Re: Canon EOS 5D Review
- From: Rich <none@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:35:32 -0400
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:44:53 -0600, "George N.Nyman"
<gnnyman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>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?
It's resolution should be no better than the Canon since they both
have 12 megapixels. But, if the same "area" were covered by the
D2X as with the larger Canon sensor, that would mean that more than
one frame from the D2X was be used, which = more pixels to create
the image which should mean a proportional increase in detail
resolved.
>
>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
I agree with you. Unfortunately, this only shows the area coverage,
if you want to see which camera resolves better with a specific image
and pixel count, you have to do what you suggest, use different focal
length lenses. In fact, it is very interesting to compare images
comprising identical area coverage with both the Canon and Nikon by
using different focal length lenses. This is where you would likely
see the Canon take the lead in image quality, but for reasons other
than pure resolution, owing to it's larger pixels. The pixel count
for both images would be the same but it's likely the Canon would
display less noise, better tonality, etc, owing to it's larger, more
sensitive pixel structure.
-Rich
-Rich
>
>
>"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
>>
>
.
- References:
- Canon EOS 5D Review
- From: George N.Nyman
- Re: Canon EOS 5D Review
- From: Rich
- Re: Canon EOS 5D Review
- From: George N.Nyman
- Canon EOS 5D Review
- Prev by Date: Re: focus isn't much
- Next by Date: Re: focus isn't much
- Previous by thread: Re: Canon EOS 5D Review
- Next by thread: Re: Canon EOS 5D Review
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
