Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I think I want the 9 micron sensor
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
22mpx systems
- Thread starter Guy Mancuso
- Start date
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Yes - the Aptus 65S is at 7.2, the P30, P21 and H3DII-31 are at 6.8. Leaf does still offer 22MP solutions at 9 microns - Valeo 22, Aptus 22, Aptus 54S.
Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.com/digital.php
gogopix
Subscriber
the P25 is 9 micron, but the advantage of lower noise may not translate completely, since those were older backs. The lowest noise I believe is in the P30 or P30+
also with the crop, the P30 has a telephoto advantage, that is, since MF is generally more WA than 35mm for same FL, the crop actually put more pixels out at a distance. It is all depending on what you want.
Victor
also with the crop, the P30 has a telephoto advantage, that is, since MF is generally more WA than 35mm for same FL, the crop actually put more pixels out at a distance. It is all depending on what you want.
Victor
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
The one thing i really need is good noise or very little at ISO 400. This part makes me lean to the P30. i am trying to avoid buying a whole Profoto system just to pick up a stop or two . If i can squeeze a great file at 400 than i think i will be just fine
tom in mpls
Active member
Guy, I have the full file of this cropped and lightly processed pic, P30+. ISO 400. If you would like it and can tell me how to do so, I will allow you to download the full file.
Last edited:
Graham Mitchell
New member
I hear what's you're saying. MFDB's need better high ISO performance than 35mm DSLRs due to having slower lenses, in general, or at least the fact that they need to use smaller apertures to achieve the same DOF. This is the one thing I would really like to see being improved in the next generation of MFDBs.
Btw, you might find this useful:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=24425&st=20#
irakly
New member
Graham Mitchell
New member
You don't always want such narrow DOFno need for profoto, just get contax 645, or rollei with 2/80
irakly
New member
Victor, there is no such thing as telephoto advantage. You may as well just crop an image from a larger sensor for an identical result
To me the main concern is not in noise, but with narrower dynamic range and consequent inability to capture strong and especially specular highlights. i have yet to try it with p25, but kodak images can be safely overexposed two stops without ANY noticeable effect.
I remember Marc (fotografz) complaining to me that he is getting noise in shadows with his Kodak back in outdoors shots. "What noise?" - I asked, as it was a complete surprise to me. He said that he was getting noise in black tuxedos because he was intentionally underexposing to preserve all details in a wedding dress. So, essentially he was treating the back like transparency film (and that's exactly what needs to be done with high-megapixel CMOS sensors and to some extent with 6-micron backs). I said, - "try overexposing a stop and then pull 1EV, just like with negative colour film". First Marc did not believe me. That until he tried
PeterA
Well-known member
Good advice -Victor, there is no such thing as telephoto advantage. You may as well just crop an image from a larger sensor for an identical result
To me the main concern is not in noise, but with narrower dynamic range and consequent inability to capture strong and especially specular highlights.
I said, - "try overexposing a stop and then pull 1EV, just like with negative colour film". First Marc did not believe me. That until he tried
I haven't had this issue with my Leaf 75 - but use what you suggested with H3D-31 to good effect.
Pete
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
No need Tom that looks very very clean. ImpressedGuy, I have the full file of this cropped and lightly processed pic, P30+. ISO 400. If you would like it and can tell me how to do so, I will allow you to download the full file.
Concur - after much trial and effort and $$ on DSLR side, have finally come to conclusion that, for me, the best IQ comes from a reasonable number of big fat (ideally in and around 9um) photocells.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
I honestly believe the big fat 9 micron sensors handle the DR better and have better image quality overall. The ZD i am currently using i actually have to add black for some pop just because the tonal range is so wide. Which is great. Now not to say the P30 at 7.8 microns is bad at all but the DR maybe less. This is what I need to see in San Juan with the P25 and P30 demo kits that Lance is bringing to the workshop. Obviously the P30 advantage is the high ISO's and that can solve buying back all my heavy lighting gear. We all know we are loosing about 1 or 2 stops in DOF with MF so to get F8 on a DSLR than i will need lights that will have enough power to get F 11 or more to make up for it or a cheaper option and built in is bumping the ISO up. I think this is a important consideration when making these decisions. Now i have seen some outstanding P 30 shots and makes me wonder. I just have to wait to see the tests . The crop factor does not bother me. Been dealing with that for several years with the DMR and M8
gogopix
Subscriber
Victor, there is no such thing as telephoto advantage. You may as well just crop an image from a larger sensor for an identical result
Well, maybe you misunderstood my point, but there is a definite advantage when a sensor with the SAME pixel count is used as crop or FF sensor. It's WHERE you put you pixels. ( and one should ALWAYS be careful where they put their pixels :ROTFL: )
With a crop factor 22MP sensor (say 1.3) a 180 lens could be effectively a 22MP 250mm lens (as long as the glass resolution holds out
). If you crop a 22MP sensor that is FF then you will only have say 16 MP to work with in the center area that you indirectly 'blow up' to the 250mm FOV.
That's all I meant
regards
Victor
Graham Mitchell
New member
Guys, just don't forget that pixel spacing is not the whole story. 9 micron spacing might mean that the photosites are 5 microns wide with a 4 micron gap until the next photosite. Therefore it would be possible for a new sensor to have smaller spacing, e.g. 7 micron, and have photosites which are 6 microns wide. That means more pixels AND larger photosites. I believe this surface efficiency is called 'fill factor'.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Thanks Graham . See this is were i need to get educated is figuring this stuff out.
irakly
New member
oh, i see. theoretically you are right, but in reality 22mp sensors are larger than 31mp sensors in physical dimensions, not the other way around. i wish 22mp square sensor with 1.3 crop were available...Well, maybe you misunderstood my point, but there is a definite advantage when a sensor with the SAME pixel count is used as crop or FF sensor. It's WHERE you put you pixels. ( and one should ALWAYS be careful where they put their pixels :ROTFL: )
With a crop factor 22MP sensor (say 1.3) a 180 lens could be effectively a 22MP 250mm lens (as long as the glass resolution holds out
If you crop a 22MP sensor that is FF then you will only have say 16 MP to work with in the center area that you indirectly 'blow up' to the 250mm FOV.
That's all I meant
regards
Victor
tom in mpls
Active member
I believe Canon has used this technique in their latest dslr sensors. They put more and larger pixels in the same area by decreasing the space between pixels.
Very true. Comes down to whether you talking/quoting cell SIZE vs PITCH, more often than not the two terms get used interchangeably , which as you point out can be misleading.
That being said, I wouldn't kick a P45+ to the curb if I found it under the Xmas tree.:ROTFL:
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
So than what would be the real difference between the microns. Sounds to me it would be DR