Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: AJSJones on August 20, 2003, 01:55:16 pm
-
Doug, Not necessarily easy to find the right threads on this one when you search (you did search didn't you?) but here's one
Please note that it does not address which camera is "better" but does answer part of your question...
Andy
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin....3;t=309 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=309)
-
Why on earth would you do so is my question :cool:
No reason at all if film or sensor is of equal quality in both instances. But supposing, for the fun of it, your large format camera had a smaller format attachment (back) that was restricted to a unique quality of film or sensor ???
-
Ray, it seems obvious that I have struck a nerve. I apologize if I have somehow offended. Since I don't understand the nature of the discussion and doubt that affects me one way or the other, I will simply just drop the matter.
-
If I was a newbie to The Luminous landscape, and trying to learn something about DSLRs in general, or the 10D and 1Ds in particular, and posted a question, and received a two-word reply of:
"who cares?"
you can bet I'd be offended!
We all bring our own background to these discussions. I think we should be more tolerant to other folks who may not have the knowledge about the topic that we've accumulated over many months or years. We might probe a bit more, if we need to understand the basis for their questions. Or, if it's just something we don't care to address, our silence would be less insulting than a terse reply like "who cares".
*stepping off soapbox*
Enjoy!
-- Jim
OK, fair enough. My sincere apologies to everyone.
Fade to black...
-
Bruce,
Thanks for your analysis. YOu have given the best answer yet!
I wonder if Michael can give an opinion on your analysis?
-
You could try to analyse that whole extensive debate, but here is my dogmatic, simple-minded summary:
Pixel pitch (pixels per mm) predicts resolution (lp/mm) to a good degree of accuracy when comparing two cameras both having AA filters; I have seen only about a 5% variation in comparing a number of different resolution tests, which does not seem enough to lose any sleep over.
For example, the reportedly disappointing resolution numbers for the Olympus E-1 are exactly in proportion to those of the Nikon D-100 when you allow for different pixel sizes, while the Canon 10D does about 5% better after such scaling: the E-1 resolution in lp/mm is apparently a bit higher than the others as expected from its somewhat smaller pixels, but its total "lp per picture height" is a bit lower as expected from its somewhat fewer pixels!
Disclaimers:
a) Eliminating the AA filter does improve resolution at a given pixel pitch, but this is rarely an option.
Fuji SuperCCD's score higher, but that is related to the combination of its diagonal pixel alignment with the artificial choice of vertical and horizontal lines on test patterns; maybe not greatly relevant to real world resolution.
-
When using the same focal length lens, will an image taken with a 10D have more resolution than an image taken with the 1Ds and then cropped to the size of the 10D?
What would be the resultant number of pixels and pixel size in the 1Ds crop?
What is the size of the 10D pixels?
Thanks.
-
I am sorry I asked!
-
Pro Photographer, when reviewing the 1Ds, commented in passing that if you shot the same object with a Fuji S2 (at the time, their top resolution dSLR) and a 1Ds from the same spot with the same focal length, and the object just fillled the Fuji's 1.5 crop factor frame, then the Fuji would give you the higher resolution shot, because of its denser pixels. Presumably the same would hold true for the 10D.
Of course, the 1Ds has much the higher resolution if you use *its* full frame, so it's pretty academic - a bit like saying 35mm film out-resolves large format if you only use 1/20th of the large format frame. Why on earth would you do so is my question :cool:
Quentin
-
Doug,
At the risk of irritating Michael, I think these are good questions.
With all due respect, I think the only problem with Micheal's reply is that it could have been shortened to two words, "who cares?"
Isn't the whole point of such discussions to make one feel that they spent less and got more? Like comparing a VW Jetta to a Mercedes based on how fast they can go from 0 to 60?
OK, so here is the definitive answer; the 10D is better than the 1Ds because the 10D has a built-in flash and the 1Ds does not.
I will admit perhaps I had one too many cups of coffee this morning. Or maybe I forgot my Prosac. Maybe I'm not sufficiently geekified for this discussion. Maybe I just don't understand! Can someone help me out here? After buying the IDs, I just can't afford another visit to the psychiatrist.
-
Isn't the whole point of such discussions to make one feel that they spent less and got more? .
Joe,
No it's not. It's about being objective, truthful and fair-minded. There are a lot of status seeking activities in this world which fudge the issues and cause confusion and trouble.
The beauty of technical discussions, is that they hopefully avoid all this crap.
-
It matters because there's a communication gap. Because there's advertising, misinformation and hyperbole.
Some of us want to know exactly what we're getting, and if what we're buying suits our needs and purposes. At the same time, I can appreciate that people flush with money will not care. If they want a camera and the 1Ds is the most expensive, then that's what they'll buy. The nuances of pixel size will not matter.
-
Joe,
You have absolutely not offended or struck a nerve. I'm just an argumentative sort of bloke. That's how I learn. I'm sorry if I've come on too strong. :D
-
Joe,
I hope my comment wasn't too harsh. To be clear, I've enjoyed reading many of your helpful messages in these forums! It's fair to say that you've been a good resource for us all - including the newbies.
Somehow, this thread just got headed down a strange path...
Best Regards,
-- Jim
-
Doug,
You'll find a large part of this (ad nauseum?) topic on a thread comparing lenses, that gradually moved on to the 1Ds/10D issue because someone suggested in oder to discern any difference between the two lenses in question you would need a 1Ds. A 10D would not be up to the job. The link is below.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin....3;t=280 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/cgi-bin/forum/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=3;t=280)
Michael is probably going to stay clear of this issue because in that thread, he provided some really eye-opening information about relative pixel sizes of the two cameras. Trouble is, the information related to the D30 and the 1Ds, with only an implication that the extremely small pixel size of the D30 also applied to the D60 and 10D.
In short, the pixel pitch of the 1Ds is 8.8 microns and that of the 10D 7.4 microns. However, the pixel (or photosite) size of the 1Ds is also close to 8.8 microns, whereas that of the 10D might be as small as 5.25 microns, which is the size of the D30's pixels. In other words, the 1Ds pixels are packed like sardines whereas the 10D pixels have big spaces between. For a unit area of sensor there are more 10D pixels than 1Ds pixels (by my calculation about 4.5M for the 1Ds in the same area as the 10D's 6M). In that sense, the 10D has greater pixel density and one would expect is therefore capable of higher resolution in terms of lines per mm.
However, the 1Ds pixels (packed like sardines) cover about 97% of the sensor area (according to Michael), whereas the 10D pixels cover, possibly, only 25% of the sensor area.
If this is true, and I certainly have no inside information on this apart from what Michael has written, it would seem to me this fact alone will affect the relative performance of these two cameras using the same lens.
For example, let's imagine what happens when photographing a target with fine grain, say texture on a wall. Some of those particles will be as small as 5 microns from the camera's perspective. Because the 1Ds photosites are so tightly packed, the light from a 5 micron particle cannot avoid illuminating one or more of the 1Ds pixels. If the lens is good enough and the target contrasty enough, some 5 micron particles will probably (possibly?) be recorded as 8.8 micron particles. Some will straddle two or more photosites and become irrelevant (not enough photons to matter).
In the case of the 10D, if it's true we have only 25% coverage of the sensor, a large percentage of the 5 micron particles will be essentially lost in the spaces. However, the light from at least some of those particles will hit a 10D photosite square on, and when it does, we will have a more accurate representation of that 5 micron particle.
This is how I see it. I hope I haven't oversimplified matters to the point of error
-
Andy,
I'm basically in agreement. The 5 micron particle was just an illustrative example for the purpose of conceding that the 1Ds might have an advantage in respect of the closer spacing of its pixels, in addition of course to the many obvious advantages of being a much more expensive camera. Maybe I was just being nice to owners of the 1Ds who are overly sensitive about their status symbol being compared to a cheaper camera
In practice, I think the AA filters of both cameras will blur anything as small as 5 microns. Also, the spacing of the 10D pixels, even on the assumption that they are the same size as the D30 pixels, will be a lot closer than the D30 pixels because there are twice as many, so the coverage will be a lot greater than 25% as I suggested in my previous post.
Now, if we can persuade someone to do a few more tests to sort out the comparative noise issue, that would be great
-
Joe,
You have absolutely not offended or struck a nerve. I'm just an argumentative sort of bloke. That's how I learn. I'm sorry if I've come on too strong.
Ray,
Not a problem. I have always enjoyed our discussions in this forum, but this one seemed to have gone sideways somehow. Just didn't want it to degenerate into any ill feelings.
Best regards,
-
Bruce, No need to run for cover!
Your conclusion that IN THE AREA OF ~22X15mm IN THE 10D SENSOR AND THE SAME AREA IN THE 1Ds's SENSOR the 10D has more pixels, is where some of us started - does that lead to more "detail" being captured? The answer seems to be yes, with the anti-alasing filter performance not seeming to play a role in differentiating the resulting images. For me this was a key unknown and its evaluation did indeed influence my purchase decision and expectations.
To Joe's comment, viewing the issue as "Which camera is better? - or even more vaguely which is "better value"" is not helpful because it is not answerable in isolation. However, "Which camera is better to meet my needs?" is answerable on an individual basis once you have the requisite information and determined your priorities!
Andy
-
This topic has been discussed ad nausium on this Board as well as others. Do a search for what other people have written on the topic.
I suggest (with tongue firmly in cheek) that you choose from one of the following three answers...
1: The number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin is 43.
2: The 10D has more pixels and therefore is better.
3: The 1Ds has denser pixel sites and therefore is better.
or, four....
as with most things in life, you get what you pay for — known otherwise as the "there's no free lunch" philosophy
Michael
Ps: Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is a very tedious topic.
-
Doug,
At the risk of irritating Michael, I think these are good questions. Despite the topic having been discussed ad nauseum on this forum, I don't believe you'll find answers to all your questions.
Specifically, there seems to be confusion over the term pixel density. In terms of actual numbers of pixels, the 10D would appear to have greater pixel density. In terms of the actual percentage of the sensor that is covered in pixels, the 1Ds would appear to have greater pixel density. However, there is no information on this site or anywhere else for that matter (that I can find) relating to the actual pixel size of the 10D. Pixel pitch is not pixel size.
The other issue for me (I know you haven't raised it), is comparative noise of equal area crops. This also hasn't been resolved despite the ad nauseum discussion and dozen or more images posted.
Makes one wonder ???
-
Isn't the whole point of such discussions to make one feel that they spent less and got more? .
Joe,
No it's not. It's about being objective, truthful and fair-minded. There are a lot of status seeking activities in this world which fudge the issues and cause confusion and trouble.
The beauty of technical discussions, is that they hopefully avoid all this crap.
OK Ray, I can accept that, but I am still unclear about what such as discussion could/should achieve. Is the question purely hypothetical/academic, or does it have a practical application?
I am honestly not trying to be contrary or argumentative. I simply don't understand why it matters.
-
If I was a newbie to The Luminous landscape, and trying to learn something about DSLRs in general, or the 10D and 1Ds in particular, and posted a question, and received a two-word reply of:
"who cares?"
you can bet I'd be offended!
We all bring our own background to these discussions. I think we should be more tolerant to other folks who may not have the knowledge about the topic that we've accumulated over many months or years. We might probe a bit more, if we need to understand the basis for their questions. Or, if it's just something we don't care to address, our silence would be less insulting than a terse reply like "who cares".
*stepping off soapbox*
Enjoy!
-- Jim
-
I'm tiptoeing into this thread with information that is probably in another thread elsewhere but I was too lazy to look. :O
I took the CCD specs for the 10D and 1DS from the Canon data sheets and proceeded to try to guesstimate what the pixel size was for each camera. I did this by taking the sensor size and dividing the horizontal and vertical dimensions of each sensor by the number of effective pixels in each dimension. For the 10D this results in a pixel size of roughly 0.0074mm square; for the 1DS they're about 0.0088mm square.
I then took the sensor size of the 10D and figured the number of pixels that the 1DS would have in the same dimentions and wound up with 2580 x 1716 pixels. The 10D has 3088 x 2056 pixels in the same area. This would imply to this unworthy individual that you might be able to squeeze a slightly bigger print out of a 10D photo, all other things being equal (which they won't be).
Running for cover...
Bruce
-
Is the question purely hypothetical/academic, or does it have a practical application?
Here is one possible application for a certain group of photographers: you like photographing birds, and to that end have bought the longest, fastest lens that you can afford; but often it is still not enough and you have to crop substantially: which camera does the best in that situation?
My "geek" answer: the one that has good sensor MTF (say 50%, following Norm Koren) at the highest possible number of line pairs per millimeter. So maybe the best choice will be a Sony 828 with telecoverter
-
Hey Ray!
How does your discussion change if you take the anti-aliasing filter into account? Rhetorical, I know, because there's no information on it. So here goes a bit of speculation...
I'd assume it performs an (analog) function similar to Gaussian blur, so the photons from each of your grains is spread through several sensor pixels and, among other things, thereby yields color infomation which would not be the case if only one sensor element had been in the path of the light ray (no relation ). The AA filter also does what its name suggests by this same "spreading" function. Therefore, I'd go as far as suggesting the actual pixel size per se is not a very important factor, although we have shown that the spacing (pitch) does indeed affect captured detail with the 10D getting a bit more per sq mm of sensor. Pixel size, sensor design and fabrication are clearly contributors to the resulting sensitivity/signal to noise etc, so in that sense pixel size is important, for different reasons. If all the sensed photons at a pixel have arrived after having been blurred by at least a diameter or two (I'd guess, for the AA function to be worthwhile) of the pixel pitch, it likely won't matter much whether the pixels are full-sized or half-sized, as long as they sample the photons well and have good S/N.
What do you think?
Andy