a question about digital image sensors....

[adamjohari]

Hi everyone, I'm wondering how far digital image sensors have improved throughout times. I heard that the cropped sensors of today could match full frame sensors of say from 2008?

For instance, (I'm going to have to use evil SLRs for example), could the d7000 (cropped sensor) match the image quality of the d700 (full frame sensor but from years ago)?

And, what about the Leica M9's sensor vs the new Leica M's sensor? Are they much different even though they're both full frame?

Thanks.

Adam

 

[thegman]

I'd say they've improved in many ways, but degraded in some too. High pixel density gets in more detail, but can be noisier. I'd say there is no one answer, maybe the D7000 has better high ISO, but maybe less dynamic range. Or maybe it's better in one way, but not another.

 

[jsrockit]

What are your concerns? Most of these cameras are very capable these days.

 

[teleparallel]

Yes, they can, I think.

Look at dpreview's side by side comparison. Personally I can't tell the difference between certain sensors, at least at low ISO(and sometimes up to 3200).

I can't say anything about Leica sensors, though.

I find full frame overrated. They make sense for systems that started out on film(Canon EOS, Nikon F and Leica M). Not for new systems. Check out this comparison on dpreview.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/25

Select a full frame camera, and look for your self.

 

[Kiev Ilegalac]

I think that FF are prefered because with a FF a 35mm lens is really a 35mm lens (or whatever other lens) and it has a different "look" than equivalent on a cropped sensor.
just reacently I have used my friends canon 5D, and I dont think that any of the new sensors have anything over it at lower ISO. On the other hand, I just bought fujix100, and iso and IQ in general are really amazing. If I could afford it I would always choose FF over croped sensor (I was after 5D mk2, but settled with x100, can't say I have regreted it though)
Alex

 

[gavinlg]

Yes, they can, I think.

Look at dpreview's side by side comparison. Personally I can't tell the difference between certain sensors, at least at low ISO(and sometimes up to 3200).

I can't say anything about Leica sensors, though.

I find full frame overrated. They make sense for systems that started out on film(Canon EOS, Nikon F and Leica M). Not for new systems. Check out this comparison on dpreview.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilm-x-pro1/25

Select a full frame camera, and look for your self.

The difference definitely isn't best showed in looking at charts at 100% magnification. Larger format = more 'dimensional' look to photos.

 

[edge100]

I own both the X-Pro1 (current APS-C) and a 5D Mark II (c. 2008 FF). The Fuji easily bests the Canon at high ISOs. The difference is not subtle - it's at least a stop better on the Fuji, although the Canon retains detail slightly better at high ISOs. I don't own the 5D3, but DPReview shows roughly the same.

In terms of resolving power, the two are roughly equivalent. But recall that the Fuji is 16MP and the Canon is 21MP, so the Fuji is punching above its weight here. A well-exposed ISO 200 shot is still going to be better resolved by the Canon, but the difference isn't huge. And if you need to push the shadows, the Fuji is going to hold onto a lot more detail than the Canon (this is one of the major failings of the 5D2: it's poor low ISO shadow IQ...and the 5D3 has the same issue).

Where the FF sensor has an advantage is in the subjective "feel" of the image. The DoF is shallower for a given focal length and f/stop, and so the subjects appear to pop a bit more than with APS-C. FF will always have this advantage; on APS-C, you need to open up by over 1 stop to achieve the same DoF as on FF, and you need to either get closer (thereby changing perspective) or use a shorter focal length (thereby increasing DoF) to get the same angle of view. So if I'm going for shallow DoF, I'll almost always chose a FF camera.

I've been a big proponent of FF sensors for a while, but the X-Pro1 (and X100) have made me recognize that APS-C has its place, and is certainly capable of providing IQ and noise performance that is as good (or better) than FF.

 

[adamjohari]

i'm just thinking about whether shelling out a little bit more cash on a FF is worth it or not, in terms of just image quality. not in terms of like handling capabilities etc. i'm kinda in for the used M9 market right now, hoping that the price'll drop a bit more 😀

 

[edge100]

i'm just thinking about whether shelling out a little bit more cash on a FF is worth it or not, in terms of just image quality. not in terms of like handling capabilities etc. i'm kinda in for the used M9 market right now, hoping that the price'll drop a bit more 😀

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "image quality". The M9 is not going to outperform any recent APS-C camera in high ISO performance, for instance.

What the M9 will get you is the DoF advantage of a FF sensor.

See here for some quick comparisons between the X-Pro1 and M9. The M9 slightly outresolves the Fuji and has shallower DoF, but the Fuji is clearly better at high ISO, and of course is much cheaper.

 

[matt_mcg2]

I can't speak for SLRs, but my digital compact (Olympus XZ-1, about 18 months old) was easily as good at base ISO as my old dSLR (which was from 2005/2006), despite being a fraction of the size. As good, in terms of noise, sharpness, colour, and so on [but not DoF, obviously]. The compact fell apart much quicker as the ISO increased, though.

 

[chikubi]

www.dxomark.com

My D3(D700 too) is better by about a stop across the board than the D7000 noise-wise. The D7000 has much better DR than the D3, but only up to ISO 400, then the D3 takes over. The new D600 is better than both in both regards.

The 5D3 is similar to the D3 noise-wise and in DR, so the comparisons to the D7000 and D600 are similar. Suffice to say, APS-C has come a long way, but FF with similar technology is still better in the end. Any of these cameras will take fine pictures at this point, so YMMV.

 

[wintoid]

My XPro1 is probably a better sensor than my M9. I won't be retiring either though, as each has advantages.

 

[jtm6]

I find full frame overrated. They make sense for systems that started out on film(Canon EOS, Nikon F and Leica M). Not for new systems.

This is a great way to put it. FF is great if moving between digital and film with a legacy mount. However, all bets are off if you are considering something different because it is irrelevant. There are pros and cons to everything. Taking it a little further, my ideal would be the bigger the better (beyond FF) in terms of the kinds of image characteristics I like. On the other hand, smaller is nice because of cost, size, and weight.