Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    736

    Sensor Size Comparison

    This is a cool tool to compare sensor sizes of various digital cameras:
    Camera Image Sensor Size / Technical Specs Comparison Here is a comparison of sensor sizes of my cameras. No surprise that the image quality follows the sensor size.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Sensor Size Comparison-sensor-sizes-my-cameras.jpg  


  2. #2
    Andrew
    Reputation: drizzoh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    170
    Dont forget the d7k has a near perfect ISO system as well, which has even been improved with the addition of the d800.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,465
    Put a FF sensor in there as well... that Pentax will look even tinier than it already does.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    49


    this is a good chart

  5. #5
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,482
    Interesting comparison. So what are we doing with these bigger better images? How can we even see them? Because a normal monitor can only display 96 or so ppi and a limited color space, ie sRGB.

    Just asking.
    A Useful Bear is a handy thing.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    736
    All things being equal (including equal number of pixels), a bigger sensor should produce images with less noise than a little sensor. I'm much more concerned about how noisy a sensor is, especially at lower light levels, than I am about the number of pixels.

    Amongst my cameras, the ones with the bigger sensors provide images with much lower noise; however, other factors such as lens quality also contribute.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    Interesting comparison. So what are we doing with these bigger better images? How can we even see them? Because a normal monitor can only display 96 or so ppi and a limited color space, ie sRGB.

    Just asking.
    Do you read anything that's not online? You know, like magazines or books?

    If you can't tell the difference between a picture taken by a Canon 5d Mark II and a Nikon P&S- even on your computer screen- then you should probably get your eyes checked.

  8. #8
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by smmokan View Post
    Do you read anything that's not online? You know, like magazines or books?

    If you can't tell the difference between a picture taken by a Canon 5d Mark II and a Nikon P&S- even on your computer screen- then you should probably get your eyes checked.
    I've sold a bunch of P&S images to magazines, and I don't agree that you can necessarily tell the difference. I think I have a pretty good critical eye for judging photos but I suppose we all think that. Might make an interesting challenge... good idea for a thread.
    A Useful Bear is a handy thing.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    49
    I'll have to heavily disagree that one can't tell the difference between a p&s and 5d... that is as long as they are being used correctly. I notice a very large difference upgrading from my 1dmki to my 5dmkii. I'm a photographer by trade and I know most magazines don't commonly publish p&s images.

  10. #10
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,482
    Quote Originally Posted by jaycagney View Post
    I'll have to heavily disagree that one can't tell the difference between a p&s and 5d... that is as long as they are being used correctly. I notice a very large difference upgrading from my 1dmki to my 5dmkii. I'm a photographer by trade and I know most magazines don't commonly publish p&s images.
    I didn't say one couldn't tell the difference between a P&S and a 5D. Which P&S are you describing, that's a pretty large generalization. Is a P&S any digital camera that's not a dslr?

    I have never seen that the type of camera used was a criteria used by a publisher. They want dynamic images that illustrate or tell a story. Even slick magazine images aren't exactly high quality prints.
    A Useful Bear is a handy thing.

  11. #11
    Look at the time!
    Reputation: lelebebbel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,138
    Come on guys, it depends 100% on what kind of images you are talking about. A daylight landscape shot at ISO100 on a high quality P+S, printed on half a page, is not going to look much different than the same shot from a 5D.

    But try a low light action shot at ISO3200, and the difference will be quite obvious. Then there is the stuff that a P+S simply can't do at all, such as extreme focal lengths, AF tracking a fast moving subject, or DOF isolation.
    wanted: Cannondale Lefty w/ V-brake studs

  12. #12
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,482
    ^I agree.

    Does anyone here make prints?
    A Useful Bear is a handy thing.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    736
    I agree that it depends on the kind of images you like to shoot. I like to shoot mountain bikers racing and our trails are heavily wooded, so low-light performance is very important to me. I often have to bump the ISO up to 1600.

    I agree that in good light where you're not pushing the limits of the camera or don't need long lenses or DOF, P&S cameras can give very good results. I won a photo contest with a P&S and the judges commented on the good quality of the image. (most other entries were from film SLR cameras).

    I have prints made. I have some 11x14 mtb photos (from a P&S camera) on my wall and I have a grouping of about 30, 5x7" of my favorite mtb photos on one wall. I update them occasionally.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    49
    not so much any more but a few years ago I was consistently making prints from 8x10 to 24x30, darkroom and digitally

  15. #15
    saddlemeat
    Reputation: bsieb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,482
    I'm a fine art printer, primarily for myself these days, and I love making prints. I have an Epson 4000 that I bought new and really enjoy and needs replacing. I find that smaller prints sell better for the most part, and my primary printer right now is an Epson 1400. My favorite fine art paper is the Moab Entrada and the Harmon Gloss FB Al Baryta paper. For less critical work I like the Red River papers, especially the Aurora Art Natural for prints my wife sells of her work, high end greeting and business cards, etc. I have done over 30 formal solo fine art shows in galleries at this point and am always looking for new approaches, materials, and techniques. I guess I'll just leave it at that before I get too boring.
    A Useful Bear is a handy thing.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    440
    Quote Originally Posted by bsieb View Post
    interesting comparison. So what are we doing with these bigger better images? How can we even see them? Because a normal monitor can only display 96 or so ppi and a limited color space, ie srgb.

    Just asking.
    +4/3

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,244
    Do you read anything that's not online? You know, like magazines or books?
    online information is less biased and more up to date than magazines (paid for by advertisers) and books.

    sensor size is not the only thing to consider.

    nikon sensors are better and newer than canon's, especially the aps-c ones.

    to see the difference in sensors, compare raw pictures via this link
    Samsung NX200 Review: Digital Photography Review
    you can see color and noise of pretty much all main sensors.

    the less light you have the higher iso you will have to shoot. The new sensors can shoot up to 6400 pretty cleanly whil old canon sensors look kind of crap even at iso 800.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •