October 01, 2014, 08:54:59 AM

Author Topic: Question regarding sensor size and image quality  (Read 3288 times)

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 14529
    • View Profile
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2014, 07:38:00 PM »
The 6d and 70d have the exact same resolution (5472x3648) I used the 16-35 at 16mm and the 8-16 at 10mm that's the same fov for both, taken from the same spot.

Apologies, I misread your post as 60D.  Indeed, 6D/70D is a good comparator, although I think it would have been better to use the 16-35 on both (say, at 16mm and ~26mm).

As PBD states, your shots were at the same distance so despite other comments to the contrary, the perspective is identical.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #30 on: August 22, 2014, 07:38:00 PM »

candc

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 534
    • View Profile
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #31 on: August 22, 2014, 08:59:46 PM »


That is a good point. I did that comparison to see how the 6d + 16-35 f/4 stacked up against the 70d + sigma 8-16. Maybe I will check the 16-35 and the sigma 18-35 (works at long end on ff) on both cameras. I know that the sigma 18-35 is sharper than the 16-35 on a crop body but I haven't compared either lens on both bodies at equivelant focal lengths.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 09:01:18 PM by candc »

c.d.embrey

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #32 on: August 22, 2014, 09:32:18 PM »
It all depends on what you are doing. Arizona Highways still prefers  large format (4x5) transparencies http://www.arizonahighways.com/photography/submissions.asp

For digital submissions they want a minimum of 300 pixel per inch  12"x18" files http://www.arizonahighways.com/DigitalGuidelines.pdf

If you are shooting photos they will be displayed at 1000 pixel wide on a web site (Advertising, News, Sports) the requirements are less stringent.

Hillsilly

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 770
    • View Profile
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #33 on: August 22, 2014, 11:18:55 PM »
With the Arizona Highway's magazine, can you perceive the improved image quality compared to other magazines with lower image standards?  I'm curious how well their requirements translate to a magazine format, but unfortunately they don't seem to ship outside the US.
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

V8Beast

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 978
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #34 on: August 22, 2014, 11:43:32 PM »
Disclaimer: I don't know if there are any technical points of reference that either prove or disprove my observations :) At any rate, for me personally, what I perceive as superior tonal range is the biggest advantage of full-frame vs. crop sensors. Maybe the tonal range is genuinely superior with FF, or maybe it isn't, but for what I shoot sure it looks better to me :)

For example, these product shots I took recently are all some slightly different shade of gray with some black and silver mixed in. IMHO, these are the types of shots where full-frame sensors provide far more depth and tonality than a crop sensor.










When shooting similar types of boring, gray products, to my eyes medium format trumps a FF 35mm sensor in the tonality department by a huge margin as well.

Your results may vary ;D


 

V8Beast

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 978
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #35 on: August 22, 2014, 11:53:06 PM »
One more thing. As no surprise, lighting plays a tremendous role in the perceived depth and tonality of an image. In other words, a crop sensor with proper lighting technique can produce an image with a better "3D" quality than a full-frame sensor with mediocre lighting technique.

Both these images were shot with my 5D3, 24-105 lens, and the same lighting equipment. The only difference is that in the second image (the close-up), the physical limitations of the location preventing positioning the light sources where I wanted to. This compromised the lighting angle, and resulted in a much flatter, duller, two-dimensional image. The gradations, particularly in the mid-tones, aren't nearly as smooth. Therefore, the flat image had nothing to do with sensor size and everything to do with mediocre lighting technique. Just don't tell that to my client ;D

 




privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2460
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2014, 11:57:36 PM »

When shooting similar types of boring, gray products, to my eyes medium format trumps a FF 35mm sensor in the tonality department by a huge margin as well.

Your results may vary ;D

Medium format file bit depths are generally much bigger than 135 format RAW files so they are much better at subtle tonality, they can literally accurately record thousands more tones of grey, also they don't have AA filters so detailed gradation is rendered much more accurately.

Indeed it could well be the AA filter that people are seeing on the crop cameras that is killing some of the subtle tonality of the image. Generally crop cameras have more severe AA filters than 135 format cameras and as their bit depth is the same it is the only substantive difference.

V8, you should borrow a D810 to see how you like the tonality of that, it should be the closest to the medium format in 135 format, though still not as good.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #36 on: August 22, 2014, 11:57:36 PM »

V8Beast

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 978
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2014, 12:02:12 AM »
Medium format file bit depths are generally much bigger than 135 format RAW files so they are much better at subtle tonality, they can literally accurately record thousands more tones of grey, also they don't have AA filters so detailed gradation is rendered much more accurately.

Indeed it could well be the AA filter that people are seeing on the crop cameras that is killing some of the subtle tonality of the image. Generally crop cameras have more severe AA filters than 135 format cameras and as their bit depth is the same it is the only substantive difference.

V8, you should borrow a D810 to see how you like the tonality of that, it should be the closest to the medium format in 135 format, though still not as good.

I knew someone smarter than me could provide a real technical reason as to why medium format looks so much better for this type of stuff ;D Glad to know exactly why now.

I certainly don't shoot enough product images like this to warrant investing in a D810, but would like to try one out some day. I just hope it doesn't have an oily sensor :o

Valvebounce

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2014, 03:53:26 PM »
Hi V8Beast.
I would not worry about the image lighting quality until the client provides correctly assembled product for you to capture, as an engineer the first thing I notice in the images is the cocked rose joint on the left hand tie bar! In my opinion the client has let you down by not straightening such things, unless you are responsible for the assembly, in which case you need to address such things, if you are not responsible for it at least bring it to the attention of the client!  ;D
I know that rods with dual rose joints will naturally settle to their own position, but at least they can be lined up for aesthetics during product photography.

Cheers, Graham.

.

Both these images were shot with my 5D3, 24-105 lens, and the same lighting equipment. The only difference is that in the second image (the close-up), the physical limitations of the location preventing positioning the light sources where I wanted to. This compromised the lighting angle, and resulted in a much flatter, duller, two-dimensional image. The gradations, particularly in the mid-tones, aren't nearly as smooth. Therefore, the flat image had nothing to do with sensor size and everything to do with mediocre lighting technique. Just don't tell that to my client ;D


7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

V8Beast

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 978
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2014, 10:00:16 PM »
Hi V8Beast.
I would not worry about the image lighting quality until the client provides correctly assembled product for you to capture, as an engineer the first thing I notice in the images is the cocked rose joint on the left hand tie bar! In my opinion the client has let you down by not straightening such things, unless you are responsible for the assembly, in which case you need to address such things, if you are not responsible for it at least bring it to the attention of the client!  ;D
I know that rods with dual rose joints will naturally settle to their own position, but at least they can be lined up for aesthetics during product photography.

Cheers, Graham.

Ha! Good catch! It's funny how you get so consumed with getting the shot that you overlook the most basic of things.....like how the product is assembled.

Valvebounce

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #40 on: August 24, 2014, 01:10:33 PM »
Hi V8Beast.
I think 14 years as a toolmaker left me with quite a keen eye for details like that, but don't ask me what colour the misses' eyes are!  :o
I just re-read my post to you, I'm glad you interpreted it in the manner intended, not as criticism of you!
Out of interest what is it a chassis for?

Cheers, Graham.

Hi V8Beast.
I would not worry about the image lighting quality until the client provides correctly assembled product for you to capture, as an engineer the first thing I notice in the images is the cocked rose joint on the left hand tie bar! In my opinion the client has let you down by not straightening such things, unless you are responsible for the assembly, in which case you need to address such things, if you are not responsible for it at least bring it to the attention of the client!  ;D
I know that rods with dual rose joints will naturally settle to their own position, but at least they can be lined up for aesthetics during product photography.

Cheers, Graham.

Ha! Good catch! It's funny how you get so consumed with getting the shot that you overlook the most basic of things.....like how the product is assembled.
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

Sporgon

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1923
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • View Profile
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2014, 04:46:10 PM »

Even though the FOV and DOF may be the same, the images will never be "equal".  Why is that? For the same reason that a 4X5 image will look "better" than 35 mm--field compression.  Let me explain.

Let's take two cameras a 35 mm and 4 x 5.  A 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera and a 210 mm lens on a 4 x 5 camera give the same field of view.  However, the images do not look the same because of the apparent difference in distance between the foreground and background.  Even through the field of view is the same, the background will appear much closer to the foreground with the longer lens--this is called field compression.  These images "look better" and have a more 3D feel.  This is why the old master's like Ansel Adams, Ed Weston used large format cameras.  Ansel Adams once quipped when asked what kind of camera he used his response was "The heaviest one I can carry".

The same this is going on with an APC sized sensor compared to FF.  The equivalent field of view for a 50 mm lens on a full frame sensor is about 35 mm on an APC sensor.  The apparent distance between background and foreground for given a field of view is greater in an APC sensor than in a full frame sensor.  Hence, the images do not look as good and lack the 3D feel.

Your instructor should know this stuff.  Maybe he/she should read Ansel Adam's excellent book "The Camera".  In fact, all of us should read the entire Adam's series: "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print".  There is still much to learn from the old masters even in the digital age.

Don Barar

Don,

With the greatest respect, something I am often accused of lacking, that is a complete load of rubbish.

Perspective is perspective, "compression" is a completely erroneous concept that photographers that don't know what they are talking about use to describe perspective.

Perspective is derived from your position. That is it, nothing else, focal length is a red herring. Shoot the same scene from the same place with a 17mm lens or a 200mm lens and crop the 17mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the perspective ("compression") is identical, and that is what you are doing when you use smaller sensors.

Dgbarar seems to have deleted his post. As has been stated the perspective remains the same because you are at the same distance, but the 210 mm lens does give more magnification which is then accommodated on a much larger format, so the end result is that you have a larger image. The same thing happens when you shoot a panoramic; you have to use a longer lens to get the same framing because you are creating pieces of a larger format. The difference is subtle but if you put two images side by side, one shot as a panoramic and the other as a panoramic cropped single frame, the difference is there.

mmenno

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2014, 05:13:33 PM »
Thanks again for all the input, I like the metalwork shots a lot, they do show good subtleties in tonality.

I have been thinking about the effect of shooting a scene with a longer lens and then stichting into a wide angle frame, and I intend to test just that sometime this week. I have a nodal ninja so that has to work, but I don't have stellar glass. I'm thinking of either doing the pano with the canon 50 1.8 and the single shot with the canon 10-18, or do them both with a tamron 17-50 to keep the lens factor as equal as possible.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2014, 05:13:33 PM »

V8Beast

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 978
    • View Profile
    • Stephen Kim Automotive Photography
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #43 on: August 24, 2014, 06:08:17 PM »
Hi V8Beast.
I think 14 years as a toolmaker left me with quite a keen eye for details like that, but don't ask me what colour the misses' eyes are!  :o
I just re-read my post to you, I'm glad you interpreted it in the manner intended, not as criticism of you!
Out of interest what is it a chassis for?

Cheers, Graham.

Even if it was a criticism (which it clearly wasn't), I've learned that you have to be able to handle criticism in order it to make it in this business :) And yeah, eye color isn't the first thing that catches my attention about a woman, either ;D

The chassis is for an old Dodge pickup, hence the long lower control arms. The same company also manufactures similar custom chassis for everything from old musclecars to Alfa Romeos. With substantially stiffer framerails, revised suspension pickup points, coilover assemblies, splined sway bars, etc. they're some very nice pieces of hardware. I like how they have passages for the exhaust as well to improve ground clearance.

Here are some snapshots of a Camaro frame they built. I like how they kicked in the framerails to maximize tire clearance and raised the spring/shock mounts allow for a lower ride height without compromising suspension travel. To put cost into perspective, a 1Dx is cheap by comparison :o








privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 2460
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2014, 11:35:09 PM »

Even though the FOV and DOF may be the same, the images will never be "equal".  Why is that? For the same reason that a 4X5 image will look "better" than 35 mm--field compression.  Let me explain.

Let's take two cameras a 35 mm and 4 x 5.  A 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera and a 210 mm lens on a 4 x 5 camera give the same field of view.  However, the images do not look the same because of the apparent difference in distance between the foreground and background.  Even through the field of view is the same, the background will appear much closer to the foreground with the longer lens--this is called field compression.  These images "look better" and have a more 3D feel.  This is why the old master's like Ansel Adams, Ed Weston used large format cameras.  Ansel Adams once quipped when asked what kind of camera he used his response was "The heaviest one I can carry".

The same this is going on with an APC sized sensor compared to FF.  The equivalent field of view for a 50 mm lens on a full frame sensor is about 35 mm on an APC sensor.  The apparent distance between background and foreground for given a field of view is greater in an APC sensor than in a full frame sensor.  Hence, the images do not look as good and lack the 3D feel.

Your instructor should know this stuff.  Maybe he/she should read Ansel Adam's excellent book "The Camera".  In fact, all of us should read the entire Adam's series: "The Camera", "The Negative", and "The Print".  There is still much to learn from the old masters even in the digital age.

Don Barar

Don,

With the greatest respect, something I am often accused of lacking, that is a complete load of rubbish.

Perspective is perspective, "compression" is a completely erroneous concept that photographers that don't know what they are talking about use to describe perspective.

Perspective is derived from your position. That is it, nothing else, focal length is a red herring. Shoot the same scene from the same place with a 17mm lens or a 200mm lens and crop the 17mm image to the same framing as the 200mm image and the perspective ("compression") is identical, and that is what you are doing when you use smaller sensors.

Dgbarar seems to have deleted his post. As has been stated the perspective remains the same because you are at the same distance, but the 210 mm lens does give more magnification which is then accommodated on a much larger format, so the end result is that you have a larger image. The same thing happens when you shoot a panoramic; you have to use a longer lens to get the same framing because you are creating pieces of a larger format. The difference is subtle but if you put two images side by side, one shot as a panoramic and the other as a panoramic cropped single frame, the difference is there.

Yep, you will never catch me saying a smaller sensor will give you better IQ! The perspective is the same, but the inherent additional IQ you get from a larger sensor, especially if you stitch to effectively make it even larger, will be apparent, things like lens aberrations are more easily seen with more magnification (the intrinsic problem with smaller sensors is the need to enlarge the capture more), the CoC is smaller when you go smaller, AA filters will generally have more impact on smaller sensors etc etc.

To be sure the differences are there, especially if you look very close, but they have nothing to do with perspective or focal length, just a myriad of other more mundane technicalities.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Question regarding sensor size and image quality
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2014, 11:35:09 PM »