A hypothetical question about sensor size (Page 4): Just wondering about the word "about" the same number and if the DX conversion is an exact one and that the pixels aren’t likely...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

gmsatty wrote:

What about this? The D850 has over 40 megapixels, but when shooting with the DX mode, I understand it has about the same no. of megapixels as my D 7200. So it seems evident that the size of the pixels on the D850 would be the same as on the D7200. Any comments on that?

Just wondering about the word "about" the same number and if the DX conversion is an exact one and that the pixels aren’t likely just static physical dots but a cluster of atoms and …

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

imagemeister wrote:

This has been an interesting debate ! IMO, the largest difference will be seen in the consequence of greater pixel density in the smaller sensor. This consequence results in the smaller sensor showing more lens faults and more motion blurs if any ! The larger sensor's smaller pixel density will tend to mask these errors. The larger pixels of the larger sensor will have a tendency to have greater and more accurate color fidelity (less noise).
.

Actually, the smaller sensor with the smaller pixels do not show more lens flaws if the lens was designed for that sensor size. My Olympus 4/3rds lenses are sharp and detailed. But most of my Olympus film lenses, used with an adapter, do not have an as useful aperture range and some look "dull". They look great when I shoot film, but they usually lack the proper resolution for the 4/3rds sensor.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

wdross wrote:

Actually, the smaller sensor with the smaller pixels do not show more lens flaws if the lens was designed for that sensor size. My Olympus 4/3rds lenses are sharp and detailed. But most of my Olympus film lenses, used with an adapter, do not have an as useful aperture range and some look "dull". They look great when I shoot film, but they usually lack the proper resolution for the 4/3rds sensor.

"Designed" or not - higher pixel density will show more lens flaws - period.
.

BebuLamar

bleirer wrote:

In your view would the initial noise increase in the smaller sensor be magnified more in printing a large print? Another way to ask that question would be if two shots hypothetically had the same initial noise would the smaller sensor be worse on magnification only due to the sensor size difference?

There is no different if you can keep the noise level of the smaller sensor the same as the larger sensor. This is generally the case if you compare the small sensor of the newer generation vs the large sensor of older generation. In general sensor of the same generation the smaller one will have less noise.

nadelewitz Loc: Ithaca NY

bleirer wrote:

I ask this as a hypothetical because I don't want ... (show quote)

Let's use a little simple logic here.

If you have the same number of pixels in a smaller space, it stands to reason that the pixels must be smaller.

If pixels are smaller, they can be enlarged more before they become noticeable in viewing or printing.

If you have a full-size sensor with a given number number of pixels, a crop sensor with fewer pixels would have the same pixel size and density. You can do the math and figure out equivalent pixel densities yourself.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

nadelewitz wrote:

Let's use a little simple logic here.

If you have the same number of pixels in a smaller space, it stands to reason that the pixels must be smaller.

If pixels are smaller, they can be enlarged more before they become noticeable in viewing or printing.

If you have a full-size sensor with a given number number of pixels, a crop sensor with fewer pixels would have the same pixel size and density. You can do the math and figure out equivalent pixel densities yourself.

If I have ten pixels on the head of one pin and 3 pixels on the head of another pin and shine the same light on both, which will capture more light?

BurghByrd Loc: Pittsburgh

Without going through the effort of calculations I suspect that at some point miniturization of sensors runs the risk of light diffraction degrading the image. I would think that the disc (or circle) of confusion compared to the pixel size should be an indicator.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

wdross wrote:

Your thoughts that 24mp is 24mp would be correct. Yes, there will be some slight differences in dynamic range, depth of field, sensor ratio (depending on brand), etc., but the resolution under good lighting conditions should render very similar prints.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

billnikon wrote:

If you want the king of low light camera's consider a Nikon D3s

Yes, I can imagine at 12.1 MP for a FX! The Nikon Df FX was a mere ~16MP.

mleuck

It was innaine posts like this that made me leave this site. I thought I would give it one more shot. Goodbye!

Far too many psuedo experts puking their fake scientific opinions.

Why can you not just take photos?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Wabbit, we've got a jumper!

BebuLamar

BebuLamar wrote:

There is no different if you can keep the noise level of the smaller sensor the same as the larger sensor. This is generally the case if you compare the small sensor of the newer generation vs the large sensor of older generation. In general sensor of the same generation the smaller one will have less noise.

Mistake smaller sensor has more noise

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

lamiaceae wrote:

Yes, I can imagine at 12.1 MP for a FX! The Nikon Df FX was a mere ~16MP.

Yes, the D4, which has the same guts as the Df, both do wonders in low light.

bleirer

Ysarex wrote:

Yes. The larger sensor accumulates more total light. See me last post.

Joe

I fully accept the more light part, what is your view of lens aberrations being enlarged.

User ID

ysarex wrote:

Quote:

Two cameras (different size sensors) used to take the same photo.

1. Must be from the same place to match perspective.
2. Different lenses therefore required to equalize field of view.
3. Same exposure = same shutter speed and same f/stop
and therefore at same ISO.

Noise and DOF will be different.

Joe

Your "number 3" is where you went wrong.
Your definition of "same exposure" is invalid.

Same shutter speed and same field of view,
FF set to f/5.6 at ISO400, m4/3 set to f/2.8
at ISO100. That is ALSO the same exposure.
Do you know the definition of "EV" ? And do
you know the definition of "value" ? If so,
then you should easily see the problem with
your "number 3".

Those are different f-stops and ISO speeds,
but are identical exposures, identical bokeh,
identical perspective, identical DoF, using
identical absolute aperture sizes. You went
wrong when you switched over to relative
aperture sizes, aka "f-stops". F-stops are
NOT transposable across different FLs and
format sizes for determining image effects.
They are transposable ONLY for brightness.