Author |
Topic: Common Redshank 紅腳鷸 (Read 1554 times) |
|
Lynx
BBS Member
BBS God
Posts: 429
|
 |
Re: Redshank
« Reply #15 on: May 25th, 2004, 7:52pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
on May 25th, 2004, 9:45am, Griffin wrote:
I think you have misunderstood my argument.
Let's take the following sample photo as the discussion point:
As 1D2 has a larger sensor size than 10D, we can imagine the red frame being 10D while blue frame being 1D2. For 10D, there are 6.3M pixels in the red frame while for 1D2, there are 8.5M pixels in the blue frame.
For bird photography, we always want the bird as large as possible to fill up the frame. But in real world, we can never approach close enough.
When you shot by a 1D2, you get a raw image of the blue frame. If you shot by 10D, you get a raw image of red frame which is smaller in field of view than 1D2, that's why you get 1.6X. Using Photoshop, if you crop a portion of image from 1D2 (i.e. blue frame), with the same size as the field of view of 10D's sensor (i.e. red frame), you end up with only 5.3M pixels, because 1D2's pixel size is bigger. That's why 1D2 has lower noise and better tonal rendition, as rightly pointed out by KK 
Actually both the 1.6X of 10D or the 1.3X of 1D2 are "crop factor", instead of "magnifying factor", as pointed out by Luminous-landscape. 10D is actually 62.5% of full-frame (135 format) and 1D2 is 77%.
I agree that pixel count is not the single controlling factor for image quality, but it does affect how large the print image you can enlarge without significant decrease in print quality.
|
| « Last Edit: May 26th, 2004, 2:33pm by Lynx » |
 Logged |
Welcome to Lynx Aviary
http://www.9014316.com/birds.htm
|
|
|
Lynx
BBS Member
BBS God
Posts: 429
|
|
Re: Redshank
« Reply #17 on: May 25th, 2004, 8:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
No matter what you use, just happy birding 
|
| « Last Edit: May 25th, 2004, 9:39pm by Lynx » |
Logged |
Welcome to Lynx Aviary
http://www.9014316.com/birds.htm
|
|
|
Griffin
BBS Member
BBS God
Gender: 
Posts: 139
|
|
Re: Redshank
« Reply #18 on: May 25th, 2004, 11:55pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Lynx,
Thanks for taking time to read the articles, but mind you, the photograph there is copyrighted! I suggest you remove it asap. Thank you.
Regards.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
xyz_ps
BBS Member
BBS Senior Member
I love bird watching!
 
Gender:
Posts: 100
|
|
Re: Redshank
« Reply #19 on: May 26th, 2004, 4:06am » |
Quote Modify
|
Image quality is not just a simple maths relationship between actual pixel size/no. of pixels etc. As simple as you can imagine, the CMOS of 1DMk2 and the CMOS of 10D are already two very different animals and not to mention the image processores behind. This simple analogy is just the same as comparing a consumer DC image quality vs a DSLR image quality. My 2 cents.
|
| « Last Edit: May 26th, 2004, 4:07am by xyz_ps » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Lynx
BBS Member
BBS God
Posts: 429
|
|
Re: Redshank
« Reply #20 on: May 26th, 2004, 2:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on May 25th, 2004, 11:55pm, Griffin wrote:Lynx,
Thanks for taking time to read the articles, but mind you, the photograph there is copyrighted! I suggest you remove it asap. Thank you.
Regards. |
|
Griffin, thanks very much for reminding me.
I have replaced the photograph by my own 
|
|
Logged |
Welcome to Lynx Aviary
http://www.9014316.com/birds.htm
|
|
|
|
BBS
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Send Topic
Print
To add a gain of salt to KK's excellent comments: I guess you mix up the physcial size of sensor with resolution. Larger pixel on sensor does not make larger pixels on screen! 
To confuse you further, if you crop a 1D Mk.2 image (8.5MP) into a 6.3MP image (which is the resolution of 10D), the result image is still a 6.3 MP image! But to the best of my knowleddge, the result crop will have better quality (if all other factors are identical), because the physical size of individual pixel on 1D Mk.2 sensor is larger. 
