fast lens/small sensor vs slower lens/larger sensor

[mooseman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am looking at the D Lux 6 and the X2 as possible purchases (either or - not both!!)

 

Can someone please explain the relationship with sensor size and lens "speed"? I am not sure of the science (but I don't mean the depth of field thingy).

 

The X2 has a large sensor (APS -C) but "only" a 2.8 lens and the D Lux 6 has a smaller sensor (1/1.7" - whatever that means) and a 1.4 lens. In the same situation, which would take better low light photos and why?

 

I guess that number of pixels might also be a factor but I find that even more confusing (X2 = 16M and D Lux 6 = 10M)

 

Thanks

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Bill Allsopp]

As to the models I cannot comment specifically but from experience I know the X1 produces VERY clean files at 3200 iso whereas with the D-Lux 5 noise is apparent at 400 iso.

[prk60091]

I only have experience with the X1 and the DLux4

 

the X1 far surpasses the DLux4 in virtually every metric (X1 does not "do" macro well) including low light situations.

[CalArts 99]

 

Can someone please explain the relationship with sensor size and lens "speed"? I am not sure of the science (but I don't mean the depth of field thingy).

 

The X2 has a large sensor (APS -C) but "only" a 2.8 lens and the D Lux 6 has a smaller sensor (1/1.7" - whatever that means) and a 1.4 lens. In the same situation, which would take better low light photos and why?

 

I guess that number of pixels might also be a factor but I find that even more confusing (X2 = 16M and D Lux 6 = 10M)

 

I believe there is a relationship with the pixel density and sensor size in relation to noise. In addition, if you allow more light (via the lens aperture) then a sensor with larger pixels (not the pixel count, but the pixel size) should produce less noise. So it appears it depends on pixel density (pixel size) and sensor size plus lens light collecting capability. Maybe the lens aperture versus the sensor size in those two cameras cancel each other out. However, the unknown factor is the actual pixel size of each sensor.

 

Here's an explanation that makes sense (at least to my small brain.): Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter

 

"Because good digital cameras are photon noise limited, the larger pixels will always have higher signal-to-noise ratios unless someone finds a way around the laws of physics, which is highly unlikely. Important to remember, however, is larger pixels enable more light to be collected, but it is the lens that delivers the light. An analogy is buckets of water. A large bucket will hold more water than a small bucket. But if you want to collect more water in a given time, one must turn the faucet on higher. So too with cameras and lenses: the bigger lens collects more light and delivers it to the sensor."

[Tonki-M]

i own the D-Lux 6 and occasionally get to borrow the X2 from a friend. Both cameras are great, but serves a very different purpose. ISO performance of the X2 is cleaner than the D-Lux 6 and will be noticable at 3200 on. X2 also will produce a more crisp and sharp images. Mind you though that i use the Lux 6 as a backup, and when i had to rely on it, it had never disappoint me. Go with the larger sensor, unless you want the zoom. speed of the camera is not much different.