'Image Size' should be the primary categorization factor.

[kamilsukun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Happy Holidays...

 

I hope the future brings an upgrade to the photo web sites, allowing the readers to examine the products categorized under the 'image size' as the primary specification of a camera. The first thing even before the sensor size is the size of the image the camera lens combination produce. This factor dictates the rest.

 

We are still in a semi secret world of the specs and almost all web sites are embedding the sensor sizes somewhere in the spec tables. All the cameras must be listed by their sensor sizes to let the reader understand what category of a camera he/she is looking into. The variation of the image quality according to the rest of the factors come after from this basic first thing first.

 

I have no doubt that this is a known reality for most and the photography press deliberately joined the pixel count wagon to ensure the rise and expansion of the industry. Pleasingly nowadays some few web sites do provide the pixel density as an additional specification.

 

It is time now to take this bold step forward. The industry will not be hurt.

[Steve Ash]

Well, this is a forum dedicated to the Leica brand. Thus the categorization according to the Leica products is quite reasonable.

 

Regards

Steve

[Shootist]

Not sure what you are getting at. To me pixel size means next to nothing.

Problem is that smaller sensor cameras, P&S & 4/3, don't, for some reason, use lenses as good as larger format cameras do, or should I say can.

 

I find my LX5 10MP camera takes almost as good images as my M8 10MP camera. I really think the difference is in noise the LX5 sensor produces and that is is not using a honest to god Leica lens, along with a heavier AA filter.

 

If the industry would concentrate on making the small sensors better, lower noise at native & higher ISO, and actually putting some time into designing and making better lenses, along with knocking down the AA filter, we could all have Leica type cameras and images in a pocketable format.

 

I really don't see any reason for any website that is used for displaying and sharing images to post, make available, the actual pixel size of the camera used to take the shot. If you are that concerned with this info it is simple to look it up.

[mjh]

I suspect an attempt at irony …

[John Thawley]

I suspect an attempt at irony …

 

God, I hope so. LOL

[lct]

...The first thing even before the sensor size is the size of the image the camera lens combination produce. This factor dictates the rest....

You mean sensor size instead of image size i guess right?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not sure what you are getting at. To me pixel size means next to nothing.

 

Problem is that smaller sensor cameras, P&S & 4/3, don't, for some reason, use lenses as good as larger format cameras do, or should I say can. [...]

 

Pixel size (diameter of photon well) is certainly important. If one wants higher ISO, less noise, and higher resolution then he wants larger diameter wells (larger pixel size in your terms.)

 

But if one cannot see the difference, and if he shoots only for himself (not an editor), then be happy.

 

If the industry would concentrate on making the small sensors better, lower noise at native & higher ISO, and actually putting some time into designing and making better lenses, along with knocking down the AA filter, we could all have Leica type cameras and images in a pocketable format.

 

Never. Size is everything. Tiny sensors require lenses of such strident standards that there will not be lenses that perform as well for them as lenses for full-frame 35mm, especially lenses fast enough to be useful. And rendering with such short lenses means no DOF control to speak of. And remember, the shorter the focal length of a lens, the shallower the depth-of-focus (focal plane) which makes manufacturing all the more difficult.

[lct]

The shorter the focal length the wider the DoF.

[ho_co]

Kamil, happy holidays to you as well.

 

It's an interesting suggestion if I understand you right.

 

We're finally slowly coming off the "Megapixel Wars" in which the marketers want us to believe that 'more pixels' is the same as 'better image.'

 

It might be more reasonable to list cameras according to pixel pitch instead of pixel quantity. That would make cameras like the D-Lux 5 with variable aspect ratios (and pixel counts) easier to describe since the pixel separation doesn't change. And a ten-megapixel camera with a fingernail-size sensor would fall into a different category than a ten-megapixel camera with a 24 x 36 mm sensor.

 

But in the end, does it really matter? When you look a picture, aren't you more concerned about whether the picture 'works' emotionally? Even if I have a "better" camera, you can still make a "better" picture, right?

 

And expecting manufacturers to make it easier to compare products might be wishful thinking anyway.

[Shootist]

The shorter the focal length the wider the DoF.

 

Yes and IMHO a shorter FL longer/wider DOF mean less stringent manufacturing tolerances.

Top that off with the lenses (glass) in the actual lens are so small they must be easier to produce.

[ho_co]

... the shorter the focal length of a lens, the shallower the depth-of-focus (focal plane) which makes manufacturing all the more difficult.

You and I went to the same school on that one, but these days people don't seem to pay so much attention to the distinction between depth of field and depth of focus.

 

I wonder how much meaning the term still has, since the digital sensor lacks depth.

[mjh]

I wonder how much meaning the term still has, since the digital sensor lacks depth.

Even more than it used to have, precisely because the sensor has no depth.

 

Just so nobody gets confused:

 

shorter focal length –> increased depth of field –> diminished depth of focus –> stricter manufacturing tolerances

[ho_co]

Michael--

What are the German terms for "depth of field" and "depth of focus"?

 

 

 

I raised the question in the German language forum in October 2006 (old forum, no longer on line) and got no usable answer.

[mjh]

What are the German terms for "depth of field" and "depth of focus"?

“objektseitige Schärfentiefe” (nearly always shortened to just “Schärfentiefe”) and “bildseitige Schärfentiefe”, respectively. There is a debate raging on for decades as to whether the correct term would be “Schärfentiefe” or “Tiefenschärfe” (the joys of German composite nouns …), but I won’t go there.

[pico]

The shorter the focal length the wider the DoF.

 

True, sir, however the shorter the lens, the more shallow the depth-of-Focus. That is, the focus depth at the sensor or film.

[pico]

You and I went to the same school on that one, but these days people don't seem to pay so much attention to the distinction between depth of field and depth of focus.

 

I wonder how much meaning the term still has, since the digital sensor lacks depth.

 

Sensor well depth is pretty much the same depth as modern, slow film emulsion thickness. The issue is not depth of focus, but expectations from people using big monitors, and/or viewing 100%, and _not concentrating on the print_ instead of the stupid monitor.

[mjh]

Sensor well depth is pretty much the same depth as modern, slow film emulsion thickness.

It plays a different role, though. With respect to depth of focus, a sensor has to be considered as extremely thin; well depth doesn’t matter. (It does matter in other respects, just not in the context of focusing accuracy.)

[jsrockit]

If the industry would concentrate on making the small sensors better, lower noise at native & higher ISO, and actually putting some time into designing and making better lenses, along with knocking down the AA filter, we could all have Leica type cameras and images in a pocketable format.

 

The compacts with a fixed lens, such as the Ricoh GRD, have better lenses than the norm. I think it is just hard to make a great zoom lens for a compact while keeping the cost down.

[billmary]

Can someone please define "Depth of Field" and "Depth of Focus" for me, and discuss the real world effects of the differences?

 

I'm drowning in confusion and I obviously don't know how to swim.

 

Bill

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[ho_co]

Bill, it's a reasonable question but not easy to answer IMHO.

 

Try the two Wikipedia articles first:

Depth of focus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Depth of field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

If you Google "depth of focus," several diagrams will turn up as well.

 

 

Or, for my own diagram-less over-simplified explanation, see next post.