Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler
Interesting points. I've never thought about downsizing an image to get better image quality. So, the less you try to cram into a sensor the better your image quality depending on the situation...am I reading that right? It seems like it has a lot to do with what you're shooting and for me that could be a number of things.
|
Digital sensors are kinda like film in a sense. With film, the faster the ISO you used, the larger the grains were. This is because larger grains absorb more light. Its also why at higher ISO you got more grain. DIgital is slightly different, in that the grains dont change from ISO to ISO: the sensor uses a bunch of "well" or "buckets" to collect light. The less of them that are on a sensor, the more light (the larger) each one can be, thus more light. As you crank up the ISO on a dSLR, you're increasing the signal that each pixel gives to the processor, thus creating digital noise which is a byproduct of the electrical analog/digital conversion. Its not quite the same thing, but its similar.
As you increase the resolution (megapixels), you're getting more "wells", but they become smaller. This means you get more pixels to play with but you cant adjust the ISO as much before the noise becomes objectionable. By downsampling an image, youre essentially grouping "wells" together to create one. Noise is less visible and images appear sharper. Having more pixels means you can get more in each inch of print, too. a 600DPI print will look smoother and nicer than a 300DPI print, and considerably better than a 150DPI print. You'd have to have them side-by-side, though.
It's sorta like how if you look at a mosaic with a bunch of big tiles, you have to stand really far back, but if you have a mosaic with a bunch of tiny tiles, you can stand closer and still see a pattern.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler
Again...very good points (I really appreciate your insight). I don't think I'll be able to play around with each of the cameras to see what I like best. But, this has given me a lot to think about. I am leaning towards a full-frame camera since I used to shoot a ton with an old Nikon N70 and I'd love to have a file that's comparable with old slides and negatives.
|
Sensor size has nothing to do with the output of film. Theyre totally dependent. Most people judge a low-iso frame of film (or a slide) to be anywhere between 15 and 25 megapixels: You can get that in a T1i, which is a crop-body. The only way the sensor size affects images is with noise levels (pixel density) and with the focal length of lenses (no crop factor with full-frame sensors).
To be honest, I think youre a little confused about the ways in which dSLRs and film SLRs are similar or different. You can compare the two, but there are so many differences in the core elements that its very hard to do with something like this. Just accept that digital is different and then go from there.