Old Canon 5D with "fat" pixels. Magic color?

Yes . . . But, in the case that the OP is asking about, we are not talking about newer, advanced, technology. This includes things like "micro-lens" panels over the sensor to gather more light for each of the smaller sensors, faster processors which can hold and use more code to process the data off of the chip, better sensors which are less susceptible to noise in the first place and many other advances that we have seen since the early models.

One of the things that has happened, btw, is that manufacturers now use more of the surface of the sensor, there is less unused space between pixels, which means that the photo sites on a new 42MP camera may not be as much smaller than those on an old 12MP camera.

Andrew . . . Each photo site, regardless of size produces about the same amount of "static" or "noise" while larger sites father more light. Signal to noise is almost always going to be lower with larger sites. This is why a 12M FF sensor looks better than a 12M APS-C sensor which also looks better than a 12M cell phone camera. It's why a professional video camera with 3/4 inch sensors produces a better image than a Handicam with 1/8 inch sensors.

Absolutely. It depends what you're keeping constant in your comparison - total sensor size (so smaller pixels means more of them over which the image is spread) or pixel count (so smaller pixels means less total image area gathering light). If we're adjusting total image area, equivalence comes into it to, and then we start having to worry about aperture to get a matching depth of field for a truly "equivalent image", and then ISO changes to compensate for the adjusting change of aperture, and everything kind of (but not completely) cancels out. But I agree that wasn't the original question. :-)

Yes . . . But, in the case that the OP is asking about, we are not talking about newer, advanced, technology. This includes things like "micro-lens" panels over the sensor to gather more light for each of the smaller sensors, faster processors which can hold and use more code to process the data off of the chip, better sensors which are less susceptible to noise in the first place and many other advances that we have seen since the early models.

 

One of the things that has happened, btw, is that manufacturers now use more of the surface of the sensor, there is less unused space between pixels, which means that the photo sites on a new 42MP camera may not be as much smaller than those on an old 12MP camera.

Indeed, although that's balanced out a bit recently (new sensors aren't gathering more light than fairly-new sensors, although BSI and stacked pixels are still affecting things). Can I throw video into the mix? Because different sensors sampling different numbers of pixels to produce video can similarly artificially limit the light gathering. It's one reason the A7S series produce such good low-light video - unlike most bodies (especially when they were launched) almost the entire image gathering area was contributing to the video; many other bodies skipped pixels to meet the necessary read-out speeds, and consequently failed to get the contribution from some of the light. Not that the original 5D could do video...

Interesting, I came across this Philadelphia Craigslist ad for a brand spanking new never opened box, yes fat pixels and all, zero shutter count, time capsuled 5D 20th Anniversary Kit (Circa 2007) with an EF 24-105 F/4 L USM lens and the Canon Digital Gadget Bag 200DG that has been sitting in some guys closet in Philadelphia for over a decade. Asking price...hold on to your wallets...$2449.00 US :confused: At that price it won't last long. o_O Wonder what happened? Surprise, look what i found in the secret compartment in the back of the closet. When you hide the Christmas presents to well while drinking heavily on Christmas eve? I knew Santa got you a new camera 10 years ago. :eek: It was setting right there next to your new Red Rider BB Gun, all this time.

What are your fat pixels worth? Personally, I will pass at that price and go for 2018 technology. But for the serious museum collector, what a perfect vintage piece, it could set next to the never opened GI Joe Space Capsule.

If you ever open it, it will lose $2100 of it's value. Wonder if the mirror has fallen off in the box.

When I know which pictures were taken with the 5D(i) I see those "fat pixels"

When I don't know which were taken with which camera, I really can't see the difference.

In any case, the early 5D was dandy, and 12 mega pixies is plenty good. I think the usefulness lower limit is pretty close to 6MP, just as the Nikon people said when that was all they had.:cool:

 

... If you ever open it, it will lose $2100 of it's value. Wonder if the mirror has fallen off in the box.

 

 

[ATTACH=full]1265698[/ATTACH]

LMFAO!!! That, Sir, is a question of quantum significance. When we collapse that $2100 quantum waveform, we shall know the answer! ... until then, the mirror has both fallen off, AND is still attached (but not secure)... Maybe that superposition is the real reason for the worth!

LMFAO!!! That, Sir, is a question of quantum significance. When we collapse that $2100 quantum waveform, we shall know the answer! ... until then, the mirror has both fallen off, AND is still attached (but not secure)... Maybe that superposition is the real reason for the worth!

So going with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics applied to everyday objects like the Schrödinger's cat interpretation, we could call this Schrödinger's Canon 5D and using super position the mirror is both still attached and fallen off based on an unknown subatomic event as long as box remains sealed . And with the observer effect influencing the outcome if the 5D were ever opened from it's time capsule, the mirror may be on as long as the camera is never observed but once opened the mirror has fallen off. The act of observing could be the catalyst that triggers the random subatomic event that determines the mirror being attached or not. If I were the seller this would be my story and I would stick to it. The mirror was attached when I sols it to you.;)

Schrödinger's Canon 5D

This is one more reason I really like Photo.net.:D