Pixels vs Pixel Size
Discussion
OK, so I read an article recently on pixel size, dynamic range, sensor size etc. I can't remember where but it was very good so I wish I could find it again...
Anyway so lets say I was going to buy a new Nikon camera with a Full Frame sensor (which I'm not just yet anyway, need new lenses first) I was looking at Nikon's range and there are the following options:
D3 - 12.1MP
D700 - 12.1MP
D3s - 12.1MP
D3X - 24.5MP
So essentially 12MP or megabucks. Now the D700 would probably suit my requirements easily, but I do feel that Nikon should have a 15MP-20MP camera in the range somewhere. I know, I'm a pixel w
e. 
Now I have heard such good things about the D3, about it's low light ability and smoothness of tone, my question is really a case of D3 v anything with more pixels (i.e. the D3X at this moment in time).
So,
Q1: If the sensors are the same size (D3 v D3X) does that mean the images from the D3 would be smoother with greater dymanic range, seeing as the pixels must be smaller on the D3X?
Q2: And if you were blowing up shots pretty large say for a bus shelter sized poster, would the image from a D3X be noticeably clearer due to the pixel count, or would it not be noticeable?
Q3: The D3X is marketed as best for landscapes, surely if larger pixels have a greater dynamic range then a lower pixels count would be better for landscapes?
Your thoughts?
Anyway so lets say I was going to buy a new Nikon camera with a Full Frame sensor (which I'm not just yet anyway, need new lenses first) I was looking at Nikon's range and there are the following options:
D3 - 12.1MP
D700 - 12.1MP
D3s - 12.1MP
D3X - 24.5MP
So essentially 12MP or megabucks. Now the D700 would probably suit my requirements easily, but I do feel that Nikon should have a 15MP-20MP camera in the range somewhere. I know, I'm a pixel w
e. Now I have heard such good things about the D3, about it's low light ability and smoothness of tone, my question is really a case of D3 v anything with more pixels (i.e. the D3X at this moment in time).So,
Q1: If the sensors are the same size (D3 v D3X) does that mean the images from the D3 would be smoother with greater dymanic range, seeing as the pixels must be smaller on the D3X?
Q2: And if you were blowing up shots pretty large say for a bus shelter sized poster, would the image from a D3X be noticeably clearer due to the pixel count, or would it not be noticeable?
Q3: The D3X is marketed as best for landscapes, surely if larger pixels have a greater dynamic range then a lower pixels count would be better for landscapes?
Your thoughts?
i am by no means an expert, however i think you would be bloody hard pushed to "SEE" any difference, unles you got extremely anal about it on a print. If you are photographing for billboards, then fair enough...maybe. But........how did they manage to produce great results for many years without this new 24mp superstar???? you are better pressing buttons and making images rather than worrying about mp's.
I too, however, would be interested to see an answer to this somewhat more technical than mine.
I too, however, would be interested to see an answer to this somewhat more technical than mine.
I used my D300s last weekend in a studio that was demonstrating Lastolite studio lights so a perfect set up and the clothed fashion model was Wonderbra / Ultimo's Katie Green. So everything was perfect!
I shot RAW at 200ISO with a 18-105mm Nikon VR lens at f/11. The computer they had couldn't handle the D300s RAW files so I had to convert in camera to jpeg. They gave us all a 24" x 30" print on an Epson large format poster printer. Anyway that's the background. The print is awesome and detailed - possible to see individual hairs, eye lashes etc. And that's from a 12Meg Camera and probably not the best lens for the situation.
My view is pixel count is a market driven thing; easy to quantify, bit like top speeds or 0-60 but not that useful. It's how it's driven that makes the difference. Lenses are far more important but difficult to quantify in a marketing sense. They could use resolution or distortion figures or whatever but don't. Why is Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 twice the price of Sigma's so called equivalent? And Niokon's new one is three times the price. Simply because the images it produces are astounding.
I'm not alone in thinking pixel count has plateaued and its lenses and technique that really determine absolute image quality. On the basis of course you're there to get the picture in the first place and the lighting is right!
I shot RAW at 200ISO with a 18-105mm Nikon VR lens at f/11. The computer they had couldn't handle the D300s RAW files so I had to convert in camera to jpeg. They gave us all a 24" x 30" print on an Epson large format poster printer. Anyway that's the background. The print is awesome and detailed - possible to see individual hairs, eye lashes etc. And that's from a 12Meg Camera and probably not the best lens for the situation.
My view is pixel count is a market driven thing; easy to quantify, bit like top speeds or 0-60 but not that useful. It's how it's driven that makes the difference. Lenses are far more important but difficult to quantify in a marketing sense. They could use resolution or distortion figures or whatever but don't. Why is Nikon's 70-200 f/2.8 twice the price of Sigma's so called equivalent? And Niokon's new one is three times the price. Simply because the images it produces are astounding.
I'm not alone in thinking pixel count has plateaued and its lenses and technique that really determine absolute image quality. On the basis of course you're there to get the picture in the first place and the lighting is right!
Simpo that wasn't the question I was aksing.
Thing is, if you think about how pixels gather photons and how the pixel size really matters as to how many they can gather, then pixel size seems much more important to dynamic range than the number of pixels. So I can't believe the D3X can have a greater range.
Also the signal to noice ratio should be much lower wchich goes back to my original point of the D3 having nice smooth noise free images.
Here is a link I don't fully understand:
http://www.qpcard.se/BizPart.aspx?tabId=75
Anyone agree or disagree?
RobDickinson said:
D3x has a greater dynamic range than the D3 and D700.
Pixel size is an irrelevance realy thesedays when pretty much 100% of the sensor area is given over to eating up photons, theres no wasted space anymore.
I wish I could find that article again, doh!Pixel size is an irrelevance realy thesedays when pretty much 100% of the sensor area is given over to eating up photons, theres no wasted space anymore.
Thing is, if you think about how pixels gather photons and how the pixel size really matters as to how many they can gather, then pixel size seems much more important to dynamic range than the number of pixels. So I can't believe the D3X can have a greater range.
Also the signal to noice ratio should be much lower wchich goes back to my original point of the D3 having nice smooth noise free images.
Here is a link I don't fully understand:
http://www.qpcard.se/BizPart.aspx?tabId=75
Anyone agree or disagree?
I'm not lusting after anything (OK I'd like a new camera who doesn't), that was a side point I was talking about, please stop derailing the thread.
What I want to know about is pixel size v pixel density and whether anyone has any opinion on it or real world example of issues or comparisons.
The marketing of the D3X suggests it is ""better" than the D3, I am suggesting with larger pixels (same sensor size) the D3 would have more dynamic range and less noise than the smaller pixeled D3X.
What I want to know about is pixel size v pixel density and whether anyone has any opinion on it or real world example of issues or comparisons.
The marketing of the D3X suggests it is ""better" than the D3, I am suggesting with larger pixels (same sensor size) the D3 would have more dynamic range and less noise than the smaller pixeled D3X.
Bob_Defly said:
Anyone agree or disagree?
I still disagree, with 100% of the sensor given to gathering light your working at the same efficiency regardless of number of pixels.DCO makes no adjustment for resolution, and if you look at the 'print' tabs thats adjusted for same size print, and the higher resolution cameras do just as well as the lower ones (of a given tech era).
But you get a whole lot more resolution, which you can use, or downscale and still have more detail and as good noise.
leeb said:
how did they manage to produce great results for many years without this new 24mp superstar????
Usually with large or medium format cameras – the equivalent of effing big sensors.Could we not think of pixel size/density as being broadly the same as the ISO (speed) of traditional photographic film – the size and density of the silver crystals - the pixels of the day?
leeb said:
how did they manage to produce great results for many years without this new 24mp superstar????
Because they looked at the print and said 'Wow, that's a great picture' - without zooming in to 4,000,000% and saying 'Ooh look, noise, ooh look, pixels, oh look, compression blockiness'.Some time you have to get your head out of the oscilloscope and back to the viewfinder.
(I may have had some wine but I can stil spell oscilloscope!)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff