maybe Bjorn meant that with the same lens, you can just put more pixels on the subject, the benefit of the crop factor for wildlife. But then it is a very complicated way to say something simple
Hi Guy. Bjorn's comments not withstanding, I know which camera (between the D3 and D300) I'd rather use for landscape work - the D3. For typical landscape focal lengths, it delivers the same resolution. And I have a better selection of quality wide angle lenses. I'd rather use the D300 for wildlife, of course.
Mort54 wrote:
Hi Guy. Bjorn's comments not withstanding, I know which camera (between the D3 and D300) I'd rather use for landscape work - the D3. For typical landscape focal lengths, it delivers the same resolution. And I have a better selection of quality wide angle lenses. I'd rather use the D300 for wildlife, of course.
I agree... this is part of my "problem". I decided to go for the D3 because of the IQ but I am losing the reach for wildlife and I certainly could benefit from one or two stops improvement over my D200. I had to make a decision... so I will try the crop mode for wildlife... I might end up with a D300 as a backup but then my wife will definitely kill me
Rather than trying to keep up with those who put more brain power into their "witty" comments than their understanding of sensor resolution, I'll end with a quote from Bjorn:
"As of now, if you wish to have the smaller, most portable camera, with an image quality capable of surpassing the D3 in resolving power, well, then the D300 is the answer..."
molson wrote:
Rather than trying to keep up with those who put more brain power into their "witty" comments than their understanding of sensor resolution, I'll end with a quote from Bjorn:
"As of now, if you wish to have the smaller, most portable camera, with an image quality capable of surpassing the D3 in resolving power, well, then the D300 is the answer..."
I prefer to think for myself rather than let someone else do my thinking for me. If you won't believe me (and the others who have replied to your posts), maybe you'll believe your own eyes. Imaging Resources has a nice feature where you can look at identically framed images shot by different cameras. You can do a side by side comparison of the D300 and D3. You'll see that the two images are essentially identical as far as resolution goes. Here's the link:
That doesnt make real world sense. He's assuming you use the same lens! So yeh, if you have a 300mm on the both camera's.. the D300 will resolve finer details. Only problem is, it will have cropped out the sky, foreground and left and right sides of the picture.
If I have a 70-200 VR, and the D300 on 135 and the D3 on 200, if you take the photo and count line pairs in the shot, they're going to be the same.
So yes, maybe Bjorn is technically correct and the whole world is using the term "resolution" in a non-exact sense, but its the way everyone understands it!
Daniel.
molson wrote:
Sorry if this is too complicated for you...
Resolution is normally expressed in terms of line pairs per unit area. It requires more pixels per unit area to resolve more line pairs. Recording the same field of view with the same number of pixels on a larger sensor spreads the line pairs over a larger area, therefore lowering the resolution.
"A sensor that can resolve more Lp/mm can record finer details than a sensor that resolves fewer Lp/mm. The same goes for lenses, a lens that resolves more Lp/mm can capture finer details than a lens that resolves fewer Lp/mm.
Compare the resolving power of the D2X's high density 90 Lp/mm sensor with other DSLR sensors. The D2X leads the pack by a significant margin.
gugs wrote:
maybe Bjorn meant that with the same lens, you can just put more pixels on the subject, the benefit of the crop factor for wildlife. But then it is a very complicated way to say something simple
I think the point is very simple. "Nikons decision to keep both FX and DX going is a good move." Bjorn has also tabled his impressions of when the D3 camera will be used. Both cameras will have their strengths, get the one that will work best for you. Simple message. I'm not sure this is hard to understand really.
I just don't know why on earth this "Urban Myth" about Pixel Density keeps coming up over and over and people continue to argue the point! Otherwise, we would all be walking around shooting highly detailed landscapes with our $200 Super High Pixel density, Tiny Sensor Point and Shoots!
Its the output resolution(MP) of a camera which determines detail rendition, not the input resolution(Pixel Density).
molson wrote:
Pixel density is the primary determining factor in resolving power, so all other factors being equal, the sensor with the highest pixel density will have the highest resolution.
That's one of the reasons I chose the D300 over the D3 (and 5D) for landscape work - better resolution of fine details.
I think there's an urban myth about it being an urban myth!
I'm not sure what you're getting at Tariq, from the article link you posted...
"It looks like the proponents of the 20D for telephoto nature photography are onto something here. We have the bear filling the frame at this focused distance. The higher pixel density of the 20D's sensor provides for the most detail in this same focal length and same focused distance series even though the 20D has the same output resolution as the 1D Mark II and less output resolution than the 1Ds Mark II.
As you can see with the full resolution crops of the bear's nose the 20D has more pixels to draw out detail in the image."
Dec 30, 2007 at 08:00 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
molson wrote:
I presume you're joking - or you flunked math?
Nope... I'm interested in the amount of fine detail I can capture - which is a function of the sensor resolution (plus lens resolving power, low-pass filter strength, etc., but I did qualify that when I said "all other factors being equal"). The smaller the details, the greater the number of LP per unit area you need to be able to clearly resolve them. The bigger sensor will likely give you better tonal range and less noise, but it doesn't give you small details it can't record.
Cliff,
If you have the exact same field of view (FOV) and the same # of Mega-pixels (MP) in the sensor, it does not matter what the size of the sensor is, you have the same resolution. Therefore the D3 and D300 have the same resolution (resolving power) for a given FOV. Grantend, in order to have the same FOV, you need a longer lens with the D3 than with the D300.
All these terms are relative to the final image, not the sensor.
Regards,
Andre
Edited by Andre Labonte on Dec 30, 2007 at 08:37 PM GMT (Reason: messed up comment location within larger quote)
Pixel density has nothing to do with it. FOV does. Directly from my link:
"Using two of these cameras as an example, the 8mp 1D Mark II has 3504 pixels across its 1.13 inch sensor while the 8mp 20D has the same number of pixels across its smaller .89 inch width sensor. To fit the same number of pixels across the smaller 20D sensor the pixels (photosites) must be smaller and therefore they are more 'dense' on the 20D sensor than the pixels on the 1D Mark II sensor. As an imaging device, the 20D sensor has higher input resolution than either of the other two sensors in this article. However, it's output resolution is only equal to the 1D Mark II (both at 3504 x 2336 pixels) and less than the 1Ds Mark II (4992 x 3328). Putting this information into more traditional imaging language you can think of the pixel density as input resolution and the final image pixel dimensions as output resolution. This input/output resolution and sensor size variable make for some interesting cross camera image scenario comparisons."
"I think it is fairly easy to see that with the same FOV and same output resolution pixel density doesn't really effect the amount of detail in the two 8mp camera images. See the 20D and 1D Mark II full resolution crops of the bear's nose below. The only thing that shows up in this 'same field of view' series with an excellent telephoto prime lens is that overall image resolution is the main factor contributing to image quality."
nikt wrote:
I think there's an urban myth about it being an urban myth!
I'm not sure what you're getting at Tariq, from the article link you posted...
"It looks like the proponents of the 20D for telephoto nature photography are onto something here. We have the bear filling the frame at this focused distance. The higher pixel density of the 20D's sensor provides for the most detail in this same focal length and same focused distance series even though the 20D has the same output resolution as the 1D Mark II and less output resolution than the 1Ds Mark II.
As you can see with the full resolution crops of the bear's nose the 20D has more pixels to draw out detail in the image."...Show more →
Edited by Tariq Gibran on Dec 30, 2007 at 08:43 PM GMT (Reason: Edited for unpolite language.)
With a camera (sensor) resolution it's not line/mm matters it's line/per image hight or lph. Look at DPR reviews for example for camera reviews. It's the only meaningful way to compare different sensors. Otherwise, indeed the resolution champion would be a small P&S with the highest pixels density. Comparing lph equalizes the difference between different sensors.
Indeed, what matters is how many lines resolved per whole image. Goes without saying that it's not just the sensor, the lens resolution also gets convoluted into the overall resolution
Thanks Tariq. I didn't take you for someone without manners and didn't realize your superiority, thanks for clearing it up to us dumb arses in Australia. Maybe I was confusing you with someone else.
Sorry, I realized that probably sounded stronger than I meant it to. Believe me, I'm sure I'm just as much a dumb arse when it comes to most things as anybody.
nikt wrote:
Thanks Tariq. I didn't take you for someone without manners and didn't realize your superiority, thanks for clearing it up to us dumb arses in Australia. Maybe I was confusing you with someone else.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
I think the problem goes back to education. I thought reading comprehension was mainly an issue in the U.S. Apparently its an issue in Australia as well.
And now we're going on the attack. That wasn't called for here.
