Sensor Comparison

[Cionn]

I'd like someone to help me understand the the resulting differences from the following scenario please.

2 cameras set-up to take the same shot.
E.G.
Camera 1, a Canon 1DX (FF CMOS sensor, Sensor area 864mm2, 18.1MP)
Camera 2, a Nikon P520 (1/2.3" CMOS sensor, Sensor area 28mm2, 18.1MP, Crop factor 5.64)

How will these photos differ? Both cameras have 18.1MP sensors, but there is a considerable difference in the sensor size. How does are the images affected by the difference in pixel size? Will there be noticeable differences if the photos are blown up to print poster size?

If someone could explain this to me, & include some supporting theory, formulae, links etc. it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you
Cionn

[RobFellows]

Hi Cionn,

You can look this up in the CiC tutorials section or here http://https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

[Black Pearl]

What is the weather like outside your window?

[dem]

You did not mention what lenses are used, at what apertures, what ISOs, what shutter speeds etc... etc...
Google "equivalence principle". This will keep you busy:
http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

The advantage of a large sensor is that in practice it gives much more control over the look of the image (noise, depth of field) and the accessible shooting conditions (low light, moving subjects).

[dje]

I'd like someone to help me understand the the resulting differences from the following scenario please.

2 cameras set-up to take the same shot.
E.G.
Camera 1, a Canon 1DX (FF CMOS sensor, Sensor area 864mm2, 18.1MP)
Camera 2, a Nikon P520 (1/2.3" CMOS sensor, Sensor area 28mm2, 18.1MP, Crop factor 5.64)

How will these photos differ? Both cameras have 18.1MP sensors, but there is a considerable difference in the sensor size. How does are the images affected by the difference in pixel size? Will there be noticeable differences if the photos are blown up to print poster size?

If someone could explain this to me, & include some supporting theory, formulae, links etc. it would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you
Cionn

Hi Cionn

This is a fairly wide ranging question but here are a few factors to consider

The larger pixels will give much better noise performance ie the noise will be less noticeable in general and particularly in certain situations where significant tonal manipulation has occurred in post processing.

With the larger sensor, there is less optical reduction in size of the image projected onto the sensor by the lens. This means that the lens has to resolve detail less finely with the larger sensor or, in other words, for a lens with a given resolution, the sharpness will be better on the larger sensor.

In any case, the lens used on the 1DX is likely to be of a much higher standard than the one on the P520 which is no doubt built to a price.

The smaller pixels on the P520 will actually give better camera resolution than the 1DX but as mentioned above, the lens situation will nullify this extra camera resolution.

Overall, the 1DX will give much better quality large prints.

DXOMark is a good site to get measured results for sensors and lenses and comparisons between different models can be made.

The other thing to remember when comparing sensors is that the particular technology used for a sensor will have an influence on performance as well as pixel size. Not all sensors have equal technology !

Dave

[jcuknz]

Some years back this was a way to rate cameras with DSLRs uniformly having single figure results while the smaller bridge cameras came with figures in the 40's. The cameras I respected and used came around 25 so I gave the theory some credence.
But what fascinated me was that my 3.3Mp Canon s20, a P&S had figures approaching the DSLRs, high singles and when things went well I accounted for this by the relationship of sensor size to Mp.
After awhile Dpreview stopped providing this info for cameras.
At the time all cameras had single figure MP totals and anyway I cannot remember how it was worked out so I, we, are left with the reasons given above .... though personally I rate features above performance and might take the P520 over the DSLR except I moved to Panasonic after being very pleased with my Nikon 5700, an earlier bridge camera which was one out of he box and cost 83% of what a Canon DSLR body would have cost at the time [ NZ$2500 vis.NZ$3000 ].
I am glad I choose the Nikon as it opened my eyes to what a digital camera could be instead of the make-overs of 1950's SLRs. To be fair it is much easier for a beginner to take nice pretty photos with a DSLR.

edit ... as nobody has yet may I suggest you give your location if you are going to ask more questions as the position in the world affects buying sources and opportunities and helps other member to give realistic suggestions.

[jcuknz]

I think it would be helpful if the poster gave the reason behind the question as it almost sounds as if they are wondering if it is worth it to go Full Frame.
Photography is a compromise, an endless balancing of one factor against numerous others, one of which is the purpose behind taking the shot.
I am not sure what poster size is, but I would say it would be ridiculous to enlarge a bridge camera to that size, though with good editing quite possible to do. Bridge cameras are not really designed for that purpose.

My current position with regard to the implied question is that you missed out on the 16Mp MFT camera option and I would now not suggest the purchase of bridge camera now that MFT has entered the ring unless you want economical reach ... the built-in 1000mm plus angle of view which would cost a fortune on FF, or MFT maybe.

Some years back I had 950mm reach with my older bridge cameras and tele-adaptor but a compromise I made after having fun with 950mm was to settle for just under 500mm and the large sensor of MFT 13x17mm v. 6.5mmx4.5mm for the freedom to work at higher ISO. For IQ reasons and older sensors I always used 100 ISO while with MFT it is usually 400 unless I need 64000 on the rare occasion .... Compromises, endless compromises, even with the exposure variables

My apologies if I have misrepresented your position Cionn.

[Manfred M]

With out getting too technically complex, the P520 with its 28mm2 sensor has just 3.2% surface area of the 1Dx with its 864mm2 sensor. In order to get the same poster sized image you will have to enlarge the image a lot more than the full-frame sensor. Size matters a lot more than MP count. Shoot with a medium format camera, and the resolution of the image will go up some more.

If you are planning to look at the poster sized print from a distance of 5m / 16 ft, you will unlikely be able to see any difference between the two images, but if you get to within a few cm / inches of the image, the shot by the 1Dx will be extremely detailed and you will be able to see detail extremely well. The shot from the P520 will seem soft and blurred; a property of the smaller sensor size as well as (probably) a vastly inferior lens on the smaller camera. The lens used on the 1Dx is likely to be much more expensive than the whole Nikon camera you are asking about.

So the answer is not 100% straight forward; but given the choice, I would go the DSLR route, rather than the superzoom.

[george013]

Cionn,

As you noticed yourself there is no relation between sensor size and the amount of pixels.

Concerning sharpness.
The definition of sharpness is based on a print of rougly A4 and viewed at roughly armlength distance. A smaller sensor has to be magnified more than a bigger sensor. Based on those 2 assumptions and the assumption that a circle of 0.3mm is seen as a spot under those conditions, the CoC is calculated.

Comparing conditions.
What do you compare? Two image taken at the same distance or two images with the same framing.
If comparing with the same distance between a FF and a DX with the same lens and focal length, your AoV will change.
If comparing a FF and a DX with the same framing of the subject and the same lens, the distance will change.
If comparing 2 different sensor sizes with the same AoV, then the focal length will change.

I think the underlaying principles are quit easy to draw. First concentrate on what is happening on the sensor, second what happens when printing and the also on what happens when changing the viewing distance.

George

[IzzieK]

YOu've got some good advice here already so let me welcome you to CiC...Merry Christmas!

[jcuknz]

In my experience Nikon lens in the bridge cameras are not that inferior .... but of course to a Canon user LOL
For a bit of Christmas mythology how about " Canon copied Leica and Nikon copied Contax ... and we all know which was the better camera" or " my Canon cameras use 80dpi* while Nikon use 300dpi " [* not actually that but close, well under 100]
Neither to be taken very seriously by Cionn I hope
Best of the season to you.

[Cionn]

Many thanks to everyone who responded. I now have a much better understanding of the effect of sensor size.
Thank you
Cionn.