Sensor sizes: Assume an image is photographed with the same parameters with cameras of different sensor sizes, and with the same 35mm equivalent focal length. What will the end result...

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Assume an image is photographed with the same parameters with cameras of different sensor sizes, and with the same 35mm equivalent focal length.
What will the end result be when comparing them?

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Given equivalent MP's (say 12MP in 4/3's, APS, and FF) of the sensors, the larger the sensor, the sharper and clearer the pic.

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

MT Shooter wrote:

Given equivalent MP's (say 12MP in 4/3's, APS, and FF) of the sensors, the larger the sensor, the sharper and clearer the pic.

I concur, with the added note than some DX sensors are as good as, or better than a few FX sensors.

JimH Loc: Western South Jersey, USA

+2 - All other things being equal(ized), the larger the sensor the greater the amount of light it can gather. The more light, the more information. Just ask Edwin Hubble. Doug's added note is correct as well, because of better CPU programming on the cameras as well. You can only do so much with programming sleight-of-hand, though. I'd still rather have a three-year old Full-Frame than today's APS-C. I'm just not rich enough... :)

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

rayford2 wrote:

Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.

Nothing stupid about it, that was a valid question. Full frame is not necessarily better than APS-C sensors just because its full frame. Nikon sells current full frame PRO bodies with anywhere from 12MP to 36MP, and their fastest body is only 12 MP. Is that sensor better than a 12MP D90? Of course, but at 6 times the cost too. Is that sensor better than the 16MP D7000? Thats debateable by many (especially D700 owners) but the D7000 consistently test better, especially at higher ISO's. Here is a comparison which also includes Canons beloved 5D Mark II:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2010-11-08-d7000-d300-5dmarkii-d3-iso/index.htm

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

More great informaton from the UHH posters.
Thank you for bringing this to light.

Pepper Loc: Planet Earth Country USA

Great questions, great answers, you just gotta love this place.

Turbo Loc: Raleigh, NC

A larger sensor will, obviously, have more light to "process", thus be able to deliver a sharper pic.

But, remember that between the time you look through the viewfinder and the time you see the pic on your monitor, a lot of steps are taking place. Let's compare a NIKON D3 with a D7000. Beside the fact that the D3 cost about 3 times what the D7000 costs, it has a larger sensor but older software to handle high ISO. All in all, the pics won't look that different. The situation between the CANON 1D, the 5D and the 7D. The most expensive camera is the best but the others are not far behind.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

I just looked at your link. There is something wrong with his 5dmii pictures. I've never had photos that looked like that. I constantly show people how amazing the detail in my camera is. The 25000 noise is accurate. I wonder what lens he was using and if Rockwell had checked the lens backfocus. I would have sold my 5dmii if it turned out pictures like that.

MT Shooter wrote:

quote=rayford2 Thank you MT. I hated to ask that ... (show quote)

Ragarm

rayford2 wrote:

Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.

OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.

At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?

Turbo Loc: Raleigh, NC

You got to watch Ken Rockwell sometimes. He means well but I have seen him really mess up occasionally. To his credit, he will fess up and admit it once he realizes it. In this case, he hasn't yet.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Ragarm wrote:

rayford2 wrote:

Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.

OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.

At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?

If you read the OPs original question, the term was "35mm equivalent focal length". When using a cropped sensor camera its lens is expressed in actual focal length as well as 35mm equivalent focal length. A 400mm lens is quivalent to a 600mm lens when used on a Nikon DX body, a 640mm lens on a Canon crop, and a 800mm on a 4/3's crop. Granted the 400mm lens is STILL a 400mm lens on all of them, but since the smaller sensors are only capturing a portion of the lens' field of view, you get the equivalent focal length of the longer lens,. not the actual focal length.

Turbo Loc: Raleigh, NC

Ragarm wrote:

rayford2 wrote:

Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.

OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.

At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?

We photographers refer to a focal length as relative to the film days. A negative was 24 X 36 mm and that size is now called
"Full Frame" for a DSLR sensor.

If you use a 50 mm lens on a FF sensor camera, the view you get through the viewfinder or with your bare eyes are essentially the same.

A cropped sensor camera ( which sensor is smaller by a third or so ) will narrow the view and make the pic 1.5 times smaller. That will equal to what a FF sensor camera would see as a 75 mm lens.

Therefore, with a cropped sensor camera, all lenses lengths are to be multiplied by 1.5 ( or 1.3 or 1.6 ) depending on the model, in order to be "equivalent' to the full frame camera.

rayford2 Loc: New Bethlehem, PA

Ragarm wrote:

rayford2 wrote:

Thank you MT. I hated to ask that question. Makes me feel stupid.

OK, here's one to make ME feel stupid. What do you mean by equivalent focal length? Do you mean equivalent field of view? After all, there is no difference in lens focal length between FX and DX, only in field of view.

At least, that's how I understand the explanations on Nikon's website. So, what am I missing?

Sorry, I meant to say "35mm equivalent" so all pictures would have the same comparable image dimensions.
Thank you for posting.