Digital sensors
Jan 7, 2015 05:58:48 #
paulrph1
Loc: Washington, Utah
OK, I am an old film man and even though I have/love the benefits of digital and would never go back, it is too expensive. I do not understand the sensors. There seems to be a myriad of sensors associated with the digital sensors. Can anyone explain the exact differences and also the various uses of said types. Does one have a cross reference to a site that will give me that information.
Jan 7, 2015 06:12:55 #
This might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
Full frame indicates a sensor the same size as 35mm film. APS-C, also known as crop sensor is considerably smaller. Most DSLR's use those two sizes. Here is a comparison I did some time ago:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-198407-1.html
Scroll down to the overlay. pixel size is also a factor. Full frame generally has larger pixels then APS-C. Better high ISO performance is one characteristic of larger pixels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
Full frame indicates a sensor the same size as 35mm film. APS-C, also known as crop sensor is considerably smaller. Most DSLR's use those two sizes. Here is a comparison I did some time ago:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-198407-1.html
Scroll down to the overlay. pixel size is also a factor. Full frame generally has larger pixels then APS-C. Better high ISO performance is one characteristic of larger pixels.
Jan 7, 2015 06:31:06 #
Great information in the previous post. Also, if you want to compare the performance of various digital sensors DxO Labs does extensive testing on digital sensors. You can load up to three camera models and compare their performance on the same charts. Do a search online for DXOMARK sensor comparison tool.
Jan 7, 2015 07:58:08 #
Jan 8, 2015 07:37:38 #
Good question paulrph1... but as you know from film.. film comes in many flavors and as old as I am... ASA 400 was a great innovation... also I had a Minolta micro camera that took reasonably good photos... like wise... sensor size and technology discussions skim the surface of a technology in transition.
Today's Digital Cameras started with Kodak technology... in 1975 they invented the bullet that shot a hole in their film heart. They failed to capitalize on that technology.... killing themselves. We are still living with the improvements on that 1975 technology... and fail to ask an old philosophical question.... The ultimate question is how many pixels can you put on the head of a pin and will the angels stay there when you do.
If you consider that there are 10 billion transistors on the 20nm core of an Apple SPARC M7 CPU, then just how big does a light sensor really have to be... certainly not as big as a 35mm frame. 1mm=a million nm. so roughly 1.7x10 to the 12th would be the pixel count... can it be done... no, not yet... but generally it shows that in theory one heck of a lot of sensors could be on a very small sensor... (smart phone with phase fresnel lenses... see today's Nikon subject).
The technology is some where being rethought... but getting DSLR people to understand that they are 2000 years behind is impossible. .... aaaaeraaa except for the youth who use their cell phones as a primary camera... and those nerds who have a full array of attached lenses to use the cell phone as a microscope to telephoto with $300 add-ons and do their post processing with a few dollar app and print with a battery operated pocket printer.
Today's Digital Cameras started with Kodak technology... in 1975 they invented the bullet that shot a hole in their film heart. They failed to capitalize on that technology.... killing themselves. We are still living with the improvements on that 1975 technology... and fail to ask an old philosophical question.... The ultimate question is how many pixels can you put on the head of a pin and will the angels stay there when you do.
If you consider that there are 10 billion transistors on the 20nm core of an Apple SPARC M7 CPU, then just how big does a light sensor really have to be... certainly not as big as a 35mm frame. 1mm=a million nm. so roughly 1.7x10 to the 12th would be the pixel count... can it be done... no, not yet... but generally it shows that in theory one heck of a lot of sensors could be on a very small sensor... (smart phone with phase fresnel lenses... see today's Nikon subject).
The technology is some where being rethought... but getting DSLR people to understand that they are 2000 years behind is impossible. .... aaaaeraaa except for the youth who use their cell phones as a primary camera... and those nerds who have a full array of attached lenses to use the cell phone as a microscope to telephoto with $300 add-ons and do their post processing with a few dollar app and print with a battery operated pocket printer.
Jan 8, 2015 09:02:05 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
One of the things that has been printed many times is that more pixels crammed onto a sensor does not insure a better image and in fact, may be worse. From a layman's point of view, the size of the pixel is more important than the number of pixels for light gathering purposes. In my opinion, Sony is by far and away the leader in sensor technology.
DxOMark has become the standard for testing and reporting on sensors, and lenses.
DxOMark has become the standard for testing and reporting on sensors, and lenses.
Jan 8, 2015 09:13:42 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
sirlensalot wrote:
One of the things that has been printed many times is that more pixels crammed onto a sensor does not insure a better image and in fact, may be worse. From a layman's point of view, the size of the pixel is more important than the number of pixels for light gathering purposes. In my opinion, Sony is by far and away the leader in sensor technology.
DxOMark has become the standard for testing and reporting on sensors, and lenses.
DxOMark has become the standard for testing and reporting on sensors, and lenses.
Seems a funny contradictory thing to say sirlensalot.
You say "More pixels crammed onto a sensor does not insure a better image." ..... and then ....... "Sony is by far and away the leader in sensor technology" ?!?!?!
If you are talking DSLR cameras, Sony is the king of cramming more pixels onto a sensor.
Canons 50mp myth is still just a long awaited pipedream at this stage.
Now I am not saying that either statement is necessarily wrong .... but they sure do sound contradictory.
Where do you fit the D810, or the A7R in with your statements?
Jan 8, 2015 10:05:05 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
lighthouse wrote:
Seems a funny contradictory thing to say sirlensal... (show quote)
Sony makes sensors for other brands including Nikon, so I am not sure my statement contradicts. That they are the "kings" at cramming pixels onto sensors, that may or may not be, I don't know.
Regarding sensor only, the 810 is rated slightly higher than the a7R in all three of their categories by a few tenths, while both left the Canon Mk lll behind by quite a bit when tested alongside each other. They are all great cameras, two of which contain Sony Sensors. I believe the 810 and the a7r share the same sensor, but could be wrong on that one.
If you are asking what I would choose - For stills only (portraits, weddings) probably the Nikon. For weddings, landscapes, studio work, probably the 5D Mklll. For both stills and video, likely the a7r. For sports, none of the above. It would be the crop sensor a6000. I also shoot Canon. If I were starting from scratch today, probably the Nikon D750. Sony sensors combined with Nikon engineering is arguably the standard for mirrored cameras. Sony would be my choice for a MILC.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.