# Sensor vs glass quality vs MP



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

In digital photography, which is most important regarding image quality, sensor size or the lens? I know very little about digital but I've been reading a lot about sensor sizes. It seems more fuss is made over that then the lens hanging on the front of the camera. In the world of film, it's all about the lens. Does the sensor size only become an issue with larger print sizes and, like film, the glass is most important at all print sizes?
   Before I began reading up on the subject I, like I'm sure a lot of folks, thought it was all about the MP. The more MP's, the better. This is probably due to the mfg's pushing those numbers more then anything. Now, after reading, I understand the higher MP's can actually reduce image quality in smaller prints. Do I have that right?

EDIT: Lets throw something else in the pot of questions concerning RAW. Are camera's that don't have the ability to shot RAW even seriously considered? Like I said... digital noobie here.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 5, 2012)

The sensor size might become an issue in high ISO and noise-larger sensor=less noise. 
As for print size? There isn't a whole lot of the time that the larger MP becomes an issue. You aren't viewing a printed billboard with a microscope or at point blank range. To a small extent it might matter if you are printing extreme macro to the size of a house and viewing close. But then top notch glass AND an amazing sensor will be crucial. If the glass is crap and the sensor is good you will still have crap results. Just in more pixels.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> The sensor size might become an issue in high ISO and noise-larger sensor=less noise.
> As for print size? There isn't a whole lot of the time that the larger MP becomes an issue. You aren't viewing a printed billboard with a microscope or at point blank range. To a small extent it might matter if you are printing extreme macro to the size of a house and viewing close. But then top notch glass AND an amazing sensor will be crucial. If the glass is crap and the sensor is good you will still have crap results. Just in more pixels.



Ok, so you wouldn't say the sensor size is the equivalent to format size in film? That seemed logical to me, but I guess I was mistaken.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)



Ok, now that's really confusing. DOF isn't strictly the aperture and distance in digital?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)



You didn't define that very well.. what you meant to say is the bigger the Sensor, the smaller or more shallow the DOF.... correct?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)
> ...



Yes indeed thanks, more shallow = better performance =)

OP - this may help you understand

Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography


----------



## amolitor (Sep 5, 2012)

In a perfectly designed system, the sensor will run out of megapixels at exactly the same time the lens runs out of resolving power. With the newest generation of cameras this is getting pretty close to true even for quite good lenses.

The thing to keep in mind is: Sources of unsharpness are not distinct, they add up. Softness from the lens adds to the several sources of softness the sensor provides. So the answer really is: they both matter.

It sounds like a cop-out, but it's not. The great thing is that even if you don't have very many megapixels, you get some benefit from a better lens (maybe not very MUCH benefit, but some). If you have a soft lens, upgrading your body will improve the images. It feels like a cop-out, but what it really is is this: upgrading any part of your system will improve your results (at least infinitesimally).


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)
> ...



Smaller sensors (ie: APS-C "Crop" sensors) have larger DOF than a full size sensor, just as a Full size sensor has a larger DOF than a medium format sensor (at any given aperture)

Check out Online Depth of Field Calculator and play with various sensor sizes.. you will see a difference! Aperture is the other variable there... but at any given aperture, the smaller sensors will have a greater DOF than the larger ones (sometimes minimal, but still measureable)


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



Better performance for Portraiture or similar, but worse performance for Macro shooters. So no... not better performance, just more or less DOF!


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 5, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> Yes indeed thanks, more shallow = better performance =)
> 
> OP - this may help you understand
> 
> Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography



"As sensor size increases, the depth of field will decrease for a given aperture (when filling the frame with a subject of the same size and distance)."


----------



## CanonJim (Sep 5, 2012)

The way I look at it, the finished image is no better than the weakest link in the chain. The 'hard' stuff like lens, sensor, onboard image processing, etc and the 'soft' stuff  like composition, post processing, etc all play a part. You can't isolate one particular component and say "This is the most important part", any more than you can disassemble a Ferrari in your living room and point to one particular part and say , "This is a Ferrari". 

It's often said that "It's never the camera, dummy!", and to an extent that's true - a good photographer can get a good image out of almost any combination of hardware. The 'new and improved' hardware only makes it possible for the talented artist to create across a wider range of situations.   For example, Michaelangelo or DaVinci could probably paint a decent picture with an eight-color palette. But give them 65 or 128 or a thousand and they can make an even BETTER picture.   Same would go for a photographer.  A Karsh or Adams or Steichen could probably do wonders with a 1DX or a top notch Nikon or Leica or whatever. But they also did pretty damn good with the relatively 'ancient' hardware they did use.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



ahhhhh yes sir!  But i shoot people....such as my assistant =)


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?



Not really true. ISO performance quality is typically better with full frame too. And a host of other differences for the bigger sensors. Look at that link I posted for you


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

_"It's often said that "It's never the camera, dummy!", and to an extent that's true - a good photographer can get a good image out of almost any combination of hardware. The 'new and improved' hardware only makes it possible for the talented artist to create across a wider range of situations.   For example, Michaelangelo or DaVinci could probably paint a decent picture with an eight-color palette. But give them 65 or 128 or a thousand and they can make an even BETTER picture.   Same would go for a photographer.  A Karsh or Adams or Steichen could probably do wonders with a 1DX or a top notch Nikon or Leica or whatever. But they also did pretty damn good with the relatively 'ancient' hardware they did use."

_Well said!


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 5, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bigger the sensor size, the better the depth of field (and about everything else too!)
> ...



No, sensor size also has a large effect on DOF. Think about a point and shoot with manual capabilities. It's VERY hard to get shallow DOF images because of the sensor size on them.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...




Arrgghhh... she's yellow, Matey!   lol! 

And I shoot bugs! But I can still be objective when I am posting (after all... a lot of people object to my posts, right?)


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?
> ...



Will do, it looks interesting along with Charlie's. Thanks to both.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 5, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?



Yes, overall. "normal" print sizes it usually doesn't matter either. You can print a billboard with a 3MP camera. I wouldn't want to print a billboard of one of Charlie's amazing macro shots with a 3MP camera, but you could and it would still be a great image. 
There are a lot of things that are benefits of a larger sensor, but in the overall scheme of things the glass is the key.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 5, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > *Charlie's amazing macro shots*
> ...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



yeah +1 she's intentionally cross processed (so hopefully you can't tell she was just in my case)


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

What got me digging into this topic was, I have an entry level Sony a230 I use for family outtings and such and my dad decided to get something for himself. Up 'til now he has also been strickly a film guy. He was considering getting a a230 but wanted back screen viewing that the 230's don't have. He sent me a link for a HX200V, which is also a bottom of the line Sony but this thing has a Ziess Sonnar lens. In my film world the first thing I thought of of geez..Hasselbald's use Ziess Sonnar lenses! Hence, my post.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> What got me digging into this topic was, I have an entry level Sony a230 I use for family outtings and such and my dad decided to get something for himself. Up 'til now he has also been strickly a film guy. He was considering getting a a230 but wanted back screen viewing that the 230's don't have. He sent me a link for a HX200V, which is also a bottom of the line Sony but this thing has a Ziess Sonnar lens. In my film world the first thing I thought of of geez..Hasselbald's use* Ziess Sonnar lenes!* Hence, my post.



may not be wise to expect the "same quality" with the ones they uber-mass produce for Sony =)


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

I'm sure. You can buy several complete Sony's for the price of one Hasselblad lens. I really wonder why Zeiss would put their name on them.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 5, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> I'm sure. You can buy several complete Sony's for the price of one Hasselblad lens. I really wonder why Zeiss would put their name on them.




Sales $$$, many don't know the difference and see that name attached


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

but how about reputation and pride in your product...oh yeah, this is the 2000's


----------



## KmH (Sep 5, 2012)

*"Sensor vs glass quality vs MP"*

The sensor size and the MP relate to each other.
Image sensor sizes, from big to small are - medium format, full frame, APS-H, APS-C (Nikon DX, Pentax, Sony), APS-C (Canon), Foveon (Sigma), Four Thirds, Nikon CX, 2/3", 1/1.7", 1/2.3".





This file is licensed under the ​Creative Commons​Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.​
A 10 MP full frame image sensor's individual pixels are roughly twice as big as the individual pixels on a 10 MP, APS-C size image sensor. This is known as 'pixel pitch'.
If you pack 20 MP onto a full frame image sensor, it will have about the same pixel pitch as a 10 MP APS-C size image sensor. However the full frame image sensor will have more resolution.

The bigger a pixel is, the more light it can record, which generally means a lower signal to noise ratio. So bigger image sensors usually have better ISO performance.
Bigger image sensors cost more to make. so the cameras they are used in also cost more.

Another factor many overlook is that the image sensor in a digital camera has a filter array in front of it. The filter array blocks UV and IR light, includes a low-pass filter which provides anti-aliasing (AA), and for all except the Foveon image sensor, a Bayer Array that the camera image processor uses to interpolate color. (Image sensors can't record color, and only record luminosity.)
Of those filters the AA filter effects image sharpness. The aggressiveness of the AA filter usually varies by camera model, though some cameras in a makers line will share essentially the same image sensor. Aggressive AA filters soften focus more. Less aggressive AA filters are more likely to allow aberrations like moiré, but deliver sharper images straight out of the camera (SOOC). 

The next issue to consider is lens performance (resolution) relative to image sensor size.

Up to a point, lens resolution exceeds image sensor resolution, and lens quality is often a minor issue since the image sensor is the limiting factor. As pixel density increases, a point is reached where image sensor resolution exceeds lens resolution. At that point lens quality become very critical because the lens becomes the limiting factor.

For cameras like Nikon's 36.3 MP, D800 full frame camera, the full benefit of the image sensor's resolution will likely only be realized by using the best professional grade lenses.

Kind of ironically, for electronic display anything over 10 MP or so is a waste unless someone will only look at a small part of a photo at one time. 
Nikon's D800 delivers images that have pixel dimensions of 7360 x 4912 pixels. My 22" desktop display can only show 1600x 1220 pixels at a time.


----------



## KmH (Sep 5, 2012)

Every digital camera starts with a Raw file. Some inexpensive or P&S cameras won't let you choose to write the Raw image data file to the memory card, so they can save money on the camera's write buffer.

Using Raw is about 'bit-depth' - Bit Depth
Image Types: JPEG & TIFF File Formats
Tutorials &#8211; The RAW File Format


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 5, 2012)

All very interesting information. Thank you everyone for sharing. I'm not ready to mothball my F2's just yet, but it's always interesting to learn new things, and I have to admit, the "delete at no cost" button on the digitals a kind'a sweet


----------



## Derrel (Sep 5, 2012)

Rick58 said:


> So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?



I don't se it that way. The better "full-frame" d-slr models have larger sensors, with larger pixels, which are more-efficient light collectors, and they give better overall imaging performance than do smaller sensors, with much,much smaller pixels. The difference in overall image quality between a "full-frame" camera with a high-quality sensor and a crop-size sensor (one of any of any umber of smaller than FX sizes) is pretty substantial at times. The larger sensor cameras, when paired with the same lens as a smaller-sensor camera, will create images that have higher resolution, and lower image noise, and often, better color depth and better dynamic range, than small-sensor cameras. All of the lens testing web sites have tests, many tests, that demonstrate that the SAME lens on a FF or "FX" sensor delivers better optical performance than that lens used on a small-sensor camera. 

Sensor age, design, and "generation" also play a BIG role too!!! OLDER, first-generation FF sensors, like say the 11 megapixel one in the original Canon 1Ds---these days, that sensor's 11 megapixel, full-frame image quality can be equalled, or bettered, by many APS-C cameras...cameras that are now like eight or nine years newer, and which have almost double, to more than double, the pixel count--PLUS new electronics and new software!

Trust me...mothball the F2's and move to a new-fangled digital pro Nikon body!


----------



## CanonJim (Sep 5, 2012)

Also, going back to your original post, the reason that mega-pixels SEEM to be important, (or at least, _more_ important) is that they are dummy-friendly.  Marketers can trumpet "15 megapixels!" and then "18 Megapixels!" and then "21 MEGAPIXELS!" and, if you do not understand the mechanics of the thing, that is interpreted to read "My 18 is better than your 15" by the great unwashed masses. It's much more difficult to convince people of the superiority of LD glass, fluorite, ultrasonic focusing motors, and things like lines of resolution when you're selling a lens. Thus, MP becomes the benchmark by which many people judge a digital camera.

I'd trade my fairly decent 18MP 50D for a 12MP 5D Mark I classic any day of the week, and I bet many others would too.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 8, 2012)

And I wouldn't trade my 36mpxl  D800 for anything. There's real benefits to higher megapixel counts including finer noise details making noise reduction trivial, and my ability to use DX glass without disadvantage

But still on the original post, film wasn't all about the lens, it was also about the choice of film. Various films produced various grains. You wanted the ultimate in detail, an ISO50 portrait film was usually the option (think high megapixels), wanted ISO3200 you'd end up with grain out the wazoo, the lens on your camera didn't really matter when shooting Ilford Delta1600 pushed to 3200. 

Thing of digital the same way except you can't change your film. The sensor is equally as important as the camera, and anyone who wishes to challenge this is more than welcome to strap a 85mm f/1.2L to my webcam, and naturally visa versa. A Nikon D4 with a ****ty kit lens will result in quite a poor looking picture.


----------



## Rick58 (Sep 8, 2012)

Ok, I think I got it. The lens is most important...no, wait, Sensor, no it's the mega...yeh, the hell with it. Thanks for clearing that up.

The one thing I think everyone still agrees on is, the camera is still just a light proof box, although that "box" does seems more important in digital times then in film. While there were a few features that set the *mechanical* film camera's apart, it was nothing compared to digitals. I specified "mechanical" because in the later, electronic, years of film, that line became much more blurry as more features were incorporated.

<clearing the floor for the next debate>


----------



## Garbz (Sep 9, 2012)

Yep in the modern world it's the system that matters, not the individual components.


----------



## Danmunro_nz (Sep 9, 2012)

I think the most important thing is the person pressing the button. I have a Canon EOS 1000D, only 10.1mp. With good glass I can easily take very nice pictures. I have friends with cameras like 60D and 7D. I don't see much difference in quality between their pics and mine.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Sep 9, 2012)

CanonJim said:


> Also, going back to your original post, the reason that mega-pixels SEEM to be important, (or at least, _more_ important) is that they are dummy-friendly.  Marketers can trumpet "15 megapixels!" and then "18 Megapixels!" and then "21 MEGAPIXELS!" and, if you do not understand the mechanics of the thing, that is interpreted to read "My 18 is better than your 15" by the great unwashed masses. It's much more difficult to convince people of the superiority of LD glass, fluorite, ultrasonic focusing motors, and things like lines of resolution when you're selling a lens. Thus, MP becomes the benchmark by which many people judge a digital camera.
> 
> I'd trade my fairly decent 18MP 50D for a 12MP 5D Mark I classic any day of the week, and I bet many others would too.



Absolutely. Dont forget that all "mega pixels" are not created equal. A "pixel" is not a unit of measure. Higher end camera sensers have larger pixels and can cappture more information. Moral= A 21MP camera may not capture a higher quality of picture as a 18MP camera.

Pixel

Image Resolution

Pixel Size


----------

