, Matey! lol!

And I shoot bugs! But I can still be objective when I am posting (after all... a lot of people object to my posts, right?)

 

[Rick58]

So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?

Not really true. ISO performance quality is typically better with full frame too. And a host of other differences for the bigger sensors. Look at that link I posted for you

Will do, it looks interesting along with Charlie's. Thanks to both.

 

[MLeeK]

So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?

Yes, overall. "normal" print sizes it usually doesn't matter either. You can print a billboard with a 3MP camera. I wouldn't want to print a billboard of one of Charlie's amazing macro shots with a 3MP camera, but you could and it would still be a great image.
There are a lot of things that are benefits of a larger sensor, but in the overall scheme of things the glass is the key.

 

[cgipson1]

Charlie's amazing macro shots

:hugs:!

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Better performance for Portraiture or similar, but worse performance for Macro shooters. So no... not better performance, just more or less DOF!

ahhhhh yes sir! But i shoot people....such as my assistant =)

Arrgghhh... she's yellow, Matey! lol!

And I shoot bugs! But I can still be objective when I am posting (after all... a lot of people object to my posts, right?)

yeah +1 she's intentionally cross processed (so hopefully you can't tell she was just in my case)

 

[Rick58]

What got me digging into this topic was, I have an entry level Sony a230 I use for family outtings and such and my dad decided to get something for himself. Up 'til now he has also been strickly a film guy. He was considering getting a a230 but wanted back screen viewing that the 230's don't have. He sent me a link for a HX200V, which is also a bottom of the line Sony but this thing has a Ziess Sonnar lens. In my film world the first thing I thought of of geez..Hasselbald's use Ziess Sonnar lenses! Hence, my post.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

What got me digging into this topic was, I have an entry level Sony a230 I use for family outtings and such and my dad decided to get something for himself. Up 'til now he has also been strickly a film guy. He was considering getting a a230 but wanted back screen viewing that the 230's don't have. He sent me a link for a HX200V, which is also a bottom of the line Sony but this thing has a Ziess Sonnar lens. In my film world the first thing I thought of of geez..Hasselbald's use Ziess Sonnar lenes! Hence, my post.

may not be wise to expect the "same quality" with the ones they uber-mass produce for Sony =)

 

[Rick58]

I'm sure. You can buy several complete Sony's for the price of one Hasselblad lens. I really wonder why Zeiss would put their name on them.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I'm sure. You can buy several complete Sony's for the price of one Hasselblad lens. I really wonder why Zeiss would put their name on them.

Sales $$$, many don't know the difference and see that name attached

 

[Rick58]

but how about reputation and pride in your product...oh yeah, this is the 2000's

 

[KmH]

"Sensor vs glass quality vs MP"

The sensor size and the MP relate to each other.
Image sensor sizes, from big to small are - medium format, full frame, APS-H, APS-C (Nikon DX, Pentax, Sony), APS-C (Canon), Foveon (Sigma), Four Thirds, Nikon CX, 2/3", 1/1.7", 1/2.3".

This file is licensed under the ​

Creative Commons

​

Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported

license.​

A 10 MP full frame image sensor's individual pixels are roughly twice as big as the individual pixels on a 10 MP, APS-C size image sensor. This is known as 'pixel pitch'.
If you pack 20 MP onto a full frame image sensor, it will have about the same pixel pitch as a 10 MP APS-C size image sensor. However the full frame image sensor will have more resolution.

The bigger a pixel is, the more light it can record, which generally means a lower signal to noise ratio. So bigger image sensors usually have better ISO performance.
Bigger image sensors cost more to make. so the cameras they are used in also cost more.

Another factor many overlook is that the image sensor in a digital camera has a filter array in front of it. The filter array blocks UV and IR light, includes a low-pass filter which provides anti-aliasing (AA), and for all except the Foveon image sensor, a Bayer Array that the camera image processor uses to interpolate color. (Image sensors can't record color, and only record luminosity.)
Of those filters the AA filter effects image sharpness. The aggressiveness of the AA filter usually varies by camera model, though some cameras in a makers line will share essentially the same image sensor. Aggressive AA filters soften focus more. Less aggressive AA filters are more likely to allow aberrations like moiré, but deliver sharper images straight out of the camera (SOOC).

The next issue to consider is lens performance (resolution) relative to image sensor size.

Up to a point, lens resolution exceeds image sensor resolution, and lens quality is often a minor issue since the image sensor is the limiting factor. As pixel density increases, a point is reached where image sensor resolution exceeds lens resolution. At that point lens quality become very critical because the lens becomes the limiting factor.

For cameras like Nikon's 36.3 MP, D800 full frame camera, the full benefit of the image sensor's resolution will likely only be realized by using the best professional grade lenses.

Kind of ironically, for electronic display anything over 10 MP or so is a waste unless someone will only look at a small part of a photo at one time.
Nikon's D800 delivers images that have pixel dimensions of 7360 x 4912 pixels. My 22" desktop display can only show 1600x 1220 pixels at a time.

 

[KmH]

Every digital camera starts with a Raw file. Some inexpensive or P&S cameras won't let you choose to write the Raw image data file to the memory card, so they can save money on the camera's write buffer.

Using Raw is about 'bit-depth' - Bit Depth
Image Types: JPEG & TIFF File Formats
Tutorials – The RAW File Format

 

[Rick58]

All very interesting information. Thank you everyone for sharing. I'm not ready to mothball my F2's just yet, but it's always interesting to learn new things, and I have to admit, the "delete at no cost" button on the digitals a kind'a sweet