paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

I have been reading a lot about sensors lately, how they are not equivalent. A full frame does not equal, does not equal a crop sensor, does not equal cell phone sensor. At what point, if any, are they equal.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

I don't understand what you are asking. Exactly what would be equal?

They are different sizes, have different native sensitivities, have different pixel pitch, have different in-camera processing, etc.

This would seem to be like asking what is equal with Ektachrome 64 on 35mm, Kodak Portra on medium format, and a Polaroid. Well...all are sensitive to light.


So I don't see anything at which they would be equal - whatever that might mean. Forget this and go take pictures. :-)

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

When you make a PRINT!!

Once you get the image OUT of the computer, that point only the print outcome matters. Not the sensor, not the Camera, not how many mp you have, not how much your camera cost or what lens you used!! :lol:
SS

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

I am asking for similarity of quality. Even though those films you mentioned are not exactly the same they can be compared somewhere somehow. 64 Kodachrome equals 64 ektachorme. At least in some regards. Where 64 Kodachrome does not equal 400 ISO film of any types as far as grain goes. Maybe it is too complex of an issue or but I am not the one who has been bringing up the point that they are not the same in picture quality. Alls that I know it that someone said that taking a picture with a cell phone will not be as good as taking a picture with a full frame sensor. Maybe it is like taking a picture with a 110 or brownie as compared to a 35mm. They will never be equal. That is what I want to know.
I did say if any?
Thanks for your response.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

A while back I purchase a Sigma lens for a Nikon film camera and the quality of the picture was so bad it was junked. The final prints were not there. The Sigma lens could never be equal to the Nikor lens, ever. So what I am again asking is the sensors somehow like the lenses and they do make a difference in the end product.

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

The sensor is only one part of a very complex system in today's digital cameras. The variables that can be introduced by the photographer are greater then ever. The capabilities of the camera's processor are greater then ever. Seemingly identical sensors, such as in the Canon 70D and 7DII are actually built differently. The sensor is just part of a system that can be manipulated in an almost endless variety of ways. Claims that one particular sensor is superior to another are pointless because so much depends on the rest of the system and how it is used. Some general statements apply, such as regarding pixel size, but the "mine is better then yours" arguments are rarely more then personal opinion. In any given set of circumstances one may be better then or equal to another, but the problem is that there are endless circumstances.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

See, once you are clear what you are asking, we can answer.

So yes, sensors do make a difference. However, with the level of the technology today, the differences are virtually meaningless in the manor camera brands. The tiny sensors in phones and the cheap point and shoots do have some limitations, and sensor sizes do have field of view ramifications, but the sensors in Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, etc. are all excellent.

I did not say equal - all excellent.

I am sure there will be responses from all the hair splitters that want to point out insignificant differences, but from a practical standpoint, no big differences.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

When they are the same physical size with the same amount of pixels they will be almost equivalent, but sony/nikon do seem to be able wring a little more dynamic range from theirs.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Beyond the fact that quality is a hugely subjective experience, the reality is that digital image systems are really rather complex - to some extent even more so than analog (film) and so there are many variables to consider when making a comparison:

1) sensor size: this is the easiest to compare - as with film, larger format (i.e. - sensor size) generally equates to higher quality, or at the very least shallower DOF (depth of field) so that backgrounds can have pleasing "bokeh" to give the overall picture a potentially nicer look. This is the most likely source of your acquaintance's statement that a smart phone photo "will not be as good" as a FX sensor image would be. But of course, since all art is subjective and quality depends on what the final image is supposed to look like, even this isn't necessarily true. For birds-in-flight, it likely will be, but for street shooting? Your call.

2) photo-site size - think of a digital imaging sensor chip like a matrix of tiny light sensors (which is essentially what it is) - with thousands of columns and rows making for millions of individual so-called "photo-sites" and each photo-site being on the order of microns small. As a general rule, larger photo-sites equate to better low-light performance - this is because "noise" is actually the photo-sites are reading the infrared photons coming off the heat of the electronics, as the only thing a photo-site does is measure how many photons have fallen on it. That is, photo-sites are "color blind". However, while larger photo-sites are generally better, simple division doesn't necessarily mean that a larger chip with the same number of sites as a smaller chip will have larger photo-sites; there is a necessary spacing between the photo-sites themselves and advanced techniques can minimize those to allow for larger individual photo-sites. The point is, it ain't a simple thing to know.

3) to point #2, the way most color digital camera sensors work is by having filters of the three primary colors overlaid such that each photo-site is covered by either a Red, Green or Blue filter so that it only reads the associated color. The vast majority of imaging chips are covered in a 2x2 array where 1 R, 1B and 2G make up the quad of filters (the Bayer pattern), though Fuji's X-Trans sensors do not use the Bayer pattern but a proprietary 6x6 pattern of filters (still maintaining the 2:1:1 ratio of G:R:B). The only other commercially available digital cameras that do not use the Bayer pattern of colored filters are the Leica M Monochrome, which has no color filters (since it is designed to only do B&W shooting) and the Sigma DSLR that uses the Foveon chip, which is designed more like color films are, with one color layer on top of the other. One can debate forever if this is a batter approach - here's an interesting article on it:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2014/04/08/sigma-qa-part-ii-does-foveons-quattro-sensor-really-outresolve-conventional

4) As @SharpShooter pointed out, though, the final print quality is where the rubber meets the road, and the next step in achieving a digital image is to interpret the data coming off the ship (remember, it's a gazillion points of data that each represent a specific reading of only R, G or B light at that point) - the so-called RAW file. And different software can interpret the same RAW file slightly differently; there are those who say the camera manufacturer's own software (included with the camera generally speaking) does a better job that Adobe's or Apple's or other offerings. When you set the camera to take JPEG images, all you are doing is telling the computer that's built into the camera to do the interpretation programmed into it by the manufacturer, but the principle is the same.

5) and of course, once all THAT is dealt with, there's the question of post processing and the actual device used to make the print. The same image printed to paper as ink-jet, dye-sub, canvas, glass, aluminum and whatever else might look much better or worse to your eye; again, e=depending on what the subject is.

So, in the analog world of film, where molecular grains of silver halides are capturing the latent image to be brought put in chemical baths, the "resolution" of the film was generally never discussed - only the "grain" characteristics - higher speed film has more grain (analogous to higher ISO setting on a digital camera can lead to more noise).

So there - doesn't that seem easy?

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Well, while I was busy writing here you threw another variable into the mix - the lens.

In the days of film, Sigma and its ilk (3rd party lens manufacturers) offered lenses that were significantly less expensive than the "name brands", and to get their costs down of course sometimes quality suffered - either of the optics or the mechanical side, or both.

However, of late these manufacturers have produced some stunning lenses - witness the 50MM f1.4 ART lens from Sigma that costs twice what the Nikkor does and gets extremely good grades - so even you might consider getting a Sigma lens some day. No doubt this is in part thanks to advancements in technology, both of computer design and also glass manufacturing (Nikon makes something like 70 different kinds of glass that are used in its lenses, and they cant be the only one doing it).

So, the entire system - lens, sensor, and computer (either in-camera or not) - are what it takes to produce an image, and hence there are no one-size-fits all answers here.

In the practical world, though, pretty much any lens you buy today - even so-called "kit lenses" - have pretty good optical characteristics, so you shouldn't necessarily shy away from anything non-Nikon. I have a lot of Nikon glass and it's terrific, but I've had great success with Sigma's macro lenses (the 180MM of yore), their 12-24 ultra-wide-angle zoom, and others. And, at a give price point, the image-quality differences between various cameras with the same overall sensor size (FX/ DX. 4/3, etc.) are pretty much moot - in fact, as many have discovered, one can get outstanding results from sub-FX sized sensors, so even that argument starts to fall apart.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

Here is my take for wharever it's worth(probably not much) . If you never make a print larger than 5x7 what sensor you use is trivial If you are printing 20X30 the sensor and MP count is critical. The same is also true wth regard to lenses.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Thanks so much. I will have to read it again and again and again and again. It really does help AND I knew there would be no easy answer. That is what great technology is about.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

Thanks for the update. It is nice to know that one can check out and then check back in and someone will be there to help out. Thank you so much. Great site and you guys all make it that way. Personally I love the advancements in technology. I refused to purchase a digital camera in the beginning until the quality became great. I am a QUALITY minded person. Some are quantity minded but I am quality minded. I can see that I have a LOT OF CATCH UP TO DO.
Thanks again.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And to totally confuse everyone who insists that you need more megapixels for larger prints - read this:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

Consider this - Sony 4K - a popular HD movie resolution used in many theaters these days, is only 8.9 mp - 4096x2160 - and it is displayed on a screen that is 55'x25' on average. Only 9 mp for a 55' image. No, you don't need more MP for bigger print sizes because it is presumed that you will view bigger prints at greater distances, and there is a physiological limitation to how much the human eye can resolve at that distance.

With that being said, I have printed full images, shown in galleries, from a 6 mp camera to 40"x60" and they looked great. Just don't get too close.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Yes, "Just don't get too close."

That is reasonable when setting up a large screen TV but not likely when hanging a large print.

For a large print, more pixels means a better print.