Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Canon

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 2, 2004, 1:38 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 74
Default

I am a life long film guy with several SLR's who is becoming a digital convert. We get very good 5X7's and 8x10's frommy wife'sCanon A70 printed ona Canon i960.I am salivating for even more pixels and considering a Digital Rebel. Here is the question. Are 6 meg images from the Drebel better than images from comparable resolution sensors in say the G5 (or the future G6)? I understand through the lens viewing, lens variety etc. as advantages of a SLR. I am trying to figure out if arangefinder camera with a 6 meg sensor and a good zoomlens isn't a better buy. Is the DGIC in the Rebel more advanced? Is the sensor larger or different in the SLR? Would I see the difference in an 8x10 or 8.5x11 borderless print?




ADSchiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 2, 2004, 2:19 PM   #2
Junior Member
 
Kukur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 14
Default

ADSchiller,

You will get better photos off a DSLR than a compact digital camera, no doubt about it.

The biggest reason is the sensor size in the cameras. The Rebel sensor is 22.7 mm x 15.1 mm while the A70 is 5.27 x 3.96 mm (about four times as large).

Think of it as the difference between old 110 film vs. 35mm. The larger the format the better the results. The smaller film/sensor will give you more noise/grain where the larger format will be cleaner.

I just ordered a Canon S1 IS but battled hard for the Rebel Digital body. Because I don't havea digital camera yet for me and the wife, I decided to go with the S1 so she could use it easliy (and learn the basics with it). But as soon as I have some extra cash (Christmas present please!!!) I will be getting a DSLR to go with it.

Gopspeed
Kukur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2004, 2:22 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Kukur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 14
Default

Forgot... you probably already now this, but the megapixels are good for larger pics, not necessarily better quality.

Think of the megapixels 3mp - 6mp kinda like the grain on slower film (50iso has tighter grain than 200iso). You can enlarge a 6mp/50iso photo larger (with good results) than you can a 3mp/200iso photo (which would become grainy).

Godspeed.
Kukur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2004, 3:43 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 74
Default

Kukur wrote:
Quote:
Forgot... you probably already now this, but the megapixels are good for larger pics, not necessarily better quality.

Think of the megapixels 3mp - 6mp kinda like the grain on slower film (50iso has tighter grain than 200iso). You can enlarge a 6mp/50iso photo larger (with good results) than you can a 3mp/200iso photo (which would become grainy).

Godspeed.
I understand that a 6 meg sensorcaptures more information than one of 3 megs and will produce better enlargements. The analogy with ISO film speeds is good but I am still not sure why 6 megs on a larger sensor produces betterresults than 6 megs on a smaller sensor. In the case of film ofthe sameISO - say Kodacolor 100 - a 2 1/4 negative produces larger prints than the same film in 35mm becausethe 2 1/4 piece of film contains millions more grain particles than the 35mm piece. The 2 1/4captures the image using more reference points. In digital, the 6 megs is the number of reference points, right? The image producedby the lens is captured by the same number of reference pointswhether ona smaller chip or spread out over a larger surface area.It's still 6 megs - you dont get more "grain" by spreading out the same number of pixels. People seem to agree the larger sensors produce better results than smaller ones of the same resolution. I just don't get why.
ADSchiller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 2004, 6:49 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Kukur's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 14
Default

Here is a good write up on how a sensor works... and a link on the page about pixels and more.

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glos...Sensors_01.htm

Yes, basically they have the same number of recepticles but those recepticles are larger.

The author of that site refers to the sensor recepticles like bucketsand light like water.

The DSLR has larger buckets that can collect light (water) more effectively and more precise than the point and shoot which use a cup (smaller recepticles.) So you would have the same number of pixels, but coming off a DSLR you would have better pixels in the sense of brightness, color, etc.

Using that same analogy, getting a point and shoot with a small size sensor but with 5mp capacity, crams a lot of dixie cups into that small area.

Just like with lenses the more light getting through to the film the better. The bigger the receptor - the more light it can receive - the better the quality.'

At least that is how I conclude things.
Kukur is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:07 PM.