Canon Community Canon Community
 


Reply
Super Contributor
Posts: 217
Registered: ‎03-11-2016

Re: Share your Macro Photos

Diverhank,

Ah HA! ok, I totally get the Crop factor and getting a little more reach.  And yes, cropping after will decrease the pixils for that image (agreed). I've been reading recently with the new mirrorless with even more pixils in same amt of space can actually look worse  and create more noise noticable when enlarging (for print usually)   The rational for that is they dont have enough light (or room) in that same allotted area and it reads as noise.. So there can actually be too many pixels....I thought it was interesting and contrarty to what I believed.

 

Id love to hear your thoughts on that.  Just for fun.

 

I have the baby brother of your camera (new to me) 70D and Im loving all the options. my SL1 feels like a toy now to me. lol   I hope that means Im improving (even if just a little)  Thanks for your help.  It is GREATLY appreciated.  

 

Cant wait to try the dbl exp option.  Havent hooked up the wifi or GPS yet.  (need to do more reading, lol)

VIP
Posts: 11,914
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Share your Macro Photos

"...your image quality will be so much worse because you lose a lot of pixels in the process of cropping."

 

You can't say this as a blanket statement.  In your case it may be so. Probably is but this is a camera vs camera thing. Sometimes it is good to use an extreme example to illustrate a point. Let's say we use a Rebel Xti and a 5D Mk IV or a 5Ds.  Now the cropper isn't going to fair so well is it?

You would have to compare both images in PS at 100% to see if a certain FF is worse with a 1.6 edited crop vs an already cropped image from any certain crop sensor camera. Another factor is pixel size vs pixel density.  Sometimes larger pixels trump pixel density.

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,119
Registered: ‎02-06-2013

Re: Share your Macro Photos


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...your image quality will be so much worse because you lose a lot of pixels in the process of cropping."

 

You can't say this as a blanket statement.  In your case it may be so. Probably is but this is a camera vs camera thing. Sometimes it is good to use an extreme example to illustrate a point. Let's say we use a Rebel Xti and a 5D Mk IV or a 5Ds.  Now the cropper isn't going to fair so well is it?

You would have to compare both images in PS at 100% to see if a certain FF is worse with a 1.6 edited crop vs an already cropped image from any certain crop sensor camera. Another factor is pixel size vs pixel density.  Sometimes larger pixels trump pixel density.


Hi ebiggs,

Great points.  I made a certain assumptions like comparable quality camera and sensors, roughly the same megapixels,  with just the sensor size difference.  Since I have both the 7D mark II and the 5D mark III, I have made comparisons on those two.  The images from the 5D Mark III after cropping to be the same size as the 7D mark II shows discernable loss of IQ, hence the reason I'm using both cameras for different purposes.

================================================
Diverhank's photos on Flickr
Super Contributor
Posts: 217
Registered: ‎03-11-2016

Re: Share your Macro Photos

ok so what about the cameras who cram all those pixils (say for instance FF sensor compared to the mirrorless) where they cram 3 pixils into the same space which the FF has only one.  What I read was the camera with ONE pixel in that space will  have less noise than the one with 3 in that same amt of measured space.  I hope Im being clear.

 

Im sorry I dont have all the right lingo to express what Im trying to convey about the article.  Its a large quotent preventing many DLSR users to switch over to mirrorless (besides replacing all your lenses).  One would intuitively think more pixils, better photo.  But not so much from what I read.

 

As for the rest, Ill leave that decision up to you more experienced ppl to debate.  I enjoy having extra reach with the Crop sensor, not to metion, still able to use all lenses I have collected so far.  (still want the 600mm for birds, cropped sensor w/  1000mmFL or not) 

 

I promise Ill get EXTIF prgm to post settings w/ photos in the future.

VIP
Posts: 11,914
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Share your Macro Photos

"The images from the 5D Mark III after cropping to be the same size as the 7D mark II shows discernable loss of IQ, ..."

 

I knew you had compared them so I was confident you made the correct choice.

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!
VIP
Posts: 8,879
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Share your Macro Photos


@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...your image quality will be so much worse because you lose a lot of pixels in the process of cropping."

 

You can't say this as a blanket statement.  In your case it may be so. Probably is but this is a camera vs camera thing. Sometimes it is good to use an extreme example to illustrate a point. Let's say we use a Rebel Xti and a 5D Mk IV or a 5Ds.  Now the cropper isn't going to fair so well is it?

You would have to compare both images in PS at 100% to see if a certain FF is worse with a 1.6 edited crop vs an already cropped image from any certain crop sensor camera. Another factor is pixel size vs pixel density.  Sometimes larger pixels trump pixel density.


Viewing a photo 100%, 50%, 200%, or any other “crop setting” is dependent upon the resolution of the monitor that you are using, and the resolution of the image that you are viewing.

Viewing and image at 100% means one pixel in the image is displayed as one pixel on the screen.  When I view an image on my laptop, which has 1080P resolution, I see a smaller portion of the image at 100% compared to when I use my 4K monitor, which can display a much larger portion of the image when viewing at 100%.

 

This observation has made me rethink what cropping to 50% means, or any other percentage for that matter.  

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,119
Registered: ‎02-06-2013

Re: Share your Macro Photos

 


@fatcat wrote:

ok so what about the cameras who cram all those pixils (say for instance FF sensor compared to the mirrorless) where they cram 3 pixils into the same space which the FF has only one.  What I read was the camera with ONE pixel in that space will  have less noise than the one with 3 in that same amt of measured space.  I hope Im being clear.

 

Im sorry I dont have all the right lingo to express what Im trying to convey about the article.  Its a large quotent preventing many DLSR users to switch over to mirrorless (besides replacing all your lenses).  One would intuitively think more pixils, better photo.  But not so much from what I read. 

 



Sorry not to get back with you sooner.  At the risk of being not totally technically correct, I'll try to keep it simple.  What you stated in the first paragraph is correct.  Assuming everything else being equal, as you cram more pixels in and expect it to do more...something has got to give.  Sensor is collecting light and with more pixels, each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light.  The noise amount is the same for a given sensor so each pixel will have more noise - A practical example is the Canon 5DS and 5DSR.  I own a 5DSR (which has the anti-aliasing filter removed from the sensor).  Here Canon basically took a 5D Mark III and the same sensor and modified it into a 5DS / 5DSR.  The 5DS/R has 50.1 megapixels versus the 5D III 22.3 megapixels.  The end result is at higher ISO the 5DS/R doesn't do too well.  Since I have both the 5DSR and the 5D III, I can tell right away.  In practical terms it's about 3 stops worse - Via the menu, I stop the Auto ISO from going above 3200 for the 5DSR and 12800 for the 5D III for this reason.  So noise is worse but you have much more resolution.  If you are one who blows everything up to 400% to look at your pictures - a pixel peeper - you will be amazed at how good the 5DS/R is.  Same goes with cropping.

 

Regarding your second paragraph above, I'm not sure what you're referring to...what we talked about in paragraph 1 has nothing to do with mirror or mirrorless.  Many mirrorless cameras has the same size sensors as the DSLR (APS-C and full frame) with roughly the same megapixels.

 

================================================
Diverhank's photos on Flickr
VIP
Posts: 11,914
Registered: ‎12-07-2012

Re: Share your Macro Photos

" Sensor is collecting light and with more pixels, each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."

 

Almost perfect!  Smiley Happy  "... each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."  Each smaller sensor collects less total light.  But the light that falls on it is exactly the same regardless of its size. If you place an 8 1/2 x11" sheet of paper on the table and draw a 1" circle on it and then draw a 2" circle the amount of light falling on either is the same.  However the larger circle has more of it.  This again has to do with certain camera vs certain other cameras since sensor size is not the whole factor here.  However, the processing hardware in the camera's electronics has a great deal, probably more, to do with how it preforms in low light or even in IQ for  that matter.  Again would you take a EOS 1D with a 4mp FF sensor, pixels that are huge, or a 7D with much smaller pixels to shoot low light stuff?

EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and several lenses!
VIP
Posts: 8,879
Registered: ‎08-13-2015

Re: Share your Macro Photos


@ebiggs1 wrote:

" Sensor is collecting light and with more pixels, each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."

 

Almost perfect!  Smiley Happy  "... each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."  Each smaller sensor collects less total light.  But the light that falls on it is exactly the same regardless of its size. If you place an 8 1/2 x11" sheet of paper on the table and draw a 1" circle on it and then draw a 2" circle the amount of light falling on either is the same.  However the larger circle has more of it. 


I have a problem with this analogy because it completely ignores the size of the photosites, or sensors, as well as the spacing between them.  The analogy would be correct if the circle was one big photosite, but it is not.  The analogy is correct about the same amount of light falling, though.

The surface of the image sensor can be compared to an ice cube tray, or a cupcake tin.  Each photosite would be a “cup” in the ice cube tray or cupcake tin.  Light falling on an image sensor can be compared to rainfall.  

 

If an inch of rain falls on the ice cube tray, then every cup in the ice cube tray will collect an inch of water.  Except, cups with a wide diameter, like a FF sensor, will collect more water than cups with a smaller diameter, like an APS-C sensor.  Bigger cups will collect more water, and larger photosites do collect more light and smaller ones.

 

There is also space between the cups on the trays, just as there is space between photosites.  Reducing the space between photosites increases the detail in the final image, because less light is lost to falling between photosites.  

 

Manufacturers like to publish the size of the photosites on a sensor, but no one seems to talk about the blank space on the surface.  I suppose that the amount of blank space could be inferred from the number of MP that the sensor has.  But, the more completely photosites cover the image sensor, then the more detail you will get.

The ideal sensor would have large diameter photosites, which would be tightly packed together, to minimize loss of light.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't rent software. I use Photoshop CS6, ACR 9.8 and Lightroom 6.8 ."
Respected Contributor
Posts: 1,119
Registered: ‎02-06-2013

Re: Share your Macro Photos


@ebiggs1 wrote:

" Sensor is collecting light and with more pixels, each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."

 

Almost perfect!  Smiley Happy  "... each pixel is smaller and hence collects less light."  Each smaller sensor collects less total light.  


Yes total light.  I was trying to explain why the smaller pixel has more noise - I did caveat that everything else being equal - in electronics communication there's a term Signal to Noise ratio (SNR) - if this ratio is small your reception is not going to be so good - not sure if this term is used in photography but it's the same concept.  Here light can be equated to Signal - amount of total light going into that pixel...the noise is the same regardless of pixel size for a certain sensor. So for smaller pixel that receives less total light, the SNR is smaller compared to a larger pixel - quality will be worse than a larger pixel.

================================================
Diverhank's photos on Flickr
powered by Lithium

LIKE US on Facebook FOLLOW US on Twitter WATCH US on YouTube CONNECT WITH US on Linkedin WATCH US on Vimeo FOLLOW US on Instagram SHOP CANON at the Canon Online Store
© Canon U.S.A., Inc.   |    Terms of Use   |    Privacy Statement