Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 27, 2006, 11:15 AM   #21
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
JimC, I KNOW how pixel works! :-)
OK -- I missed the "more pixels" part. I thought that you were trying to say that larger photosites are larger in the image file. I still wouldn't go so far as to say "always' though. You'd be surprised at how nice a lower resolution image can look at typical viewing and print sizes.

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
I read that a bigger image sensor size will always be better for a given print size, since the pixels need to be enlarged less thanon a smaller image sensor.
BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
So if you want to print a given size image with two types of image sensors, the one that is bigger with more pixelswill always produce a better print because it's pixelswill beenlarged less, compared to a smaller one with less pixels.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 11:31 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

I still wouldn't go so far as to say "always' though. You'd be surprised at how nice a lower resolution image can look at typical viewing and print sizes.


ButI thinkthat theory applies too, to your nice low mega pixel countimage sensor (example).

I mean, if that particular low mega-pixel countimage sensorcan already produce very nice looking prints (Which can be the case), wouldn't (bringing the theory into hand) another largerimage sensor with more, &smallerpixels be able to produce a better print?

For one thing (as the article says), the noise levels on the final print (of the larger image sensor with more & smaller pixels) will STILL be lower.

:-)



BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 11:51 AM   #23
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Not necessarily. You can't judge a camera's output based on the sensor or photosite size alone.

Some models with larger sensors have relatively high noise levels at higher ISO speeds.

You have to take each model on a case by case basis. You've got many factors that go into producing good images, with photosite size being only one of them.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 12:02 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

Not necessarily. You can't judge a camera's output based on the sensor or photosite size alone.

Some models with larger sensors have relatively high noise levels at higher ISO speeds.

You have to take each model on a case by case basis. You've got many factors that go into producing good images, with photosite size being only one of them.
JimC, that is correct! :-)

But I was assuming all things being equal, just as the article had done so!! Ofcouse, itcan allget terrible complex if we want to bring EVERYTHING into account! :G (That is why I got a headache!)

All else aside, then it all becomes easy to understand.

Keep in mind that for a larger image sensor to have smaller photo-sites than a smaller image sensor means that it mustbe havingconsiderably more pixels to begin with...That alone would ultimatelydecide better print quality intheory (Which can mean reality).

Think about print size again.






BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 12:21 PM   #25
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Ben:

Judging from your posts here, you think too much about how an image looks at larger viewing sizes. ;-)

You have tendency to compare images at 100% viewing size on screen by comments I've seen from you. First of all, a monitor cannot accurately represent how an image is going to look in print. Second of all, your are not going to be printing an image at the size you see it on your monitor (or most people wouldn't anyway). Most users would rarely make a print larger than 8x10", and most prints are only 4x6".

A lot of potential camera buyers look at a camera from that perspective (how an image looks at 100% size on screen), and yet most users never print at larger sizes.

I've made many an 8x10" print from 2 Megapixel images that look just fine at typical viewing distances. 3 Megapixels tends to be better.

But, after that, you begin to see diminishing returns from most printers (a lot more resolution may only give you a small, if any, increase in quality at typical viewing distances).

Print some photos from models you consider at the print sizes you plan on using. You can download full sizes images from a model's review here.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 12:53 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Jim, that's great to hear.

However;

I feel that there is (seriously)an advantage with a larger image sensor not only in the dynamic range, or noise levels at 100% etc... (After reading all those articles)

For example, take two image sensor candidates;

An image sensor with 2 million pixels. (This will be the smaller image sensor)

Another bigger image sensor with5 millionpixels, butit's individual pixels are smaller than the first image sensor's (above).

So we use them to capture images for prints of a given size...(We will then compare them side by side)

Using the theory as the basis, the larger image sensor (Although having smaller pixels), will still produce the print with less noise than the other image sensor with the larger pixels; that is because the larger image sensor with the smaller pixels doesn't need to enlarge it's pixels so much, as the smaller one with less pixels. (Keep in mind that the larger image sensor with the smaller pixels, need to have considerably more pixels than the smaller image sensor with thelarger pixels; to have it's pixels smaller!) Similarly, the smaller image sensor need to have considerable less pixels than the larger image sensor in orderto have it's pixels larger!

Bringing into account the givenprint size, that larger image sensor (above) will have more pixels to display in the print, whereabout the smaller image sensor (Although having larger pixels) will be having less pixels to display in the print. As a result, the pixels of the smaller image sensorneedsto be enlarged more in order forthem allto fit into the print! On the other hand, the larger image sensor with more pixels doesn't need to enlarge it's pixels so much in order to fit the print.

As the case, any noise in the smaller image sensorwith the larger pixels (here),will be magnified more in the print; compared to the larger image sensor with the smaller but more pixels altogether in the same size print (Whose noise levels will be very fine grainedand averaged out). In another words, because the larger image sensor (here) doesn't need to enlarge it's pixels so much, it's noise levelswill not be so magnified.


BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 1:12 PM   #27
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Ben,

All of this speculation and conjecture and theory is really meaningless if you never end up taking any pictures.

You appear obsessed with buying the one perfect camera and single perfect lens. They don't exist. And, more importantly, what everyone here keeps trying to drill into your head is:

this is all completely academic and has no real value in the real world. Here is the big secret: the TRUE limiiting factor is most often the photographer. You have aspirations to become a professional photographer. The truth of the matter is: like anyone else starting out you've got a steep learning curve ahead of you. And I don't mean learning about pixel densities and such. I mean learning how to make photographs. It is highly unlikely (10,000,000,000 to 1) that you are going to buy a single entry level camera and a single lens and make a living off those 2 pieces of equipment with no prior SLR experience. The reality is if you ever do end up buying a camera you'll do what every other photographer before you has done - you'll learn, grow and develop a photographic style and interests. You will then buy different equipment. If you're going to stick with photography it's unavoidable.

But the longer you spend over-analyzing this stuff the longer you put off actually learning the art of photography. The biggest favor you could do yourself is to stop researching technology. Buy a camera and start RESEARCHING AND LEARNING PHOTOGRAPHY. Take some actual photos, get feedback and advice, research and apply photographic technique.

At this rate you're going to overanalyze yourself into January/February when the new crop of DSLRs comes out - then you'll fret and worry and over-analyze those cameras for more months. All the while not taking photographs and not actually learning and applying the principles of photography. It really isn't as complicated as you want to make it.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 1:18 PM   #28
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 61
Default

[align=center][/align]
[align=center]:|[/align]
[align=center][/align]
[align=center][/align]
Meatwhistle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 1:35 PM   #29
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

BenjaminXYZ wrote:
Quote:
[snip]

(After reading all those articles)
Ben:

You've been reading and quoting articles for a long time now. I've owned digital cameras from Sony, Nikon, Olympus, Konica, Konica Minolta and more (and more than one camera from the same manufacturers in some cases). I've owned multiple Nikons and multiple Sony models.

When I talk about how prints look, I can see them on my wall. I've got prints made from 2 Megapixel Digital cameras (with tiny sensors compared to those in the DSLR models you're looking at) within 6 feet of where I'm sitting right now.

I've also had the opportunity to use a lot more cameras than I've owned. I've used film cameras for many years, too -- starting with an old Canon Rangefinder my father gave me (which I still have somewhere by the way), making contact prints from B&W film some 40 years or so ago.

I've probably got 10 film cameras in the room I'm in right now, along with a variety of lenses (mostly Minolta, since I shoot with a KM DSLR now). Heck, I've even got one Nikon 35mm body on the desk I'm sitting at right now. I have sold most of it though (I've only got one cheap lens in Nikon mount left).

I've got thousands of prints. Heck, not long ago, wife bought special boxes to keep them in we have so many between us.

Your skill is going to be *far* more important than the types of things you're looking at in most conditions.

As for differences between cameras, things like metering accuracy and AF accuracy are going to be more important than how a perfectly exposed image looks at 100% viewing size for real world use.

Sure, I'm as guilty as the next person about "pixel peeping" when camera shopping. For one thing, I tend to test a camera's limits a lot for the type of shooting I sometimes do -- often, just for the heck it (it's a hobby, and it's a way to refine your skill).

Speaking of skill, even my wife is a better photographer than I am, and she knows very little about how cameras work.

She does have a very good eye for composition though (which is far more important).

You'll also find a lot of forum members here that have far more photography skill than I do, and you'll hear the same kind of things from them. Having the best typewriter you can buy doesn't make you a novelist.

Since this is a digital photography site, I try to keep up with how models compare. Some people have a genuine need to know what model is better in one area versus another.

But, in your case, I leaning towards agreeing with JohnG....

JohnG wrote:
Quote:
... buy the cheapest setup out there. Because you're going to regret whatever purchase you make and want to buy something else inside of 6 months because it's the 'latest and greatest'.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 27, 2006, 1:53 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Sorry if this is not a pixel peeping forum (I didn't know I had offended photographers in here), I actually intent to discuss all this out of interest actually. Cameras are all actually just a decision away only, I can actually get any dSLR orpro-sumer for under $1000 or even at $1000 right now. I am just not in a rush, so I still have thetime to discuss in here.

I hope I have not created a mess in here, which apparently seemsI did.

Anyway, I am sorry forstarting such a uselessthread like this (In your terms), I will never start a thread like this ever again.

Bye. (Hope you all experienced photographers don't take any offense in my post)

Regards.
BenjaminXYZ 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 6:15 PM.