Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I *am* confident about this, it's not my first rodeo. What you describe has nothing to do with the sensor size. You describe issues that arise from using short registration lenses, particularly wide angles. Try the same sensor with a lens having a longer flange focal distance (such as a lens from a DSLR) and you'll see very different results.
Microlenses (as an example) were Leica's method of dealing with the problem of using certain of their lenses on the M9.
Pete B
Well-known
EdwardKaraa
Well-known
This problem is not limited to short registration lenses. For instance many DSLR lenses behave differently on different sensors from the same manufacturer. The Sony A900 and Nikon D3X are an example. The Nikon sensor cover is much thinner and its corner performance is much better with the same lenses. I won't argue further.
douglasf13
Well-known
That's interesting, Edward. I hadn't heard about this difference between the A900 and D3x. Are there tests out there of this difference?
douglasf13
Well-known
It's all about the final output size. If you output a full 6x6 frame and cropped 6x6 to the same size, the full 6x6 frame will need less magnification and show better graduation than the more stressed crop frame.
In fact, output size needs to be stressed in this conversation. Until we know how big you're printing and how far away you're standing from the print, format differences are tough to predict.
Matus
Well-known
I would buy a FF GXR module
That would be my pick too (tough Ricoh could come up with some updates to the body and EVF)
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Well sorry for the latter and the hit on your wallet, but kudos for actually going and trying things out. If everybody did that, the world would be a better place.
It has to do with the amount of information present in a given area of film/sensor, the absolute area, and the amount by which you have to blow this up for the final print.
Grayscale and/or colour redition has to do with the amount of information present in your picture. It's a bit easier to show with B&W film, which is essentially binary - either there is a piece of black grain, or there isn't. In order to have grayscale, you need to have lots of these nodules next to each other, and you can't enlarge this too much because then the grayscale will dissolve again into grain. So when you have more surface area in your negative, you have more of these nodules available overall, and so you get finer grayscale rendition.
Enlarging leads to a loss of information per area, simply because the area increases while the information doesn't. So if you have a larger negative or sensor that allows you to enlarge less, you get better rendition.
Bimjo
Member
Well then, if the sensor cover is thinner it really isn't the same sensor, is it? Assuming the sensor/cover are considered to be a complete package. And how much does software play into the equation?
I ask because I don't know & you seem to have some energy on the subject.
douglasf13
Well-known
Well then, if the sensor cover is thinner it really isn't the same sensor, is it? Assuming the sensor/cover are considered to be a complete package. And how much does software play into the equation?
I ask because I don't know & you seem to have some energy on the subject.
The sensor is really only the silicon underneath. Sony, Nikon, Leica, Fuji and Ricoh all use Sony aps-c sensors, but the AA filter, CFA, and IR filter on top of the sensors vary between manufactures. So, that can lead to differences in detail, color, noise, etc.