A Question to do with Sensors

[arthurking83]

....
Ie, that you get a wider scene coverage per given lens on the larger sensor - all else being equal.

So that's the advantage of using a larger format.
Technically you have 2(or three, or more) cameras in one .. as the pixel density is the same and the lens is the same, you have a wider FOV coverage with the larger sensor camera.

So, instead of needing more lenses to effect the same FOV, you then get by with only the one lens and the one camera.

eg. with the APS-C (or even smaller sensored camera) you have a given restricted FOV with any one lens attached.
Remember that the pixel density is fixed for all cameras sensors, so in effect, the APS-C camera is now limited to a tighter FOV than the larger sensor camera.
If you crop the 135 format sensor to the same FOV as the APS-C camera you lose nothing at all.. ie. the larger framed camera is both types of cameras in this scenario.

For a very short time Nikon had the D800 twins and the D7000 both having the same pixel density, and hence as your question asks.

The problem with determining if there was any advantage of noise in image and suchlike from the larger sensor camera, the issue there was that the sensor tech was askew, in that the D7000 was much older tech.
I can't think of any cameras/brands that have simply scaled up their sensor tech to eliminate that anomaly from the equation.

So to think of how this is an advantage:

Think cropped camera of some type(with the same pixel density as the larger one).
The (supposed) advantage of the smaller format camera is it's smaller size.
The advantage of the larger sensored camera is that for whatever focal length lens is fitted to the smaller format camera, the larger one also uses that same lens.
But the disadvantage to the smaller sensor camera is that if you want a wider FOV capture, you need to not only swap out lenses but you also have to carry those other lenses too(which the larger sensor camera doesn't then require!
The idea that there is a size advantage is not what it initially seems to be .... not to mention the most likely probability that in the time it takes to change the lens, the shot is almost certainly missed.

[John King]

Gidday Arthur

I listed what I perceive to be the serious failings of this view in the second paragraph of my post #18 upthread.

Comments?

[arthurking83]

....

I listed what I perceive to be the serious failings of this view in the second paragraph of my post #18 upthread.

Comments?

Yep! but for a few exceptions, it is rare to see.

Only two that I know of(there may be more, but only these two I know of) ...

Nikon with the D7000 and D800's back in 2012.
D800 36Mp 135 format, cropped to 15Mp in APS-C.
D7000 15Mp APS-C.
But as I said before, the comparison is skewed in terms of will the image quality be the same/different.
D7000's Sony 15Mp sensor was about 2 years older in technology .. so it's noise quality dynamic range was inferior to the newer D800's sensor.

NOW!!
Sigma has the new mirrorless DP Quattro and Quattro H models.
One seems to be an upsized version of the other.(as it's implied in the info about them so far).

As for the reality(as opposed to the theory) of my assertions.
If anyone can argue against the point I use about a larger format camera being 2 or 3 smaller format cameras as well .. with reasoning of course!! .. I'll happily concede it.
And remember Am's question was specifically about keeping sensor pixel pitch the same and lens's the same .. and discuss the advantages(and or outcomes).

FWIW:
My experience a few years ago was that I was undecided as to which Fx format UWA lens to match my D800 too.
In the meantime I happily used my APS-C only Sigma 10-20mm lens in Dx mode on the D800, but then thought to myself "stuff it", just get the entire frame and crop as necessary.
cropping is easily done later .. getting data back when it was never captured in the first place is impossible(and that's only because my Ps skillz are subpar! )
So my contention remains .. larger format camera = many smaller format cameras as well.
Turns out that the 10-20 Sigma allows close to about 13mm on 135 format(otherwise 15mm equivalency), but only when cropped to 1:1 ratio .. and that was enough of an advantage for me to work with at the time.

In theory it easily possible .. why the manufacturer's DON'T do it is beyond me
With the Canon 5Ds and r at 50Mp, and Sony's latest Mp effort at 42Mp .. It's not hard to imagine Nikon's next effort at 64Mp, which then places it's effective pixel pitch at 16Mp for a m4/3rds crop and 24Mp for an APS-C camera.
That reality isn't all that far off.

But why the manufacturers don't concurrently spend the R&D $'s on both a larger and smaller sensor using the same tech, and simply scaled appropriately .. doesn't make any sense.


Anyhow .. if anyone has the ability to do the comparisons in a few months time using new Sigma cameras ... let us know if the reality matches the theory

[John King]

Except for the difference in lens resolution, Arthur. The area imaged might be similar, but the resolution in LPPMM will be very different. That was the point I was making ...

For example, the E-M1 + 14-42 EZ pancake zoom has better optical characteristics than the 10-20 Sigma (at least the copy that I saw, and all the reviews seem to back this up), even though the 14-42 is very ordinary optically (to say the least). Ditto the very ordinary 12-50.

The E-M1 + 14-42 weighs less than 600 grams.

Even with the optically excellent 14-54 MkII, the E-M1 still only weighs about a kilogram all up.

So, for my purposes, there is simply no comparison with the D8xx.

This is not a competition, or an attempt to say that my choices are better than yours, but I really must take issue with your conclusion, because the facts simply do not back up that conclusion.

[I @ M]

is there any advantage in having the larger sensor?

Yes, of course, everyone knows that bigger is better.

[arthurking83]

Except for the difference in lens resolution, Arthur. The area imaged might be similar, but the resolution in LPPMM will be very different. That was the point I was making ...

.....

In the context of this discussion, ie. what the OP has asked .. it's not a point of consideration.

The lens is included in the "all things being equal" statement. So it needs to be kept constant in this discussion.

When the lens becomes a variable, then the discussion becomes circular and we end up getting nowhere.

So in my argument, where I'm using the Sigma lens as one of the non variables, I was(and still do) using the 10-20 on the D300(APS-C) camera, I still used it on the D800E in crop mode and could use more of that lens in full frame mode(with limitations obviously).

And I don't buy into arguments that one format's lenses are better than others either.
Sharp lenses exist for all format types.

[ricktas]

If the Full Frame is a Nikon and the Crop sensor is a Canon... well then there is a world of difference and the choice is obvious.

[arthurking83]

....
If you just shoot with "all things being equal" then all things are not equal because you get a different field of view.

On the face of it, the answer is kind of yes ..... -ish!

But you only get a different FOV with the larger sensor if you don't crop(which of course the option is totally up to the individual ... not some randomly made up rule).

So the FOV issue is still within the bounds of the "all things being equal" constraint, because you CAN equalise that variable too. The advantage is that it's optional on the larger framed sensor.

[MarkChap]

There is but one genuine sensor size for a 35mm slr, all the rest are just imitations
36x24mm and preferably in a roll of 24

[ameerat42]

"Hello. Kodak ex-executives?"
"Yes."
"I have a plan for your resurrection..."

There is but one genuine sensor size for a 35mm slr, all the rest are just imitations
36x24mm and preferably in a roll of 24

[arthurking83]

....

The E-M1 + 14-42 weighs less than 600 grams.

Even with the optically excellent 14-54 MkII, the E-M1 still only weighs about a kilogram all up.

So, for my purposes, there is simply no comparison with the D8xx.

.....

(and) for the sake of a little clarity on the claim made earlier:

... Unfortunately, it only works that way in (simplistic) theoretical terms. In fact, for this to work, the 135 format lens has to have the same, or greater, resolution than that of the crop sensor lens. This is rarely, if ever, the case in reality....

Lets forget about the D800 comparison for a moment, and look at another comparison of more "all else being equal" .. because it's harder to equalise a m4/3rd kit to a D800 kit.

Consider that Member Am[/I](who's real name we'll keep anonymous to protect their identity! .. hey Am ) may have just discovered a new found love for avian photography, and to do real bird photography we need a 600mm lens at a minimum!

While there are many alternative options to the two I'm about to propose, many pundits will claim that you can get a m4/3rds camera and a 300mm f/4 lens to get to 600mm equivalence and it'll be light weight and usable and whatnot.
All well and good, and almost right on .. except that given the technical specs I'd say that a better lighter weight and smaller kit for this would be a D5500 + Nikon 300/4 PF lens.

Consider the tech specs of the two kits here:

Nikon D5500 24Mp APS-C, cropped to 1.3 crop ratio gives a 15.5Mp equivalence image area.
Olympus OMD-EM10 II(basically same price, but the D5500 is generally cheaper) has a 16Mp m4/3rds sensor area(and that's it!!)

Nikon is 70g heavier than the EM10 II. advantage Olympus here.

Add the respective and current 300mm f/4 lenses to each body tho, and the tech specs change:
Olympus 300/4 is larger and heavier: 92mm x 225mm and 1.270kg
Nikon lens is smaller and lighter: 89mm x 147mm and 755g ... so what we gained on the m4/3 swings, we lost on the APS-C roundabouts in terms of size weight and so forth.

Both will give a 16Mp(approx for the Nikon, but I doubt anyone will notice the 3% loss in resolution) at a supposed 600mm equivalence .. which is where the Olympus stops!
The D5500 kit continues on it's advantage over the Olympus kit in that it also has a a 420mm f/4 alternative FOV is it's wanted .. and with more data to play with if needed.

Once again, we can't really compare sensor quality a the pixel level as the D5500's sensor is newer technology(and better by all accounts).
That is, whatever noise you can process out of an Oly 16Mp sensor, you can do so with a Nikon 24Mp APS-C sensor too(and more).

In terms of total size for the respective kits(lens + camera mounted to store in a bag!!), the Oly has a few mm of advantage in height and width a couple of mm wide and <10mm in height .. the all important total length is in Nikon's favour again here, even tho the camera body is 30mm deeper. The Nikon lens is so much shorter that the length of the Nikon kit is still less than the Oly 300/4 lens alone!

If we try to substitute a D610 or D750 to this lens option now, the total difference in weight and total length are still similar to the Oly kit.
ie. Oly kit here weighs in at 1600g, Nikon lens + D750 weighs in at 1500g!!
Where the FF bodies currently fall over in the comparo tho is that they require a 60Mp sensor, where they currently only have 24Mp.
Considering the latest round of Mp infighting from the manufacturers .. it won't be long before Nikon next gen hi res 135 format sensor will be up there too.

The comparison that John made is at the wide end, and many folks that try to defend the smaller size weight of their kits always use the wide end of the lens scale to do so.
This is where the advantage of the smaller formats always tend to congregate.
But if a theoretical 28-100mm f/5.6 - f/8 lens ever existed for the 135 format lens, it'd make the current comparison table a bit more interesting!

- - - Updated - - -

Am!! .. if Kodak are too stupid to realise the error of their ways over the past 20 off years .. resurrection is not an option!

Let Fuji rule!

[MissionMan]

I have to say at one point I was keen to get the D810, end up with the D750 and I'm happy with it. I think 24MP is as far as I want to go and I would rather see better dynamic range and low light capability than more MP. I would rather have clean photos at ISO50K than have 100MP but that's my needs and I can understand there are those that would rather have a 100MP camera with limited low light capability for landscapes.

As for your original question, other than the additional MP, I can't see any advantage and it all comes down to what you need. i.e. do you need more MP?

[John King]

All well and good, and almost right on .. except that given the technical specs I'd say that a better lighter weight and smaller kit for this would be a D5500 + Nikon 300/4 PF lens.

Consider the tech specs of the two kits here:

Arthur, have you checked out the specs and reviews of the Nikkor f/4 300 PF?

According to www.slrgear.com, that lens is " ... never tack sharp ... " compared with their review of the Olympus f/4 300, which is somewhat better than that ...

So really an apples and oranges comparison IMO.

Just been looking at some images of Jupiter and its 4 major moons taken with the latter lens. Its resolving power is better than the theoretical maximum for a 77mm objective lens. There is a reason for that - the moons of Jupiter are pretty bright! However, it gives an indication of the IQ of this lens.

Now, I know that Nikon (and Canon) make lenses in this class, but the last time I looked they were between $15-23,000, and were a lot bigger and heavier than the Oly f/4 300.

BTW, I personally have no desire whatsoever to own the D5500. It is undoubtedly a nice camera, but I far prefer the E-M1 for my purposes. Same reasons I chose my E-30 over a D300 about 6.5 years ago. Both nice cameras, but the E-30 suited my wants and needs better at that time.

I also place a great deal of importance in how colour correct a result one gets from the CFA fitted to any camera. For me, colour correctness is very important.

I did vaguely consider a D3x at one stage, but my photographic gear has already cost a lot more than my car! AND it was not exactly a 'cheapie'.

[arthurking83]

.....

BTW, I personally have no desire whatsoever to own the D5500. It is undoubtedly a nice camera, but I far prefer the E-M1 for my purposes. Same reasons I chose my E-30 over a D300 about 6.5 years ago. Both nice cameras, but the E-30 suited my wants and needs better at that time.

....

OK .. maybe a bit of a misunderstanding on my part here then!

I was under the impression that this thread was a question asked about sensor properties .... and not what each and every one of us individually desires, or not.

The OP asked the question what's the difference between sensors sizes given a defined set of control points .. ie. everything else being equal kind'a thing.

The point in my previous reply wasn't that one lens is better than the other .. sample variation will see to that anyhow .. plus the fact that Nikon royally stuffed up with this lens initially too!
For the most part this is hard to critically assess anyhow .. only one site that I know can do it as accurately as it can be done. Until they test it for sharpness, all other tests are really by the wayside.

ps. and I don't doubt that the Oly lens will be sharper than the Nikon lens .. from my experience researching lens info, it's generally a given that bigger is almost always better.

The point in my reply was that any comparison is only valid for one set of specific criteria, but may change when a few other factors are taken into account.

My intentions wasn't to convince you to acquire a D5500! Merely to point out that the opposite can be true of your 1Kg comment regarding the Olympus camera and lens kit that you prefer.
That is, that a bigger heavier DSLR plus 300 mm lens combo can weigh in at less than 1Kg compared to a smaller lighter weight camera plus equivalent lens that weighs in at more than 1.5kg.

BTW: I'm sure that many others will eventually disagree with SLRgear's summary of the Nikon lens's performance ... in fact the resolution test chart on TDP actually indicates otherwise anyhow.

As consumers we're generally at the mercy of the manufacturers as to what we can get.
What I want is almost nothing like what Nikon sells ATM(highly unlikely that they ever will do either).
But that's not the purpose of this thread, I'm just keeping my answers within the bounds of the question asked.

There are enough devices out there to keep the arguments, back and forth, valid(enough) to make comparisons and postulate hypotheticals.
eg. up until the D5500, Nikon have never concerned themselves with small and light, other than small and light enough given the intended market.
D5500 changed that(for Nikon), where they seemed to react to the change in market preference for smaller and lighter.
D3300 replacement is due out soon too, so my guess is that this new model will address this market desire even more effectively than the D5500 did .. ie. smaller and lighter yet again(if that's what the market wants!).
That's why I made the reference to the D5500, as it's Nikon's smallest and lightest DSLR taking into account that it sits above the D3300 in the model range.
Traditionally the camera gets bigger and heavier the further up the range it sits.