![]() ![]() The dynamic range is related to the ratio of the two, with a few other factors thrown in depending on the particular flavor of DR we’re talking about. The low limit is set by the read noise, which is not a strong function of pixel pitch. That sets the limit on the highlight detail that can be retained. Given a design and a wafer-processing technology, the number of electrons that can be stored at a photosite is mainly a function of the area of that photosite. They’d have to charge near-Phase-One prices for the cameras, and almost all of the target group of customers would opt for the real thing. It wouldn’t have anywhere near the dynamic range of the big sensor – see #2 above – and there would be issues with the current crop of MFT lenses. But could any manufacturer sell that sensor profitably? I doubt it. Even the difference between MFT and the highest-res FF sensors, which are running around 60 MP, is significant.Ĭould we build 150 MP MFT sensors? Sure, we could it might even be easier than making the sensor in the IQ4 150 MP. If you print at all large, that’s a huge advantage to the larger format. The almost-order-of-magnitude difference in pixel count means there’s about a three to one difference in resolution. The current generation of CMOS BSI 645-ish sensors are 150 MP. Let’s look at how they affect the findings of equivalence.Ī state of the art MFT sensor is 20 MP. In the real world, usually none of those things precisely apply. Same color filter array (CFA) performance across formats.Full well capacities the same in all formats compared. ![]() Same resolution in pixels across all formats compared.What are the limits of equivalence? You need the following to all be true: Those that say it’s bunkum are ignoring how well it works if you use it within its limits. The people who say that format choices don’t affect image quality are ignoring the limitations of equivalence. Equivalence, as defined by James, is a true analysis of an idealized reality, and is perfectly accurate within its constraints. Other people say that equivalence is baloney. People often invoke the concept of equivalence, which Joseph James explains so well here, to argue the point that choosing a smaller format does not mean choosing lower image quality. After all that experience and all the testing I’ve done, I’m pretty confident that I understand the broad benefits and drawbacks of format choices.įirst off, let me hasten to point out that there are indeed image quality implications of format choice. That’s pretty much the range of sizes available to serious photographers except Four-Thirds and Micro Four-Thirds. During that time, I’ve also used larger MF cameras, and a 72×96 mm Betterlight back that has an effective sensor area that’s larger than anything you can fit onto 120 film until you pass 6×9. In the last 7 or 8 years, I’ve owned and made many images with APS-C (with crop factors between 1.3 and 1.5), full frame (FF), and 33×44 (MF, or crop MF, depending on your level of precision – and maybe your agenda). The format rhetoric seems to be heating up again. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |