Nikon vs. Canon

[paul_sokal___dallas__tx]

Okay, maybe I've got nothing better to do on my day off than flame

the fire of this debate, but here goes. Now I realize that there is

more to image quality than mega-pixels, but they are important. The

D2X has a DX sized sensor which many claim is too small, that it

should be "full-frame". Why? If we follow that logic, then why is

full frame okay. Demand bigger. The only real downside that I can

see is that you need really wide angle to get wide angle. On the

other hand, you get more for your money at the tele end. The big

Canon full frame sensor is 864 sq mm and is 16.7 mega-pixels. That

makes 19329 pixels/mm2. The D2X sensor is 372 sq mm and 12.4 mega-

pixels. That comes to 33333 pixels/mm2. It seems to me that the

D2X has nearly twice the resolution of the big Canon 1Ds Mark 2 for

$3000 less. Someone check my math and tell me if I'm crazy.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

Yes you're crazy! Your maths (correct English) prove that the pixels are more densely packed on the D2X, that has nothing to do with resolution.

 

The resolution is pixels wide x pixels high. You've got the figures, work it out.

 

p.s. The answer is that the 1ds has 16.7 mega pixels and the D2X has 12.4.

[leonard_evens]

You need to include in your calculations the enlargement factor needed to produce a standard size image. It doesn't matter what size you choose, as long as you use the same size for both. The full frame sensor is 24 x 36. The smaller sensor is presumably about 16 x 24. That means the image on the smaller sensor has to be enlarged 24/16 = 1.5 times as much. Resolution is usually measured linearly. I don't have the exact figures, but I estimate that the full frame is resolving at about 137.5 pixels/mm and the smaller frame at about 180 pixels/mm. If you divide the 180 by 1.5, you get about 120 pixels per mm. That is what you would get if you enlarged the smaller frame to full frame 35 mm size. So it is less that what you have from the full frame result by a factor of 137.5/120 ~ 1.15. So the full frame camera is a bit better but not by a lot. Presumably the difference in price has to do with other issues. One might be that you can use lenses designed for full frame cameras without any loss of resolution of change in angle of coverage. another might be that the image in the viewfinder is larger.

[frank_skomial]

You are not crazy.

So, perhaps D2X has twice the resolution per square millimeter, and perhaps twice (or four times) the amount of noise, and perhaps twice less dynamic range. So, the $3000 less perhaps makes sense. Seems that the old saying "you get what you pay for" makes sense here.

The near future will tell.

[digitmstr]

<i>>>why is full frame okay. Demand bigger<<</i>

<p>

Full frame is ok because OUR lenses were designed for the 35mm format. If you get a bigger sensor you'd nees different lenses. It's like view cameras: if you have a 4x5 with a bunch of lenses and switch to an 8x10 your lenses won't have a large enough circle to cover the format (the same as they did on the 4x5).

<p>

It's pretty much the same with digital sensors.

[markci]

And $100 digicams have even more pixels per square mm than the Nikon. Clearly we're wasting our money on all this high-end stuff.

[basscheffers]

Yes, your maths are crazy, as some others already pointed out. :)

 

But there is no real downside. The quality difference is insignificant and the wide angle problem is solved by using smaller image circle lenses. That breaks compatibility with 35mm film bodies, yes, but how many people actualy keep shooting that after they go digital?

 

This whole "full frame so we can use our old lenses" has become a moot point. Full frame is nowhere near affordable and by the time it is, everybody will have their ultra wide/small image circle lenses already as they are flying off the sheles like hot cakes right now...

[markci]

The quality difference is not insignificant.

[peter_phan]

One big advantage of full frame is the ability to get shallower depth of field from your lenses for better subject isolation and better background blur. That's one thing I really miss having on an APS DSLR. The other things is the size of the viewfinder. A 1Ds MKII viewfinder, with .70x magnification, measures 25.2 x 16.8mm. A D2X viewfinder, even with its higher .86x magnification, only measures 20.0 x 13.3mm. That's because an APS frame is so much smaller than a 35mm frame. Also, smaller pixel pitches usually smaller photosites, meaning less light is getting to each sensor, requiring more amplification at each pixel, resulting in higher noise levels. There's no free lunch. You can't cram that many pixels into such a small area without some negative consequences.

[chris_prinos]

<em>The quality difference is insignificant and the wide angle problem is solved by using smaller image circle lenses.</em>

 

Speculation aside, only time will tell what the quality difference is, but the "wide angle problem" is not really solved for 1.5 & 1.6 crop cameras even if you use "digital only" lenses like the EF-S or DX series. What if you want *really* wide like a 14mm prime or sigma's (full frame coverage & rectilinear) 12-24mm. I think the widest DX is a 10.5mm (16mm equivilent), and that's a fisheye. What if you want a <em>fast and wide prime</em> like a 24mm f/1.4. I don't think you can find something like that in EF-S or DX mounts.

[nello]

Why use bigger sensors?

 

1) Larger sensor = Less noise. (full frame Canon Dslrs aren't just for kicks.

You should read info on the 1Ds MII and on medium format digital for that

matter. Larger sensors pay off in the image department big time.)

2) View finders on cropped Dslrs just plain suck.

3) Cropped dslrs (as per above) are essentially crippled in wide angle.

[berg_na]

Full-frame sensors are desirable if you're stuck with lenses designed for 35mm film, but become a mute point when lenses that match the sensor size are available. Someone said that resolution is not related to pixel packing density, but he's wrong, spatial resolution is absolutely a function of the pixel spacing, or pitch. Another myth is that larger pixels have lower noise. Noise is a function of the readout electronics, not the pixel size. A larger pixel can hold more charge, so the signal-to-noise ratio is better -- if the noise from the readout circuitry is unchanged. New readout designs have significantly reduced the readout noise, so high signal-to-noise can be achieved with much smaller pixels. Nikon's approach makes better sense, there are no reasons to be bound by old hardware designed for film.

[andrew robertson]

Berg, Nikon's approach only makes sense if you accept the limitations of a small sensor

size. Full frame Canons will always be able to make higher resolution images with less

noise than the Nikon 'DX' equivalents. Until Canon ceases full frame DSLR production (or

Nikon starts) you can expect any high end Nikon to be noisier and lower resolution than

the high end Canon DSLR. This has been the case for several years already, and will

continue to be the case.

[peter_phan]

<i>Nikon's approach makes better sense, there are no reasons to be bound by old hardware designed for film.</i>

<p>

That assumes that some of the best full frame lenses today aren't good enough for digital and that Canon isn't continuing to improve their future full frame lenses and tailoring them to the demands of digital sensors. Most of the current top-performing lenses on the market today are full frame lenses, and they continue to perform extremely well on digital sensors. But the difference is that Canon actually offers the high resolution full frame sensors to use these lenses with, as well as offering APS-specific sensors and lenses. So, in actuality, it's Nikon who is choosing to "be bounded"-- in this case, being bound by a sensor size that was originally dictated by cost, technology, and production constraints in the earlier age of digital. A larger sensor simply offers more real estate for more pixels and larger pixels. And as technology advances, and costs come down, there's no reason not to take full advantage of the entire imaging capacity of the vast majority of today's lenses. The "old hardware" that isn't up to the challenge will simply be improved, just like "old hardware" has always been updated and improved.

[basscheffers]

And all this extra expense for full frame in return for a the posibilty to have fish-eye lenses again, to shoot at ISO3200 without noise and a little bit shallower DOF is relevant to the 99.9% of photographers who are shooting for fun and not for demanding clients, how?

[andrew robertson]

When pros use your equipment they drive up sales. Look at Minolta or Pentax - they

should be doing just as well as Canon and Nikon, right? Who needs 5+ FPS, fast wide

lenses, TS lenses, etc? Probably about 5% of SLR photographers do at the most, but those

5% drive a lot more customers into the hands of the company that will court them.

[peter_phan]

Bas, it's relevant because today's high end, expensive pro equipment leads the way to tomorrow's more affordable prosumer and consumer equipment. Sure, full frame is expensive today, but prices will eventually come down. Most likely, Canon's full frame DSLR prices have remained high because they basically have a monopoly on high performance pro full frame bodies. But given their extensive sensor manufacturing expertise, the actual cost of those cameras is probably significantly less than what they retail for. As competition increases, things will become much more affordable to a wider range of users. In a few years, we'll all look back in amazement as we recall how Canon used to sell their full frame DSLR cameras for $8000. But that's what happens in the early years of any particular technology, especially when there is little or no competition.

[basscheffers]

I understand where you are coming from, but for average Joe like me, I certainly hope a smaller sensor will remain the standard. Why? Cost.

 

When I bought my PC two years ago, a 3GHz P4 was "affordable" and that's what people around me were buying. I opted to save a third and buy an Athlon 2200+ (a sissy 1.8Ghz) because that was - and still is - all I need.

 

Same with cameras, a smaller sensor will _always_ be cheaper than bigger one. And with that, you can make savings in lenses too.

 

My E-1 suits me fine just now, but at some point it will need an upgrade. It would be nice if there was an alternative that also offered affordable, high quality lenses that don't break your back.

[william_wang2]

In case anybody is interested -- there is a full frame Kodak DSLR that is based on the F80 body, has Nikon mechanics in it and takes Nikon F-mount lenses, for about 35k.

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=317117&is=REG

 

My opinion on the 1.5x factor is it all depends on the type of photograph you take. If you do lot of telephoto the DX/1.5x factor works to your advantage, but if you need a wide-angle lense with shallow DOF (e.g. f/2.8, or even f/1.4) then look to spend a lot of $$$...

 

For me I'm just going to continue to learn on my film-based Nikon and hopefully when I get better Nikon would have an affordable full frame body, or that Kodak DSL/n can be had used at a price I can afford for a hobby :)