Re: Canon EOS 5D Review

Rich, I do understand this argumentation and I have had some headache during
writing this paragraph but I can only comment that I cannot see the
theoretically possible better resolution with the D2X as much as I would
like to see it. Have you got an explanation why the resolution of the D2X is
better as expected but not as much as it would be expected from the pixel
count?

I see also what the caveat of the APS sensor is - one needs to compare the
image on the sensor with the same focal length for both cameras, this would
then show that the Nikon is by a factor of about 1,5 better if one takes the
same crop of the field of view but in practial usage, this is not the way it
is done - so one uses a 24mm lens for the full frame and a 20mm lens for the
APS size sensor camera - which I agree is as you stated not completely
correct but in real life the actual comparison. I shall add some wording to
the text, pointing this out....

Thanks and regards

George


"Rich" <none@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:r65bl1p214sppbfrgaicvj54alriruudts@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:59:24 -0600, "George N.Nyman"
> <gnnyman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>Hello everyone,
>>for those who are interested - my review of the EOS 5D is online now -
>>here
>>is the link: http://www.gnyman.com/Canon5D.htm
>>
>>I know it is neither complete nor comprehensive, but I got the camera for
>>one day only....
>>George Nyman
>>
>
> Good review, nice images, tonality definitely benefits from the FF
> sensor, but this paragraph from your review is questionable.
>
>
> "Both cameras use CMOS sensors and if one does the math, the D2x with
> its smaller sensor corresponds theoretically to a full frame 19MP
> camera but as their pixels are significantly smaller, the gain on
> theoretical resolution can not be realized due to the less efficient
> light collection and processing abilities of the smaller pixel
> geometry - which means that one can expect to see a slightly higher
> resolution with the D2X but definitely not as much as one could expect
> from the difference in pixel size - which confirms again that the size
> of the pixels is not the one and only determining factor for
> performance and resolution in digital images."
>
> Light collection above a certain point really has little to do with
> resolution of detail. If you consider each pixel element to be
> individually manipulatable by the incoming light, then if the Nikon
> were a FF sensor, you would see more fine detail with it because it's
> pixels are smaller. The linear resolution of the Nikon would be
> 58% greater than the Canon. For instance, if you were to shoot
> pictures of a railway track receding into the distance,
> if you lost the rails through "resolution extinction" on the Canon
> at a distance of 100 yards, the Nikon would still show the rails
> as distinct at 150 yards. Larger pixels are more efficient at
> gathering light, but as long as the light from the image is
> sufficient, the Nikon would display noticeably better resolution.
> If you were to image the same subject at the same scale on both
> the Canon and the Nikon, the subject would contain substantially more
> pixels and thus would show much more detail.
> We know that a sensor that is smaller than FF images an smaller angle
> with a given lens than does a FF sensor. If you were to "panorama"
> two images with the Nikon (enough to match the Canon's coverage) and
> take just one image with the Canon, thereby producing the same overall
> image in both, the Nikon image would show more detail because it would
> contain more pixels. Give it a try with the same focal length lens
> and see what happens.
> -Rich
> -Rich
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Basic newbie question on cmos sensor and optics
    ... > Sensor A: ... > Resolution: 1280x1024, region of interest really used: 1024x768 ... > It's counter-intuitive to me why a much bigger, more costly sensor, ... The bigger, more costly sensor, with more pixels of a similar size, ...
    (sci.optics)
  • Re: Nikon and Megapixels
    ... Does it even occur to you that a doubling of pixels from 12 Mpix to 24 is only a 41% increase in resolution for a given sensor area? ... Does it occur to you that the resolution of these 21 - 24 Mpix cameras is about the same as the high end MF cameras - just with fewer overall pixels. ... and the Nikon fans seem to have some digesting it is that Canon beat Nikon to full frame and to higher pixel counts leaving Nikon users cold. ...
    (alt.photography)
  • Re: New HD Media Center Edition
    ... >> For your application (I also am a Nikon Boy), ... > image to fit in the available output resolution. ... Images use square pixels. ... >> screen as they do on a computer monitor. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.mediacenter)
  • Re: Low cost image sensor
    ... >I have been searching the web for a low cost image sensor. ... read to 0.1mm resolution which actually means a minimum of 200 pixels ... realistically 400 pixels would be better to ensure the resolution. ... Ideally I would like no moving parts, and no lens. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Canon EOS 5D Review
    ... Have you got an explanation why the resolution of the D2X is ... D2X as with the larger Canon sensor, that would mean that more than ... >then show that the Nikon is by a factor of about 1,5 better if one takes the ... owing to it's larger pixels. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)