LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI saw this posted elsewhere,and its really a good article talking about sensor size and aperture,and how it affects the quality of the final image:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/266...-should-i-care
It is really worth a read IMHO!!
I saw this posted elsewhere,and its really a good article talking about sensor size and aperture,and how it affects the quality of the final image:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/266...-should-i-care
It is really worth a read IMHO!!
TheAnimus (07-07-2014)
What a great write-up! It nicely shows something I've tried (and failed) to explain before when people talk about sensor size, ignoring that to get 'equivalent real world performance' bigger isn't always better!
I hope they do a followup looking at the problems created by sensor pixel well size. This is fascinating as ultimately there is a limit we aren't that far from, the Pentax Q had pixels that many felt were too small at something like 1500nm, when you consider the human eye is considered to see colours with a wavelength around 700nm, that is certainly very, very close. (I'll be honest here, I've no idea if you'd need nyquest on something that is a photon and a wave, we must have some physics buffs on Hexus, maybe I'll try and flag this as a question for them).
This combined with the circle of confusion, can create demands on the lenses which they are ill equipped to handle. Many D7100 / K-3 users (myself included) have found that lenses we used to love are now limiting, horrible so compared to a quality prime.
As a result the march to finding optimum sensor size to me appears to be an exercise in balancing quality of glass, ability to produce sensor wells with smaller borders, whilst dealing with silicon issues (larger perfect sensors are harder than smaller ones) and the like.
It's also why I think the future of pro photography is most certainly not constrained to 35mm, I almost see it splitting to Medium Format for the must have high res work, and more portable m4/3 style size for others.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Agreed, more or less.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
Of course, the current dominance of 35mm size DSLRs among enthusiasts, and the investment many of us have made in lenses, etc, adds considerably to inertia, or it sure adds to my inertia anyway () but, going forward, it's getting harder and harder to see real advantages of 35mm-equiv format over 4/3rd, etc.
I wonder what the balance will be in 5 years?
Another take on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtDotqLx6nA
Regarding the lens argument that is also making the assumption that larger sensors always have lower photo-detector densities than APS-C sensors,which is not always the case. When it comes to low light abilities,its the amount of light gathered by the lenses and the individual photo-detector area(but the back end parts of the chip,and other technology can complicate things),which are important determining factors IMHO.
The only problem,is that many 35MM designs and lenses were made for film,not digital which means in many cases modern zooms can end up being better lenses,including those made for APS-C lenses.Agreed, more or less.
Of course, the current dominance of 35mm size DSLRs among enthusiasts, and the investment many of us have made in lenses, etc, adds considerably to inertia, or it sure adds to my inertia anyway (
I wonder what the balance will be in 5 years?
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 08-07-2014 at 08:51 AM.
Indeed, Cat. Not quite my point though. I've got the clobber made for 35mm, and spent the money. Not just lenses, either. Flash too, in my case, like the macro twin flash.
To change format would cost me a lot more than just the cost of a 4/3 body, but the loss on selling all my existing kit, and essentially buying a whole load more to do much the same thing.
It's the old "well, I wouldn't start from here" thing .... but "here" is where I am. What I've got works for me, and while there might be advantages in switching, I can't see me spending what it'd cost to do it.
Aside from existing equipment, usage is also a factor - for some tasks an 'at eye' camera with beefy grip, AF performance and 1001 at the finger functions is needed for the job. There sensor size isn't really the issue, but simply what equipment is available.
But yes, page 4 is what I've been explaining to some people for a while - my father (a physical scientist) even needed some persuasion until I got him to look at the (simple) maths.
Another consideration is depth of field. A large sensor with a very wide aperture lens,is going to lead to a very narrow depth of field,which is useless in many cases.
I agree upto a degree,but I also found that older lenses can have other limitations like worse focusing especially for telephoto lenses. ATM,I am using 35MM telephoto lenses on an APS-C body,and its the slow focusing of the screw lenses which is a major limitation for me.
too much talking not enough taking of photographs!
| Photographer |
Again, agreed up to a point. There are advantages. To be honest, I'd be more interested in reduction in weight, because the older I get, the more of a chore carrying all my "35mm" gear around gets to be. And I'm not that old. Working on it, though.
But I certainly grant you the design criteria point.
My point, I guess, is am I prepared to pay what I'd cost, to get the benefits I'd get. Optically, I manage okay with my current gear, and weight-wise, I've just been getting more selective about what I take on any particular trip. Gone are the days of taking pretty much everything through Heathrow several times a year, though.
TBH,I am not of the lug all the lenses you can type,since it is not always practical to be changing lenses all the time anyway IMHO,plus even when I have it ends up being dead weight which I need to lug around anyway!!Again, agreed up to a point. There are advantages. To be honest, I'd be more interested in reduction in weight, because the older I get, the more of a chore carrying all my "35mm" gear around gets to be. And I'm not that old. Working on it, though.
But I certainly grant you the design criteria point.
My point, I guess, is am I prepared to pay what I'd cost, to get the benefits I'd get. Optically, I manage okay with my current gear, and weight-wise, I've just been getting more selective about what I take on any particular trip. Gone are the days of taking pretty much everything through Heathrow several times a year, though.
Cannon was able to get people to switch away from perfectly good lenses because they changed the mount, they did this because the pull of digital photography was just to great, the benefits outweighed the cons.Of course, the current dominance of 35mm size DSLRs among enthusiasts, and the investment many of us have made in lenses, etc, adds considerably to inertia, or it sure adds to my inertia anyway (
I can see that happening for tiny camera system. My biggest dislike is that the 4/3rds just don't have the focusing I like, plus I've yet to use an EVF that is as good as a pentaprisim SLR, however, none of these are related to the sensor directly. Phase vs Contrast detection debates aside (or even that hybrid I think it was canon were doing).
One of the worst arguments people give against disruptive tech, is that the established legacy is a good thing. For instance I'd really like the 560mm Pentax have made, ok it's far too expensive, but I'd like it. Then again, would I take it with me next month? Lug that heavy SOB two flights, 15 hours to Bali? Carry it on the MRT on my stop-over? Nope. Meanwhile, someone with a smaller sensor.....
Myself I think that I'd want the smallest possible, but as I said before there are some limitations of the world, at least as far as I understand it, the whole particle and a wave thing never really sits well in my mind letting me understand it.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Aww but I can't do that stuck here in the office!too much talking not enough taking of photographs!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
too much talking not enough taking of photographs!
Its an authentic smiley Moose! Honest!
Noooo boring technical photo's 'showing' equivalence and noise etc. are best left to articles like the ones linkedtoo much talking not enough taking of photographs!
It depends, with me, where I'm going when I do the lugging. And why. And for how long. If I'm going for the day, or a couple of hours, it's probably for a specific purpose, and I take what's relevant for that purpose, like macro shots in the woods, or bluebell scenes. But I used to go transatlantic several times a year, often for business, but with a leisure element too. I might take one lens for a trade show in Vegas, a couple for for landscape shots during a couple of days at the Grand Canyon, and the macro gear for a week visiting relatives somewhere else in the US. Ditto for product shots visiting Epson in Japan, but different lenses for a side trip to Mount Fuji, some time spent with Cherry blossom trees in Tokyo, or the spectacular fall leaves in the mountains, and yet something else for a trip to historic Kyoto.TBH,I am not of the lug all the lenses you can type,since it is not always practical to be changing lenses all the time anyway IMHO,plus even when I have it ends up being dead weight which I need to lug around anyway!!
Sometimes, I can be quite selective in what I lug, but sometimes, not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
