Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 31 of 31

Thread: the real advantage of FLM

  1. #21
    Senior Member +evenstar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Singapore / United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,655

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    i think higher pixel density resolves more detail, BUT up to a certain limit when performance degrades after that...
    eat. drink. shoot

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,021

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    So how come you say that higher pixel density "resolves more detail"?
    A higher pixel density in the image sensor would be similar to you printing pictures at 24 dpi vs. 300 dpi.

    Ever seen the photo in a newsprint? Looks great from far, doesn't it, but closeup, eg with a magnifying glass, you can see the gaps between each dot. Compare that to say, a lab print of the same picture.

    That's your higher density.

    With a digital sensor, however, you have to contend with noise generated by heat of sensors being packed close together. Canon "beat" that rule of thumb by making use of adjacent spaces in each sensor pit to squeeze in another sensor pit. My memory on how it exactly is done is fuzzy, so feel free to correct me if that is wrong.

    But the bottom line is that in the same given APS-C sized area, the 8mp sensor of the 20D produces an image of higher resolution, yet with lower noise, than the 6mp sensor of the 10D.

  3. #23
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    I think your concept is only correct if you are talking about the same sensor size but diffferent MP values.

    A 10MP in a big physical sensor size and 10MP in a small sensor size, would have the same number of pixels. Pixel density is different. And the 10MP in the big sensor would give better quality than the 10MP in the small sensor.

    Quote Originally Posted by r32 View Post
    A higher pixel density in the image sensor would be similar to you printing pictures at 24 dpi vs. 300 dpi.

    Ever seen the photo in a newsprint? Looks great from far, doesn't it, but closeup, eg with a magnifying glass, you can see the gaps between each dot. Compare that to say, a lab print of the same picture.

    That's your higher density.

    With a digital sensor, however, you have to contend with noise generated by heat of sensors being packed close together. Canon "beat" that rule of thumb by making use of adjacent spaces in each sensor pit to squeeze in another sensor pit. My memory on how it exactly is done is fuzzy, so feel free to correct me if that is wrong.

    But the bottom line is that in the same given APS-C sized area, the 8mp sensor of the 20D produces an image of higher resolution, yet with lower noise, than the 6mp sensor of the 10D.

  4. #24

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    Hmm, I always thought that having a lower pixel density makes for a better quality image. Compare the size of a DSLR's CCD (lower pixel density) compared to the tiny compact camera's CCD (higher pixel density), both are at the same Megapixel level...
    guess the thing about the higher density = higher resolution thing is that there are other factors at play, e.g. noise can destroy detail, so there's a trade off.

    in the case of compact cameras, there's also the issue of the lens. even if the small sensor didn't have a noise problem, would the lens on a p&s be able to resolve that much detail? many pixels, shoot with lousy glass, still get no fine detail.

    last point, image quality has to do with more than just resolution. lower pixel density can give better quality not because of resolution, but things like dynamic range and lack of noise.
    Black lens, white Lens, can take picture is a Good lens

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,021

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123 View Post
    I think your concept is only correct if you are talking about the same sensor size but diffferent MP values.

    A 10MP in a big physical sensor size and 10MP in a small sensor size, would have the same number of pixels. Pixel density is different. And the 10MP in the big sensor would give better quality than the 10MP in the small sensor.
    I agree with all those points. For convenience's sake, let's talk about two Canon cameras that each have around 10 megapixels: the 400D and the G7 (this was your original comparison - one DSLR and one compact cam each with the same MP rating).

    The 400D has a 22.2 x 14.8 mm sensor. The G7 has a 7.18 x 5.32 mm sensor. It stands to reason that to pack 10 million photosites into a smaller area means that the noise will increase along with the pixel density. In fact it is a given to expect that the 400D will show less noise, because we know that those 10 million sites are spread out more.

    I brought in the example of the 10D vs. the 20D to show that it is possible to pack more pixels into the same space but still reduce noise levels. In this case, pixel density goes up, but noise levels goes down (where one would expect it to increase along with the aforementioned pixel density) solely because of improved design.

    Obviously this can only be done up to a point, apparently there are still technological limitations that need to be overcome.

  6. #26

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    For me, I'd have to say that -
    Having started taking photographs on a Canon 300D with a 1.6x crop: all focal lengths to me, is as I've seen it with the crop: how to say it? The focal length in numbers is not important to me, it's what I see in the viewfinder. If it's not tele enough, I'll zoom in, walk closer to change to a longer lens. If it's not wide enough, I'll zoom out, walk further or put on a wider l lens.

    I always shoot real time anyway - not with the "I can crop this later" thoughts.
    It is the camera, not the photographer.
    my flickr - adamloh.com

  7. #27
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    Alright, I believe we both understood each other's points - I suppose my only confusion was the absolute terms "pixel density = better resolution". But now its cleared up

    Quote Originally Posted by r32 View Post
    I agree with all those points. For convenience's sake, let's talk about two Canon cameras that each have around 10 megapixels: the 400D and the G7 (this was your original comparison - one DSLR and one compact cam each with the same MP rating).

    The 400D has a 22.2 x 14.8 mm sensor. The G7 has a 7.18 x 5.32 mm sensor. It stands to reason that to pack 10 million photosites into a smaller area means that the noise will increase along with the pixel density. In fact it is a given to expect that the 400D will show less noise, because we know that those 10 million sites are spread out more.

    I brought in the example of the 10D vs. the 20D to show that it is possible to pack more pixels into the same space but still reduce noise levels. In this case, pixel density goes up, but noise levels goes down (where one would expect it to increase along with the aforementioned pixel density) solely because of improved design.

    Obviously this can only be done up to a point, apparently there are still technological limitations that need to be overcome.

  8. #28

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    Quote Originally Posted by user111 View Post
    that is my whole point: the real advantage of cropped sensor over FF sensor is that with cropped sensor, with the same lens, at the same distance away from the subject, u get to see a larger image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when u are shooting, and not waiting until u go home and crop in on the computer.

    this is the point that almost every FF sensor advocate misses out .


    but then i know at lot of people still dun get what i am trying to put across. lol . nevermind.
    OK, back to the topic...

    I get what you're saying, but you're the one having the misconception.

    U don't get a larger image in the viewfinder.
    If you've seen thru a viewfinder on a FF camera before, the viewfinder is physically larger.

    And you're assuming that when I'm using a FF camera, I can't zoom in with my zoom lens.

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Gim Boon Tai
    Posts
    2,909

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    AReality, all user111 is saying is that he is able to see what he wants real time. In fact, if he were to literally paint a black internal border in the viewfinder of a FF cam, it'll give him the same view of a 1.6 crop camera. However, if using a 1 series with a 1.3 crop, I believe the viewfinder is the same size as a FF cam, hence that's what he's advocating.
    If you understand my works, it's photography. If you don't, it's art.
    SplutterPhotography|flickr

  10. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, Massachusetts
    Posts
    631

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    Quote Originally Posted by user111 View Post
    can i just highlight to everyone the real advantage of FLM (otherwise known as crop factor - in DSLRs): it allows u to view a magnified image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when you are shooting.

    i have seen many arguments about why FLM is a "farce" about multiplying focal length because it is really just a crop. yes, it is really just a crop and the actual focal length is not multiplied at all.

    BUT this crop allows u to to view a maginfied image in the viewfinder in real time in the field when u are shooting. That, itself, is already a precious advantage that FF dslrs cannot provide.

    hence, if u are like me, more of a tele shooter, i will advise u to go for a dslr with cropped sensor. so as to enjoy a magnified view in the viewfinder in real time in the field when u are shooting

    unless of course, u like to spend more $ to buy a longer lens


    ...

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,021

    Default Re: the real advantage of FLM

    Quote Originally Posted by Splutter View Post
    AReality, all user111 is saying is that he is able to see what he wants real time. In fact, if he were to literally paint a black internal border in the viewfinder of a FF cam, it'll give him the same view of a 1.6 crop camera. However, if using a 1 series with a 1.3 crop, I believe the viewfinder is the same size as a FF cam, hence that's what he's advocating.
    No he doesn't, what he is saying is that the image is magnified.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •