Re: New Image

Jim:
Thanks for the heads up on David Pogue's presentation. I've enjoyed his columns in Mac World and elsewhere for years.
I agree on real data being better than interpolated. That may be more of an issue in 'available darkness', with a 12-bit camera. I like the low-light results with my EOS 1D Mark II and its 8.2uM pixel size, the same as the 5D's.
The 1D Mark III has 10.1MP, 7.2uM pixels, and 14-bit resolution per color. But DIGIC III post-processing would be the only reason I'd consider one. I'm more likely to sell off my 20D and pick up a 40D to replace it. I have good results from the 20D in adequate light, and that's how I'd use the 40D.
That said, for wedding and other event photography, I'll always want an M-camera with 35mm f/2, 50mm f/1, and 90mm lenses. There's nothing like 'em when I need to be unobtrusive. 

Mark

Mark Bohrer
Wildlife Photography on the Urban Edge
www.mountain-and-desert.com


At 07:01 PM 1/14/2008, you wrote:

Mark,
You might be interested in this since it is local. I belong to ASMP which is why I get these notices. 

http://asmpnorcal.org/drupal/?q=node/405
And I personally refuse to fall into the interpolation trap. Making smaller pixels means fewer electrons stored per pixel means less data for that point. The only way for small pixel sensors to compete with large pixel sensors is to interpolate (create) the missing data. Some algorithms are good but it is still not better than having the actual data from the scene to use. This is why MF digital backs produce such stellar images. Nine microns per pixel. An enormous amount of image data per pixel. 

:-)

Jim


At 04:18 PM 1/14/2008 -0800, Mark wrote:

Some numbers:
EOS 5D pixel count: 13.3MP
EOS 5D effective pixels: 12.7MP
EOS 5D sensor size: 35.8 x 23.9mm
EOS 5D pixel size: 8.2um (square)
EOS 5D post-processing firmware: DIGIC II

EOS 40D pixel count: 10.5MP
EOS 40D effective pixels: 10.1MP
EOS 40D sensor size: 22.2 x 14.8mm
EOS 40D pixel size: 5.7um (square)
EOS 40D post-processing firmware: DIGIC III
In formal and informal reviews, DIGIC III has shown noise at least one ISO-stop better than DIGIC II. That is, a DIGIC III camera gives you the same noise at twice ISO1 as a DIGIC II camera does at ISO1. That's a significant advantage. Some of that may be due to the 40D's improved pixel microlens design over older cameras like the 5D.
The 40D offers 14-bits for each R, G and B color channel, versus the 5D's 12 bits. That gives finer color gradation in RAW files, which give you nice adjustment options in Photoshop CS-3's 16-bit commands.
Going by area, an APS-sized chunk of the 5D's sensor gives you 38.4 % of the total. That comes out to 4.877 effective megapixels, versus 10.1effective MP using all of the 40D's APS-sized sensor.
I used the first EOS 1D several years ago. It had a 4.1MP sensor. The resolution difference between it and even a 10D's 6MP made me start using the 10D all the time instead. 4-ish MP just wasn't enough.
The difference between Minox frames and 35mm frames is pretty extreme. I don't think that's a very good comparison. And 1/2 frame 35mm cameras gave you half the frame of the same piece of film, with that film's inherent grain and resolution limitations. So that's not quite a valid comparison either when the smaller sensor has more resolution.
The biggest difference is in DIGIC III's noise reduction versus DIGIC II. It's like getting a stop of push-processing with no increase in grain.
So it comes down to horses for courses. If you shoot wildlife and compose tightly in the finder, the 40D makes sense. If you use wides a lot, crop your shots, and/or shoot in good light, the 5D makes sense.
Using an APS-sensored camera on a regular basis accustoms you to 'seeing' with one. So you can still have all the habitat around the animal to choose from. Cropping an APS-sized frame may make picture resolution suffer, if you don't have enough pixels to start with and want a 16 X 20 or larger print. An EOS 1Ds Mark III's 21.1 MP may be the best $olution. 

Mark Bohrer



=========================================================
To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be replied to per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to unsubscribe. 


=========================================================
To Unsubscribe: Send email to leica-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in 
the Subject field. The acknowledgment that you then receive MUST be replied to 
per instructions. You may also log in to the Web interface to unsubscribe.

Other related posts: