Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: What to buy, what to buy.

Subject: [OM] Re: What to buy, what to buy.
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 May 2008 15:04:21 -0400
I didn't say anything about qualitative differences in resolution or 
light gathering abilities since there are most assuredly non-linear 
relationships there... which probably go in both directions.  But I'm 
sure you must recall Moose's comparisons of an image from his 300D 
compared to an equal area but lesser pixel count crop from the 5D.  The 
5D crop has less "resolution" but wins the IQ contest.

I can't quantify it but it is true that, in digital sensors at least, 
size matters and even after the 8x10 crops the larger sensors are still 
larger.

Chuck Norcutt

AG Schnozz wrote:
> Dr Flash wrote:
>> A 4/3 sensor is 17.3x13mm and when cropped to 8x10 ratio
>> gives 16.25x13mm for a total area of 211.25 square mm.  A Canon
>> 1.6X crop sensor is 22.2x14.8mm and when cropped 8x10 is 18.5x14.8mm
>> for a total are of 267.14 square mm or 26.5% larger.  A Nikon 1.5X crop
>> sensor is 23.6x15.8mm for a total area of 312.05 square mm or 47.7%
>> larger.  A Canon 5D sensor is 35.8x23.9mm and cropped 8x10 is
>> 29.88x23.9mm for a total area of 714.13 square mm or 338% larger.
>>
>> Sorry, but I don't find much parity in these numbers.
> 
> Ah, but surface area is NOT the appropriate calculation to use in 
> enlargability.  You use linear dimension of the shortest side.  In this case 
> we are comparing 13mm, 14.8mm, 15.8mm and 23.9mm. Some would argue that you 
> would use the diagonal measurement.
> 
> So, recalc this based on 13 vs 14.8, 13 vs 15.8 and 13 vs 23.9.
> 
> Resolution is a linear issue, not an area issue.
> 
> However, if you are talking about light-gathering capabilities (assuming 100% 
> fill), the larger sensors would definitely have an edge, but we aren't always 
> seeing it in actual practice. According to the surface area calculations, the 
> Canon 5D should have 2.67 times better noise control over the 30D.  Does it?  
> It depends.  Also, under this same argument, the 5D images should be 2.67 
> times better than the 30D images.  Are they better?  Absolutely--even Ray 
> Charles could have seen the difference.  But how much of that difference is 
> due to greater surface area, linear dimension or lens issues is debateable.  
> In all honesty, I doubt anybody can prove that the 5D is 2.67 times better 
> than the 30D.
> 
> It ain't all surface area.  Does it help?  Sure, but then you run into other 
> issues.
> 
> Have I swallowed the 4/3 cool-aid?  Yes and no.  I would love to have a FF 
> 35mm camera that takes my Zuikos.  But for the low percentage of shots where 
> I actually could use that capability, I cannot justify the purchase of a FF 
> 35mm digital camera yet.  Maybe someday i'll pick up a secondhand Canon FF 
> camera, but not until they are in my bargain-basement price category.
> 
> Actually, a Digital Rebel with a FF sensor for $475 USD would be pretty 
> compelling.
> 
> AG
> 
> 
>       
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> 
> ==============================================
> List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
> 
> 
> 

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz