Pixels vs Sensor size- which is better?

[erik_dorset1]

Being a non-digital photographer, and yet admittedly interested in

breaking into the field, I find the entire set of 'standards' with

mega pixels and sensor size terribly baffling and frustrating. Can

anyone shed some light here? I'd assume that an APS size sensor on

a digital SLR (because its 'bigger') is better than the small chip

on a point and shoot, but what if the Nikon D70 has a 6 million

pixel whatever sensor and the new Fuji Finepix S9500 with its

smaller chip boasts 9MP? What would you first grab? And, does that

mean that the Finepix is better or worse than the new Canon Rebel

with 8MP and 'almost as good' as the new Nikon D200 with 10MP, or

would they just blow the Finepix away?

 

Can anyone help here with some straight hitting rules of thumb for

someone who enjoys his 35mm SLR photography and would like to carry

that over to digital?

 

(Honestly, I think all of this talk about sensor size and pixels is

just a ploy by the camera makers to get the consumer away from

thinking about lens quality. I recently held the standard lens that

comes with the new Rebel. Its too light to use as a paperwieght!)

[vivek iyer]

"Honestly, I think all of this talk about sensor size and pixels is just a ploy by the camera makers to get the consumer away from thinking about lens quality."

 

Come on! If you can recognize this fact, what else do you need to know?

[mark pav]

There's a whole lot of marketing that is entirely based on these numbers you talk about. It

really sucks in the "my lens is bigger than your lens" crowd.

 

If you want to compare DSLRs with digicams, a very brief summary might be that DSLRs have

the potential to provide you with a better image, a variety of lenses, faster shooting times,

etc, while the digicams win the price war and are more compact. But you already knew that,

didn't you? :)

[basscheffers]

Whichever camera gives you the prints you like best is the better one.

 

Funilly enough, hardly anyone ever seems to ask themselves "what is the dynamic range?" or "how is the tonal balance?". Those questions are equaly important to size and resolution.

 

You are right about the lens quality ploy, though. Especially Canon ships some shockingly bad lenses with their cameras. Or sell a crap f/4-5.6 lens for bag loads of money simply by adding the letters "IS". The gullible buyers of this paperweight are also the ones who brag how their 350D/20D is "noise free" at ISO 800 and 1600. If that is the case, then why would you need a bloody IS standard lens?

[jcuknz]

"I recently held the standard lens that comes with the new Rebel. Its too light to use as a paperwieght" is perhaps a bit of old fashioned thinking becuase with high-impact plastics these days for a non-professional not throwing their gear around the light weight is quite satisfactory and a boon in use. While the kit lens may not be of the highest standard, that is becuase of the glass/construction/design, not becuase it is mounted in plastic.

 

If you search www,dpreview.com for the camera specs you can get very interesting information by calculating the sensor size and then dividing it into the Mps the camera comes with. Of the cameras I did this for I found the Canon 5D came top at 15T pixels per mm2 while Nikon D2 was 32T and D200 was 29T. Interestingly next best was my Nikon 5700 at 89T and my latest FZ30 was worst at 217T. But for all that I am very happy with the 8Mp :-)

 

So also read about sensor sizes at dpreview and appreciate the difference between 2/3 and 1/1.8 etc sensors in digicams and the APS and full frame Canons.

 

The bigger the pixel the more signal it generates and less amplification involved ... higher ISO is not a different emulsion as with film .. but increased amplification of the basic signal. So DSLR walk over digicams in this respect, not that I want one particularly :-)

[Ed_Ingold]

The sensor in a DSLR is larger than in most P&S cameras, which means better image quality in terms of sharpness and noise. Furthermore, DSLR's have interchangeable lenses and P&S cameras not. You can choose the lens, including focal length and quality, including lenses which can be used on either 35mm or digital cameras. That flexibility comes at a price. P&S cameras are certainly cheaper and more convenient to use in many respects.

 

The number of mega-pixels is an easy handle for consumers to grasp, but does not tell the whole story. All 35mm cameras take the same film, but there are still differences in terms of features and build quality. The same is true for digital SLR's, so to some a professional Nikon D2h (4.1 MP) would be better than a consumer level Canon 20D(8 MP).

 

The lag time (the time between the shutter press and the image being captured) is a significant factor. The best DSLRs have a shutter lag comparable to SLR film cameras (a D2h is 37 msec), the typical P&S cams have a lag time approaching 0.5 seconds.

[basscheffers]

Noise is not directly related to size, it is related to <i>technology and size</i>. Just look at the 5D being no noise improvement over the 20D and medium format backs being usable only at ISO 100.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>but what if the Nikon D70 has a 6 million pixel whatever sensor and the new Fuji

Finepix S9500 with its smaller chip boasts 9MP? What would you first grab? </I><P>A

D70s.<P>

it isn't as simple as pixels ( a measurement of the number of pixels i nthe sensor H x W)

vs. sensor size. The processing tecnnology inside the camera is incredibly important . All

you can do is look at the results and how the camera handles: how the ergonomics feel to

you and how responsive the camera is.<P>the kit lens for the Canon's is notoriously

weak, while the kit lens for the comparable Nikon DSLRs has surpsied many with its image

quality. <P><I>eing a non-digital photographer, and yet admittedly interested in

breaking into the field, I find the entire set of 'standards' with mega pixels and sensor size

terribly baffling and frustrating. Can anyone shed some light here? </I><P> You (and

everyone else who is just starting find it incredibly baffling and frustrating because there

are no real standards the average person can relate to beyond a simple number:

megapixels. We tend to think that more is always better. But a single number is only a

measurment in only one direction in what is essentially at least a four dimensional space

of

camera & image quality.

[oceanphysics]

The Finepix has a sensor with less than 5% of the area of a 35mm piece of film, and about 11% the area of the D70. It's a toy, not remotely in the league of the Rebel, let alone the D200. Size matters a great deal at these extremes.

[oceanphysics]

The "rule of thumb" you seek in general would be buy an SLR, not a digicam, unless you're willing to sacrifice image quality and considerably utility for portability. Within SLR's, don't worry too much about megapixels. You're going to get more or less what you pay for.

[walter_beck]

As someone, actually several individuals, said in another thread, "if you are happy with the pictures, does it matter what you have". I have to agree with that statement. I have a Mamiya 645, Canon F-1 and A-1 with multiple lenses, Olympus E-1, Canon 20D and an Olympus 770 P&S.

 

Amazingly, my customers cannot tell which camera and lens was used nor do most care. If it delivers the results required, then it was the right one.

 

Yes, I do chose which I want to use based on the requirements of the shoot but have found that the P&S has also resulted in excellent images. I carry that camera in my pocket at all times and get some great candids that I have sold.

 

Walter

[mr._smith]

"Amazingly, my customers cannot tell which camera and lens was used nor do most care. If it delivers the results required, then it was the right one."

 

Most newbies think of photography in term of equipment, like "will I make better pictures if I had this camera instead of that camera".

 

The person behind the camera makes the shot, the camera just takes it. Marketing makes sure that people do not grasp the concept that it's all about the person behind the camera.

[pavelp]

<i>but what if the Nikon D70 has a 6 million pixel whatever sensor and the new Fuji Finepix S9500 with its smaller chip boasts 9MP? What would you first grab?</i>

<br />

<br />

If you are after picture quality, 6MP APS-C sensor beats the hell out of 9MP digicam sensor. I used to have Fuji S9000 and while it's a nice little camera, the level of detail in pictures was disappointing (given the fact that it has 9 million little eyes). Don't get me wrong, it takes great pictures and they print fine, but just not what I was looking for.

 

For various reasons I ended up returning the Fuji and getting Minolta D7. Well, 6MP APS-C Minolta grabs more detail than 9MP Fuji (try shooting a field of grass).

 

And then you have the noise issue. Noise gets real bad at 400ISO at any digicam I tried and is just fine on APS-C sensors.

[klix]

<i>If it delivers the results required, then it was the right one. -- Walter.</i>

<p><p>

Agreed 100%

<p><p>

<i>Most newbies think of photography in term of equipment, like "will I make better pictures if I had this camera instead of that camera". The person behind the camera makes the shot, the camera just takes it. Marketing makes sure that people do not grasp the concept that it's all about the person behind the camera. -- Mr. Smith</i>

<p><p>

I find these "the camera is just a box" arguments annoying. As Walter said, you've got to have the right tool for the job. You can be the best photographer in the world, but try shooting wildlife with a rangefinder, or a football game with a DSLR and a 50mm lens, or try shooting hockey with a digital p&S that has a 0.5 sec lag.

<p><p>

First, you've got to have the right tool for the job. THEN, it's up to the person behind the camera to make use of that tool.

<p><p>

KL

[howardfuhrman]

I think that you had some idea what the responses would be when you posed the questions. Frankly, I am surprised at the quality, I got from using my 7.2 mpx Casio 750. I am convinced that if I used a Nikon D70, my results would have been better and my picture taking experience would have been enhanced. I, however, value portability--a camera that I can carry in my pocket (none of the cameras with large sensors will fit in my pocket). There are a few portfolios that I have seen on the Gallery - one taken by photographers that used a Canon A80 and the other taken with a Fuji F10, which were stupendous, even with the digicam's small sensors. Those photographers worked within the limitations of their equipment and got great results. Would the results - dynamic range and other measures been better with a DSLR with a larger sensor and larger pixels -- probably. Is it worth it for these users to carry a tiny digicam rather than a large DSLR plus multiple lenses? It depends upon the users needs and objectives. It seems to me if your subject is in bright light, the benefits of a camera with large pixel size are somewhat minimized. In less than the bright light, the cameras with the larger pixel size will give better results. There is another factor which I will call picture taking experience. The DSLR have better view finders in which you can see your subject in life size, rather than off a tiny screen (not much fun). With larger DSLR, you depress your shutter at the precise instance that you feel your subject is just right and the photo is taken -- no delay. With the small digicams (small pixel size), you look at a tiny screen, in which you cannot see any details and in bright sun, you can barely see any of your subject; you depress your shutter at the precise instance, and depending upon the digicam, either you get a decent response or it takes .5 seconds or .7 seconds. I believe that the picture taking experience and results generally will always be better with a DSLR, but you do have to carry a big camera to get those results.

 

We all make decisions and there are compromises. If you want the best pictures, generally speaking "the bigger the sensor the better".

 

Good luck in making your choice. Remember your choice is not forever, since your camera will be obsolete in a few years and you can agonize over purchasing another camera.

[vivek iyer]

Get the right tool?

 

KL IX, some folks are anxiously waiting for a full frame digital LOMO :-)

 

It is all the person behind the camera, it is the third eye, it is the sixth finger...

[r_bryant]

Sensor size which TENDS to equate to pixel size which, in turn, equates to signal to noise ratio, then number of pixels. This is ONE of the reasons a 6 mp APS DSLR gives better images that a 6 mp small sensor point and shoot. But first, decide on your budget and yes, a better camera will not make you a better photographer, but it won't hurt!

[craig_gillette]

Usng pixel count as a selection point, is like selecting a particular vehicle because "it's got a V-8."

 

As with cars and trucks, there are a tremendous number of other factors that come into play beyond simple pixel or cylinder count. Pixel count was pretty important when cameras were moving from 1-2 megapixels to 3 and then 4 - pretty much until you reached the floor for printing photoquality 8x10/8x12 prints using available home or commercial methods. Pixel count can determine the degree to which you can crop an image or how large you can enlarge an image - just as with film photogrphy, there would be limits as to how large you could print from a particular negative. And as with film, that might vary from film type to film type

 

There are a number of good reason to consider a digicam just as there are good reasons to choose dslrs. If "budget" is a major factor in your decion making process, then maybe considering dslrs is an exercise in frustration. You can pretty much complete a "kit" for almost any digicam at $1000 and have sufficient (or even plenty of) memory, extra battery power, the available quality aux lenses. And be capable of getting almost any kind of general objective covered adequately if not well. $1000 is barely getting started with most dslr systems.

 

But there are objectives which need different emphases - and then the performance of the sensor and optics or "body" becomes more critical. Low light requires higher isos and faster lenses - digicams usually don't make the grade there. Chasing soccer or flying birds? EVF finders with refresh delays make this difficult even if not impossible. Low light and fast action is almost never satisfactorily coverable with a digicam.

 

Keeping your "kit" to a minimum of weigfht and bulk for easy travel, walking about zoos or parks, etc.? A digicam is really very appreciated.

[erik_dorset1]

Yup, a good used MF camera on e bay and a decent scanner seem to be the right way to go for the meantime...

[jcuknz]

A second bite :-)

Since most cameras take great pictures when used in 'average' situations I look for a camera which is easy to use and have the controls where I find them convienient to work. So the oft mentioned suggestion is to go to the shop and get the feel of them bearing in mind the information folk have provided above :-)

[Tim_Lookingbill]

After hours at Steve's Digicam Reviews comparing downloaded

full rez images between 2/3"CCD chip 8mp Canon Pro 1,

Olympus c8080 against 1/1.8" chip 7mp Canon A620 and 8mp

Canon S80, detail is more pronounced in the larger chip but not

by much. The larger chip was more useful in preventing corner

distortion with the big zoom lens when set to its widest and

longest points.

 

The combined higher resolution with the bigger chip does make

a difference overall allowing narrower sharpening halos, but

none that would be that noticed in a print.

 

From what I observed the incamera's noise reduction did more

harm to detail, especially on some Canons which produce very

clean images. I checked out the brick chimney detail on one of

Steve's Canon sample shots and it had spotted areas of flat

smudges like it was made of clay. Other areas of the image

looked fine.

 

Again, none of this kind of zoom level viewing would show up

that much in a print.