Re: What if Fuji doubled the sensor size?

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:4623b9e0$0$270$8046368a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

John Sheehy wrote:
David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> wrote in news:46230cb4$0$957
$8046368a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Why go for 25 megapixels? I'd *much* rather go for higher quality
and higher ISOs for printing up to 11x14 than try to make a P&S that
can print to 30x40 or whatever.

But does that trade-off really exist?

Well, all the tests show it does, and all the people who really look
into the area (perhaps excepting you) seem to agree it does.

What tests? I have seen no tests from anyone but me that test what is
relevant; image quality per unit of sensor area. Everyone else whose
tests I have been pointed to are testing something else, entirely.

Once, it was a nearly universal belief that small pixels are inherently
inferior. Now, usenet groups are one of the last holdouts of big-pixel
believers.

The idea that large pixels are better is one of the grand illusions
of the early digital photography era, IMO. The illusion is created
by the facts:

1) That given the same number of pixels, bigger pixels are better,
but
don't forget that the *SENSOR* is also bigger!

2) When more pixels are crammed into the *same* sensor area, noise
(and/or
the alleged need for noise reduction) increases when view at 100%
pixel view. Bigger displays go best with bigger sensors; smaller
pixels in the same sensor size are more useful for more resolution
at the same display size (and for more artifact-free arbitrary
resampling).

Okay; for my purposes, that all translates back to "bigger pixels are
better". So the tradeoff exists, yes.

No, it doesn't translate that way, unless you believe that all sensors
have the same number of pixels, or that printed area should always be
proportional to the number of pixels.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@xxxxxxx>
<<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Resolution question
    ... That really is an insane number of pixels per mm. ... (The limit on lens performance is diffraction. ... sensor, giving you larger pixels. ... People with more sense than money who own cameras like the 1Dsmk2 or 5D will ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Canon EOS 5D Review
    ... Have you got an explanation why the resolution of the D2X is ... I see also what the caveat of the APS sensor is - one needs to compare the ... then show that the Nikon is by a factor of about 1,5 better if one takes the ... > camera but as their pixels are significantly smaller, ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Light fall off on dSLRs - an experiment
    ... camera -- about f/350 equivalent. ... the head horizontally kept the sensor "in place", ... AOI G0 B R G1 ... is offset from the pixels themselves. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • 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: Basic newbie question on cmos sensor and optics
    ... ??The bigger, more costly sensor, with more pixels of a similar size, ... image a larger field of view, or use a bigger lens to collect ...
    (sci.optics)