'Vague' is my only reality.
Jack
--- graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep! As long as you realize that the choice is vague (anti-nitpicker
>
> statement).
>
> graywolf
> http://www.graywolfphoto.com
> "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
> ---
>
>
>
> Jack
Op Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:09:29 +0100 schreef Bill Owens
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Where is the crossover point where sensor size overtakes the number of
megapixels in regards to final print quality.
I believe the consensus is that small sensor camera's reached their
optimum at 4 to 5 Mp (correct
Yep! As long as you realize that the choice is vague (anti-nitpicker
statement).
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Jack Davis wrote:
Got it..the smaller the sensor the greater the density the smaller the
pixel the no
Got it..the smaller the sensor the greater the density the smaller the
pixel the noisier the image.
The crossing point is that place where you make a noise/image choice.
Jack
--- graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, the smaller the pixel the more noise.
>
> graywolf
> http://www.graywolfph
The problem comes if you keep the sensor size fixed; does the extra
resolution you get from more megapixels outweigh the decrease in
signal-to-noise ratio (assuming comparable technology; this years 8MP
sensor way well have a better signal-to-noise ratio than last years 6MP).
There has to be a poi
On 30 Nov 2005 at 19:44, Adam Maas wrote:
> In general, yes, given equivalent sensor technologies. But right now it
> seems that processing capabilities and sensor tech make more difference
> than the sensor itself, at least at APS and larger sizes. Just look at
> the noise differences between
graywolf wrote:
No, the smaller the pixel the more noise.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
In general, yes, given equivalent sensor technologies. But right now it
seems that processing capabilities and sensor tech mak
No, the smaller the pixel the more noise.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
---
Jack Davis wrote:
Maybe it's a question of a pixel density/noise crossing point?
The more pixels the more noise?
Jack?
--- graywolf <[EMAIL
On 30/11/05, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Except that some of the lowest noise at higher sensitivities occur on
>cameras sudh as the 1DIIn (8MP), 20D (8MP) and Nikon D2X which is supposedly
>the very best (12MP - I think) all on APS-C sized sensors.
1DII and 1DIIn are APS-H if I reca
I've been wondering about this myself for a while.
Reviews that I've seen of the Olympus E300 make a big deal about its
8MP resolution in comparison with the 6MP of the *istD, DS etc and
the comparable Nikons and Canons. But the reviews never mention the
smaller sensor size of the Olympus.
All e
There's no one definite answer - it's a personal decision.
Obviously, for a given megapixel count, a larger sensor will be better.
The problem comes if you keep the sensor size fixed; does the extra
resolution you get from more megapixels outweigh the decrease in
signal-to-noise ratio (assuming
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I think that right now in consumer grade sensors a 6mp APS size sensor is
about optimum which may explain why the makers don't seem to be in any
great hurry to increase megapixel counts on the semipro cameras.
Except that som
Maybe it's a question of a pixel density/noise crossing point?
The more pixels the more noise?
Jack?
--- graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you asking at what point the signal-to-noise ratio becomes more
> importatant than pixel count?
>
> Sounds like a pretty simple question, but it is
Maybe it's a question of a pixel density/noise crossing point?
The more pixels the more noise?
Jack?
--- graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you asking at what point the signal-to-noise ratio becomes more
> importatant than pixel count?
>
> Sounds like a pretty simple question, but it is
Good question and one I never think to ask.
Jack
--- Bill Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where is the crossover point where sensor size overtakes the number
> of
> megapixels in regards to final print quality.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
__
Yahoo
Rob Studdert did a masterful job of describing how sensor site size
effects image capture based on the wavelength of light. From that you
can deduce quite a bit. Maybe he'll repost it.
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Bill Owens wrote:
Where is the crossover point where sensor size overtakes the num
Are you asking at what point the signal-to-noise ratio becomes more
importatant than pixel count?
Sounds like a pretty simple question, but it is not. A small sensor 2mp
camera is adequate for web use. An astronomer wants a camera that is not
going to generate a noise pixel when the point sour
I'm not an engineer, but I don't think there is a definitive answer. It's a
moving target. Sensor quality varies. It's theoretically possible, although
perhaps not likely, to produce an 8 megapixel APS-C sensor that has less noise
than an 8 megapixel full frame sensor. At the same time, I suppos
Bill Owens wrote:
>
> Where is the crossover point where sensor size overtakes the number of
> megapixels in regards to final print quality.
>
> Bill
Bill, thanks for asking that! Let's hope someone
has a good answer :)
best,
ann
Where is the crossover point where sensor size overtakes the number of
megapixels in regards to final print quality.
Bill
20 matches
Mail list logo
