APS-C Photo Enlargement (Page 3): But can't you pack more pixels onto a Full Frame sensor thus making a Full Frame sensor better ? Or can you pack 20 megapixels onto a smaller sensor...

machia Loc: NJ

kymarto wrote:

Resolution does NOT depend on the size of the sensor, but on the number of pixels and the resolution of the lens. The advantage of FF lies in better high ISO response (generally speaking) and shallower depth of field for the same angle of view.

But can't you pack more pixels onto a Full Frame sensor thus making a Full Frame sensor better ? Or can you pack 20 megapixels onto a smaller sensor and get the same result as you would if those 20mp were on a Full Frame ? I thought packing pixels onto a smaller surface area caused noise .

mikedidi46 Loc: WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA

awesome shot

fourg1b2006 Loc: Long Island New York

Excellent image...That is huge.

jkatpc Loc: Virginia Beach

mikedidi46 wrote:

awesome shot

Thanks!

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Looks good!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

machia wrote:

But can't you pack more pixels onto a Full Frame sensor thus making a Full Frame sensor better ? Or can you pack 20 megapixels onto a smaller sensor and get the same result as you would if those 20mp were on a Full Frame ? I thought packing pixels onto a smaller surface area caused noise .

It doesn't cause noise as such, but it does mean that each photosite can collect less photons as its surface becomes smaller, so as the light gets dim, the signal from the photosites needs to be amplified more, which raises the noise floor.

But there are tricks such as backside illumination which can increase the amount of area of each photosite that can collect light, making some modern smaller sensors less noisy that older larger sensors. So it depends not only on the size of the photosites but on the design of the sensor and the electronics.

What can be said is that for equivalent designs, a full frame sensor with larger photosites will be less noisy than a smaller sensor with the same number of photosites. But that difference will be negligible at lower ISOs. Canon is presently working on a crop sensor with 250 megapixels, I have heard, and they claim that the noise characteristic will not be worse than with present crop sensors.

machia Loc: NJ

kymarto wrote:

It doesn't cause noise as such, but it does mean t... (show quote)

Thank you . Very informative . But exactly why would Canon want to develop a 250mp crop sensor ? I'm not sure I follow the logic of that . Would this be for consumer use ? Seems excessive .

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

machia wrote:

Thank you . Very informative . But exactly why would Canon want to develop a 250mp crop sensor ? I'm not sure I follow the logic of that . Would this be for consumer use ? Seems excessive .

I have no idea, but there is resolution taken to an extreme. I'm hearing too that soon phones can or will have 50Mpx sensors. Technology marches on...

machia Loc: NJ

kymarto wrote:

I have no idea, but there is resolution taken to an extreme. I'm hearing too that soon phones can or will have 50Mpx sensors. Technology marches on...

Technology .
Actually I'm anticipating the return of Ecktachrome this Fall . That technology allowed me to photograph people and things for over 40 years with great results .
Incremental improvements as seen in lab settings , especially with DSLR cameras never interested me much . Although electronics is a fascinating subject . It however still comes back to the most important tool , your eye .

thg3 Loc: La Quinta, California

kymarto wrote:

I have no idea, but there is resolution taken to an extreme. I'm hearing too that soon phones can or will have 50Mpx sensors. Technology marches on...

This is probably a stupid question but I assume that a pixel or photosite can only capture a single color or shade and assign a numerical value to the color or shade. Is that correct?

wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

machia wrote:

Thank you . Very informative . But exactly why would Canon want to develop a 250mp crop sensor ? I'm not sure I follow the logic of that . Would this be for consumer use ? Seems excessive .

Imagine the in-camera processor and the storage card you'd need to handle a high speed set of RAW images from that big a sensor. Does the word HEAT come to mind?

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

kymarto wrote:

Resolution does NOT depend on the size of the sensor, but on the number of pixels and the resolution of the lens. The advantage of FF lies in better high ISO response (generally speaking) and shallower depth of field for the same angle of view.

While technically true, not the whole story. A larger sensor has more room to add pixels that there are not room for on a crop sensor given the same pixel element size.

machia Loc: NJ

hassighedgehog wrote:

While technically true, not the whole story. A larger sensor has more room to add pixels that there are not room for on a crop sensor given the same pixel element size.

This is what I thought too .

sailorsmom Loc: Souderton, PA

Wow! Really impressive! Good one, Jim!

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

jkatpc wrote:

I know I've read here about the advantages of full frame with regard to large images. For anyone wondering how big a crop sensor image can go, here is a photo I took with a D7200 a few years ago that makes up a 12'x16' wall in our office break room. The resolution looks pretty decent, but I am looking forward to venturing into full frame in the next year or so.

I have a question in a completely different direction. [USS #] 55, what ship is that? What kind?

Wow, you have 12' ceilings.

I guess due to my late father, both Navy and Carpentry.