bansal98 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 One of the reasons that Canon 5D has such great picture quality is because of its huge pixels (8.2 micron). Shouldn't then Nikon D40 come close which has a pixel size of 7.9 microns? Or may be it already does? I have been doing a lot of search on google for this but didn't find anything relevant. Thanks! PS - Both of these cameras came out at almost the same time so the sensor technology should be comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralph_jensen Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Well, if pixel size was all that mattered, a 1-megapixel full-frame camera would have better picture quality than the 12-megapixel 5D, but there is of course no 1-mp SLR, for a reason: The "huge pixels" are only "ONE OF" the reasons the Canon 5D has such great picture quality, as you say. There are many other factors involved in Image Quality besides pixel size, and trying to judge IQ based solely on specs - or on brand name, or on anything other than actual images - will be a dead end. Fortunately, plenty of direct comparisons of images taken by different cameras are available online. See this page, for example - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD40/page23.asp ... and you can compare images between any two popular SLRs here: http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_solomon2 Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 Manish, another reason why the 5D image quality is superior to that of the Nikon D40 is that the 5D sensor is larger and covers full-frame (approximately 36x24mm), whereas the Nikon D40 uses a "cropped sensor" design. So, not only are the pixels larger in the 5D, but there are more of them on a physically larger area. So you're not comparing comparable cameras, it's really comparing apples and oranges.The Canon 5D and the Nikon D3 would be a more valid comparison, if one just goes by sensor size. And here, I think the D3 would win, especially in terms of high ISO sensitivity. Have fun! ~Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saskphotog Posted May 12, 2008 Share Posted May 12, 2008 There are MANY more variables to picture quality than the size of the pixels. Many. Ralph said it already: such simplistic comparisons are a dead end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_foiles2 Posted May 13, 2008 Share Posted May 13, 2008 You need to do a lot more research. The 5D was released a full year before the Nikon D40 and cost in excess of $3000 when released compared to less than $600 for the D40. You get what you pay for. 5D CMOS sensor, D40 CCD sensor. The sensor tech between the two is most certainly not comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
touristguy87_tg87 Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 "The Canon 5D and the Nikon D3 would be a more valid comparison, if one just goes by sensor size. And here, I think the D3 would win, especially in terms of high ISO sensitivity. Have fun! ~Steve" the true comparison is the 5D and the 30D since they both have the same sensor technology and pixel pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmanthree Posted May 14, 2008 Share Posted May 14, 2008 tourisguy... 5D vs 30D? Same sensor size? Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now