Canon vs Nikon image sensor size

[Steven Robertson]

Can someone let me know if the image sensor size that Nikon uses in their
digital cameras reduces the quality of the picture compared with say, the
Canon EOS 1DS(? their top flight model) which has a full size sensor (35mm
fillm size)
I am a newish owner of a D70 and am concerned that maybe I should bought
the Canon.

Steve R

[Andrew Hennell]

Steven Robertson wrote:
> Can someone let me know if the image sensor size that Nikon uses in their
> digital cameras reduces the quality of the picture compared with say, the
> Canon EOS 1DS(? their top flight model) which has a full size sensor (35mm
> fillm size)

pixel count. dynamic range. choice of lenses. user 'feel'
(ergonomics, menus, etc). familiarity with a brand.
one-eyed-brand-loyalty. all things to consider when selecting a dSLR.

If it gets the pixels (quality & quantity), that's what matters.

> I am a newish owner of a D70 and am concerned that maybe I should bought
> the Canon.

[shrug] if you like it, it's a good buy. Don't doubt, just get out
there & use it.

[FuTAnT]

"Steven Robertson" <sjrobertson2@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:42605ef7$0$3367$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Can someone let me know if the image sensor size that Nikon uses in their
> digital cameras reduces the quality of the picture compared with say, the
> Canon EOS 1DS(? their top flight model) which has a full size sensor
> (35mm fillm size)
> I am a newish owner of a D70 and am concerned that maybe I should bought
> the Canon.
>
> Steve R
>

Comparing a D70 to a EOS1DS is a bit like comparing a Commodore to a
Porsche.

In the range you are looking at, D70 = approx EOS350D, and they both have
smaller than full frame sensors. Only the top model DSLRs have full frame
sensors. Nikon would make a full frame as well, but then of course you'd
have to pay for it!

Cam

[FuTAnT]

"Steven Robertson" <sjrobertson2@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:42605ef7$0$3367$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> Can someone let me know if the image sensor size that Nikon uses in their
> digital cameras reduces the quality of the picture compared with say, the
> Canon EOS 1DS(? their top flight model) which has a full size sensor
> (35mm fillm size)
> I am a newish owner of a D70 and am concerned that maybe I should bought
> the Canon.
>
> Steve R
>

Infact, a very quick research reveals ....

Nikon D70: 23.7 x 15.6mm
Nikon D100: 23.7 x 15.6mm
Nikon D2X: 23.7 x 15.7mm
etc ...

Canon EOS350D: 22.2 x 14.8mm ($1900) .... RRP only.
Canon EOS20D: 22.5 x 15.9mm ($2700)
Canon EOS1D MkII: 28.7 x 19.1mm ($8000)
Canon EOS1Ds MkII: 36 x 34mm ($14,000)

So, unless you want to spend $14k on a Canon EOS1DsMkII then you're not
going to get full frame !

Cam

[Steven Robertson]

"FuTAnT" <blah@blah.com> wrote in message
news:42606c69$0$9581$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
> "Steven Robertson" <sjrobertson2@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42605ef7$0$3367$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>> Can someone let me know if the image sensor size that Nikon uses in
>> their digital cameras reduces the quality of the picture compared with
>> say, the Canon EOS 1DS(? their top flight model) which has a full size
>> sensor (35mm fillm size)
>> I am a newish owner of a D70 and am concerned that maybe I should bought
>> the Canon.
>>
>> Steve R
>>
>
> Infact, a very quick research reveals ....
>
> Nikon D70: 23.7 x 15.6mm
> Nikon D100: 23.7 x 15.6mm
> Nikon D2X: 23.7 x 15.7mm
> etc ...
>
> Canon EOS350D: 22.2 x 14.8mm ($1900) .... RRP only.
> Canon EOS20D: 22.5 x 15.9mm ($2700)
> Canon EOS1D MkII: 28.7 x 19.1mm ($8000)
> Canon EOS1Ds MkII: 36 x 34mm ($14,000)
>
> So, unless you want to spend $14k on a Canon EOS1DsMkII then you're not
> going to get full frame !
>
> Cam
>

So, would I be right in assuming that unless I have a 35mm size sensor (e.g.
EOS1Ds) I won't get 35mm (film) image quality?(say Nikon F5 or Canon EOS1)

Steve R

[Andrew Hennell]

Steven Robertson wrote:

> So, would I be right in assuming that unless I have a 35mm size sensor (e.g.
> EOS1Ds) I won't get 35mm (film) image quality?(say Nikon F5 or Canon EOS1)

depends what type of film!
depends how many pixels the sensor captures (regardless of size).
depends on the quality of those pixels (dynamic range, etc).

it's not as simple as you put it.

[Andrew Hennell]

Andrew Hennell wrote:
> Steven Robertson wrote:
>
>> So, would I be right in assuming that unless I have a 35mm size sensor
>> (e.g. EOS1Ds) I won't get 35mm (film) image quality?(say Nikon F5 or
>> Canon EOS1)
>
>
> depends what type of film!
> depends how many pixels the sensor captures (regardless of size).
> depends on the quality of those pixels (dynamic range, etc).
>
> it's not as simple as you put it.

actually, I'll add the most important factor: it depends what glass you
shoot through!

[Rob]

Steven Robertson wrote:

>>So, unless you want to spend $14k on a Canon EOS1DsMkII then you're not
>>going to get full frame !
>>
>>Cam
>>
>
>
> So, would I be right in assuming that unless I have a 35mm size sensor (e.g.
> EOS1Ds) I won't get 35mm (film) image quality?(say Nikon F5 or Canon EOS1)
>
> Steve R
>
>

Digital and film are completely different in results that are obtained.

In saying that, digitised film and a digital camera image you need far
less file size to obtain the same result.

What's happening also is that good bottle remains good where as a film
body only holds film so is not that important just convenience of use
and what suits your personal preference. Whereas you must now have a
good look at the results (or selecting a permanent film) which is the
camera body.

What's your end use for the images?

[John Worsfold]

"Steven Robertson" <sjrobertson2@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<4264d5f0$0$10301$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...

>
> So, would I be right in assuming that unless I have a 35mm size sensor (e.g.
> EOS1Ds) I won't get 35mm (film) image quality?(say Nikon F5 or Canon EOS1)
>
> Steve R

I have a D70 and an R1800 I regularly print at A3+ with no discernible
loss of quality.

I seldom every printed 35mm (film) at that resolution.

[Rob]

John Worsfold wrote:
> "Steven Robertson" <sjrobertson2@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:<4264d5f0$0$10301$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
>
>
>>So, would I be right in assuming that unless I have a 35mm size sensor (e.g.
>>EOS1Ds) I won't get 35mm (film) image quality?(say Nikon F5 or Canon EOS1)
>>
>>Steve R
>
>
> I have a D70 and an R1800 I regularly print at A3+ with no discernible
> loss of quality.
>
> I seldom every printed 35mm (film) at that resolution.

Where did you get the R1800?

[FuTAnT]

"Steven Robertson" <sjrobertson2@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4264d5f0$0$10301$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...
>
> "FuTAnT" <blah@blah.com> wrote in message
> news:42606c69$0$9581$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>> "Steven Robertson" <sjrobertson2@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:42605ef7$0$3367$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...
>>> Can someone let me know if the image sensor size that Nikon uses in
>>> their digital cameras reduces the quality of the picture compared with
>>> say, the Canon EOS 1DS(? their top flight model) which has a full size
>>> sensor (35mm fillm size)
>>> I am a newish owner of a D70 and am concerned that maybe I should bought
>>> the Canon.
>>>
>>> Steve R
>>>
>>
>> Infact, a very quick research reveals ....
>>
>> Nikon D70: 23.7 x 15.6mm
>> Nikon D100: 23.7 x 15.6mm
>> Nikon D2X: 23.7 x 15.7mm
>> etc ...
>>
>> Canon EOS350D: 22.2 x 14.8mm ($1900) .... RRP only.
>> Canon EOS20D: 22.5 x 15.9mm ($2700)
>> Canon EOS1D MkII: 28.7 x 19.1mm ($8000)
>> Canon EOS1Ds MkII: 36 x 34mm ($14,000)
>>
>> So, unless you want to spend $14k on a Canon EOS1DsMkII then you're not
>> going to get full frame !
>>
>> Cam
>>
>
> So, would I be right in assuming that unless I have a 35mm size sensor
> (e.g. EOS1Ds) I won't get 35mm (film) image quality?(say Nikon F5 or Canon
> EOS1)
>
> Steve R
>

No, you wouldn't be right in assuming that (well, that simply). It depends
on what film you are comparing too. Remember, the biggest factor is always
going to be your glass. If you use nice glass, the shots will look good
(composure, exposure etc all being good of course).

The sensor size at the moment mainly relates to the crop factor or
magnification. It is true that yes, the EOS1Ds is better than their smaller
sensors, but ... they don't make 6 or 8mp full frame sensors, so there's no
"true" comparison. With the advent of the 350D and 20D I'd say that most
people would be pretty bloody happy with the image quality. Seeing a full
size 8MP photo is pretty awesome shot with some nice glass.

Cam

[Brian May]

>>>>> "Steven" == Steven Robertson <sjrobertson2@optusnet.com.au> writes:

Steven> So, would I be right in assuming that unless I have a 35mm
Steven> size sensor (e.g. EOS1Ds) I won't get 35mm (film) image
Steven> quality?(say Nikon F5 or Canon EOS1)

I have read elsewhere that the bigger the sensor is the better the
camera will cope with low light. This is because the same size image
is distributed across more surface area on the sensor.

As it currently stands though, the increase in price doesn't justify
any possible gain, at least to me, a hobbyist photographer.

As others have said, you can't compare film and digital sensors based
on the size - with film the resolution is proportional to physical
size (especially if the film brand and type remains the same), but the
physical size of a digital sensor doesn't indicate its resolution (as
there are so many variations).
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

[John Worsfold]

Rob <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message news:<4265a725$0$27633$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>...

> Where did you get the R1800?

A photographic Dealership in High Wycombe UK - although I think they
are also available through Mail Order here now.

[John Worsfold]

Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> wrote in message news:<sa43btl1x8j.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au>...
> >>>>> "Steven" == Steven Robertson <sjrobertson2@optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
> As others have said, you can't compare film and digital sensors based
> on the size - with film the resolution is proportional to physical
> size (especially if the film brand and type remains the same), but the
> physical size of a digital sensor doesn't indicate its resolution (as
> there are so many variations).

As with film, the physics of sensors is such that the more area the
more opportunity for capturing more image data and less problems with
noise etc.

As an example I have a D70 and had a 8800 (Stolen) the images with the
D70 which has a lower number of pixels (6.1Mb as opposed to 8Mp), on
the whole produces better images which, as I work mainly in RAW, must
be attributed in the main to the sensor size - I am mainly using a
lense which compares well with that on the 8800.

Before I restart an earlier argument though, I must say that the 8800
is an excellent camera and for certain applications I am considering
purchasing another.