Prev: P & S Raw?
Next: How to determine if you can properly choose a camera
From: Chrlz on 26 Feb 2010 03:06
On Feb 26, 7:29 am, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Bruce" <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bfeom5hm7ci3ivq6cm9gcndior5ovon00q(a)4ax.com...
>
> > Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
> > like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
> > and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
> > with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.
>
> Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not and
> they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are
> diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades an
> image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this
> diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not
> pixel pitch.
>
> The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is thus
> diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
> wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
> aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can resolve no
> more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades to
> about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
> image.
>
> How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
> aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For APS-C,
> such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon 5D
> Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2 are,
> respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

It's wonderful to see there are those who understand this issue.
While being diffraction-limited is not the only determining factor, it
adds significantly to the burden that small sensors bear. Of course
if all you ever do is post to the web, or print at 4"x6", it's not a
biggie....

There's a rather nifty page here:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
It discusses the topic in relatively simple terms that even Bruce/Tony
Polson, and NameHere/HenryOlson/Keoeeit/AntiDSLRTroll might be able to
understand.

Why it even has little interactive thingies where they can press
buttons and watch what happens, so even if they don't understand, they
can at least have fun. (O:
From: DanP on 26 Feb 2010 05:22
On Feb 5, 3:49 pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:25:34 -0600, Rich <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> >You REALLY think it's going to work like a DSLR with a sensor with
> >something like 20x the surface area?  Dream on.
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020206fujifinepixhs10series.asp#s...
>
> My Panasonic DMC-LX3 has a 1/1.63" sensor which has about twice the
> area of the Fuji sensor.  Shooting RAW at low ISOs with careful
> post-processing, the sensor noise is extremely well controlled.  I
> have no difficulty selling 10 MP images from this camera, provided
> that I work within its limitations.
>
> FujiFilm has a reputation for making lower noise sensors than
> Panasonic.  That alone should negate the difference in sensor sizes.  
>
> There is no reason why a photographer working within the limitations
> of the FujiFilm HS-10 should not be able to sell images from it.  They
> will be more than good enough for most stock purposes.
>
> Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
> like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
> and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
> with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.  
>
> And at the high end of the same gap, Micro Four Thirds offers "sensor
> quality" that is almost on a par with APS-C DSLRs and optics that are
> of a far higher standard than those disappointing kit lenses.  By
> diversifying into the mirrorless format, Four Thirds has pulled back
> from the brink and has finally come of age.  
>
> The replacement for my Panasonic DMC-LX3 will probably be a Micro Four
> Thirds camera.

Before you buy it try an APS-C camera in low light, hand held.
Bring your own memory card to the store and have a look later in the
house.
If possible take samples with the Micro 4/3 and your Panasonic at the
same time.

DanP
From: Bruce on 26 Feb 2010 06:34
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 02:22:28 -0800 (PST), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Feb 5, 3:49�pm, Bruce <docnews2...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> My Panasonic DMC-LX3 has a 1/1.63" sensor which has about twice the
>> area of the Fuji sensor. �Shooting RAW at low ISOs with careful
>> post-processing, the sensor noise is extremely well controlled. �I
>> have no difficulty selling 10 MP images from this camera, provided
>> that I work within its limitations.
>>
>> FujiFilm has a reputation for making lower noise sensors than
>> Panasonic. �That alone should negate the difference in sensor sizes. �
>>
>> There is no reason why a photographer working within the limitations
>> of the FujiFilm HS-10 should not be able to sell images from it. �They
>> will be more than good enough for most stock purposes.
>>
>> Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
>> like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
>> and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
>> with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses. �
>>
>> And at the high end of the same gap, Micro Four Thirds offers "sensor
>> quality" that is almost on a par with APS-C DSLRs and optics that are
>> of a far higher standard than those disappointing kit lenses. �By
>> diversifying into the mirrorless format, Four Thirds has pulled back
>> from the brink and has finally come of age. �
>>
>> The replacement for my Panasonic DMC-LX3 will probably be a Micro Four
>> Thirds camera.
>
>Before you buy it try an APS-C camera in low light, hand held.
>Bring your own memory card to the store and have a look later in the
>house.


Thanks, but I didn't want another DSLR. I already have too many. I
wanted something pocketable that still offered good performance.


>If possible take samples with the Micro 4/3 and your Panasonic at the
>same time.


I did that, and decided on a Panasonic GF-1 with two kit zoom lenses
and the 20mm f/1.7 pancake. It cost me rather more money than I
wished to spend, though. :-(



From: Pete on 26 Feb 2010 13:23
MikeWhy wrote:
> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bfeom5hm7ci3ivq6cm9gcndior5ovon00q(a)4ax.com...
>> Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
>> like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
>> and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
>> with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.
>
> Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not
> and they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors are
> diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction degrades
> an image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than this
> diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size, not
> pixel pitch.
>
> The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is thus
> diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
> wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
> aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can resolve
> no more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades
> to about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide
> web image.
>
> How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
> aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
> APS-C, such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a
> Canon 5D Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and
> 5D2 are, respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.

Thanks Mike. It took me years of learning and experiments to fully
understand your illustrations. I conclude from some replies that Airy and
Rayleigh were both hopelessly lost in their understanding of the behaviour
of light in optical systems.

Pete


From: MikeWhy on 26 Feb 2010 16:19
"Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.com> wrote in message
news:flUhn.90598$lB6.83480(a)newsfe16.ams2...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:bfeom5hm7ci3ivq6cm9gcndior5ovon00q(a)4ax.com...
>>> Those of us who use DSLRs really ought to recognise that manufacturers
>>> like FujiFilm and Panasonic are closing the gap between high end point
>>> and shoot cameras and entry-level DSLRs, especially those equipped
>>> with the optically disappointing 18-55mm kit lenses.
>>
>> Actually, and without the passion that these debates arouse, they're not
>> and they can't. Without even considering ISO noise, very small sensors
>> are diffraction limited at surprisingly large apertures. Diffraction
>> degrades an image as the aperture gets smaller. At apertures smaller than
>> this diffraction limit, the pixel resolution depends only on sensor size,
>> not pixel pitch.
>>
>> The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is
>> thus diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction
>> limited at wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the
>> wide open aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor
>> can resolve no more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited
>> resolution degrades to about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP,
>> roughly a 1024px wide web image.
>>
>> How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
>> aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
>> APS-C, such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a
>> Canon 5D Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and
>> 5D2 are, respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.
>
> Thanks Mike. It took me years of learning and experiments to fully
> understand your illustrations. I conclude from some replies that Airy and
> Rayleigh were both hopelessly lost in their understanding of the behaviour
> of light in optical systems.
>
> Pete

You're welcome, Pete. Close down that aperture ring and have at it. That's
why it's there!

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: P & S Raw?
Next: How to determine if you can properly choose a camera