RE: New Image
- From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@xxxxxxx>
- To: leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 18:08:22 -0800
Hi Jim,
So if I've read your technology correctly? Basically when I add a new body
to the digi collection I'd be further a head to pick-up a 5D? And I could
expect better print quality than I do with the 20D I've used the past few
years.
Over to you my friend as I'll probably add something come spring.
Thank you,
ted
-----Original Message-----
From: leica-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:leica-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jim Brick
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 5:21 PM
To: leica@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: New Image
David,
There is no way that I am preaching or pushing on anyone to buy one
camera over another. All I am doing is pointing out the science
behind the various sensor options available. It is a pretty well
known technology and provides a very high revenue stream with good
performance, which allows the companies the resources to make some
very expensive equipment, with stellar performance.
As I said, the smaller the pixel, the worse the performance. This is
why all MF & full frame sensors (save the EOS 1Ds Mark III, which,
unless they have broken 'Jim's Law', has the problems I've mentioned)
use large pixels. The 40D has a sensor with less than half of the
full frame real estate, yet they cram-in 10mp. This significantly
reduces the size of each pixel. To see what I am talking about, read
some of this:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/
Small sensors with small pixels are a HUGE profit maker. That's the
technology developed and used by the billions in all P&S cameras. So
for the big name camera makers, this is the gravy train. And
performance is more than adequate for 90% of the amateur and advanced
amateur DSLR users. In order for Canon & Nikon to actually develop &
produce a FF sensor based camera, they have to have a large profit
stream since these cameras will be very expensive comparatively. A FF
sensor IS extremely expensive to make. There is a very low yield
which means a very high cost.
But I contend that the APS section of a 12mp FF sensor will give a
better image than a 10mp APS sensor.
I have two friends who have both a 5D and a 30D. They each have
migrated 100% to their 5D claiming that even when cropped, the 5D
gives them a cleaner and sharper image, and as the ISO goes up... it
stays clean. I won't mention the names of these folks as I don't want
anyone bugging them forcing them to defend their observation, but one
of the names would be instantly recognizable to the members of this
list. I mention this only to help support the fact that 'smaller
pixels, compared to larger pixels, produce inferior images'.
So, what does this all mean... well... probably nothing to folks who
have researched their needs and have found what they want. But to
those who are still thinking about what they might want - think about
what I said. Basically big sensors = big pixels = less noise and
better (smoother) images. There is far more data in a large pixel
compared to a small pixel. And I would not, even if I could, buy a
Canon 1Ds Mark III! Packing 21mp into a 24x36mm space - as I said,
unless they have broke Jim's Law, is like chasing your tail. The
problem with small pixels have been known for a long time. First
figured out by astronomers, who need very low noise dark performance.
So the result was that, a pixel in the 8 to 12 micron size provides
the best signal to noise ratio for the information gathered.
Anyway... to each his own... especially when all of the hi-end
cameras produce stunning images. My very best friend in the world
produces stunning images with a Nikon D40. So weigh carefully what
you need vs the technology available, and how the technology works.
Google goes a long way in answering basic questions.
And remember, that in order to make small pixels look like larger
pixels, they have had to build better interpolators. Interpolators
ADD data where there is NO data. So to get the same amount of data
from 5 micron pixels that you get from 8 micron pixels, a lot of
non-existent data has to be created and added.
:-)
Jim
At 02:49 PM 1/14/2008 -0800, David Young wrote:
>You make some good points, Jim, and I do not argue that the 5DE is
>anything but a fine camera. However, we will have to disagree on one point.
>
>The 5D has 12 megapixels. The 40D has 10. But the 40D sensor has
>roughly 40% of the 5D's area. If I were to use a 5D and crop to APS
>size (as you suggest), I would have 40% of 12 mpixels (4.8 mpixels)
>to play with. If I use the 40D's APS sensor (cropping in the
>camera, as you rightly call it) I still have 10mpixels to play
>with. And I like having more megapixels to play with, 'cause
>sometimes I crop my shots, even further. (Photographing 6" tall
>birds at 30' is not as easy as you might think!)
>
>I also like having a minimum of 10 megapixels to play with, as most
>modern photo-printers (in labs - I send my printing out) print at
>300dpi ... so an 8x12" print =2400x3600 pixels. The 8mp models come
>close (2348x3522 for the 30D) but the 10mp cameras Canon APS models
>or DMR, offer wee bit more, so they can print in this size without
>interpolation, even after modest cropping.
>
>And although the 5D may have lower noise, the noise levels on the
>30D are amazingly good... and the 40D is reputed to be a bit better.
>
>I have 30x45cm (12x18") prints made from both the 20D and 30D which
>are of excellent quality. (If you choose to question my judgement
>on this, ask Ted, for he has seen the prints, which hang on my
>walls, and has inspected them at close range.)
>
>Your argument also forgets that I have $1000 invested in a Canon
>EF-S w/a lens which will not mount on the 5D. So, I must consider
>not only the difference in body cost, but the loss on my w/a lens,
>when replacing that with something that will.
>
>All I'm looking for is a brighter finder, that will be easier to use
>for manual focusing. The reviews say that the 40D's finder is
>noticeably brighter than that in the 30D, and equal (light per sq.
>cm) to that in the 5D, though the mirror is smaller, to match the
>sensor, and thus not quite as much light comes through, in total.
>
>So, you see, what makes the 5D a better camera for you does not
>necessarily make it a better camera, for me. Thanks, but I'll stick
>with the 20/30/40D.
>
>Respectfully,
>David.
=========================================================
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.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.2/1223 - Release Date: 1/13/2008
8:23 PM
Other related posts:
