![]() ![]() a little bit more or less sun different apertures. there are different (better, medium, worse) lenses In praxis, everything is different as soon as: Why? Because only in a studio-comparison all parameters are the same. If all other parameters are exactly the same, more pixels mean higher resolution.Ĭompared to cars: if all parameters are exactly the same, more HP means faster car.īut this comparison is simply useless. You can only capture what you can see!įunny discussion. Therefore if a lens can resolve only 20MPix, putting a 45MPix behind it will not bring more details. ![]() If the lens under-resolves the sensor, then the limiting factor is the lens, not the sensor. That said it also depends on the lens resolving power, so this isn't as simple as more pixels = more details. It's all about how many pixel you put onto a given subject. However, if your intent is to crop the larger sensor to match the field of view of a smaller sensor AT THE SAME FOCAL LENGTH, hence the same subject magnification, then the smaller sensor with higher pixel density will be more detailed. Whether that extra sensor resolution has any value depends on what you are shooting, how you expect people to view the image, what lenses you have, whether noise destroys much of the extra detail, etc etcĪ lot of the comparisons of cameras with different size sensors seems to be based on poor physics.Ĥ5Mpix is more than 20MPix, hence more details IF the subject occupies the entire image. My reaction to this discussion of “pixel density” is so what? That’s not aimed at you, and I’m not surprised you find it confusing. I have a 20Mpix MFT camera and a 61Mpix FF one. At the same pixel density, an FF sensor would have 80Mpix if the MFT sensor has 20Mpix. ![]() FF sensors are about 4 times the area of MFT sensors. Pixel density is how many pixels per sq mm of sensor area. Of note: My 45mp Canon R5 seems to have more detail than my 20mp OM-1 sensor.so is this a non-issue when it comes to "pixel density." Lower res FF sensors are some of the least dense, the 33MP APS-C sensors are right under the 20MP M4/3 sensors in that regard and are still denser than 61MP FF sensors. The recently introduced 40MP APS-C sensor has the pixel density of a theoretical 90MP FF sensor, so that's even higher than the 20MP M4/3 sensor but not extremely so, if you chopped that APS-C sensor down to M4/3 size you'd have 22.5MP. Anyway, M4/3 sensors have some of the highest pixel counts per area, but not the absolute highest, 1" 20MP sensors have an even higher pixel density of course since it's the same res on even smaller sensor. With APS-C you're looking at 1.5^2 or 1.6^2. Easier to do than with APS-C since for M4/3 it's just MPx4 or MP/4 (ie 2^2). The math is pretty simple, take the crop factor of the sensors and square it (power of 2, eg ^2), then divide the FF sensor's MP or multiply the M4/3's sensor MPs. ![]() How much detail is rendered by any one combo depends on the lens and is more complicated but generally higher res is better and helps regardless of sensor size. If you were to do so on an 80MP sensor then you'd end up with 20MP. If you crop a M4/3 sized area out of a 61MP FF sensor or out of the image it produces (same exact thing) then it would yield 15.25MP. No, not at all, what they mean is that a 20MP M4/3 sensor has as many pixels per square inch or mm or whatever metric you wanna use as an 80MP FF sensor would. I'm confused by what it means when people say " a 20mp M43 sensor = 80mp on a full-frame." Does this mean it renders detail the same as a 80mp full frame sensor camera? Or something else? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |