Many people probably think, or are misled by the notion that the more pixels a camera has, the better it must be, or that the better the image quality will be. When it comes to photography in general, this is not necessarily true. Generally, the more pixels a camera has, the less sensitive it will be to light. This is because larger pixels record more light than smaller pixels. So, for example, if a camera has the same sensor and lens as another camera and one of the cameras has 12 megapixels, and the other has only 2 megapixels, then the camera with 12 megapixels will be able to record more detail in a single image though the other camera would probably be considered to be better suited to photography at night, especially if the photographer uses the camera set to automatic mode. The lens is arguably a more important aspect of a camera as opposed to pixel count, or resolution. A camera with 12 megapixels might record worse than a 2 megapixel camera if the 2 megapixel camera has a much better, or higher quality, lens. This is especially noticeable in aperture priority or manual mode when you set various apertures and when you use a broad range of apertures. Ironically though, less resolution also means that the camera will be more forgiving if the lens is poorly designed.
More about sensor size
Now that we've talked about resolution, let's move on and talk in depth about sensor size. Usually, the larger a sensor in a camera is, the more expensive the camera will probably be. In photography, the term depth of field basically refers to a measure of how much sharpness there is in a photo. You can have narrow depth of field, or deep depth of field. Sensor size can influence the amount of depth of field in an image. The larger a sensor, usually the smaller or narrower the depth of field will be, although this also has to do with the lens focal length and aperture (longer focal length=narrower depth of field, while faster apertures [such as f/1.4 compared to a slower aperture of f/2.8] will also create narrower depth of field). A full frame camera can produce a much shallower depth of field then, for instance, a micro four thirds camera, if the lenses' focal lengths are equivalent to each other and if both lenses are set to the same aperture.
"Replicating" a larger sensor using a smaller sensor
I was astounded to know that this technique already exists. You can dramatically decrease depth of field to create an image of something to make it look as though it were much smaller than it actually is in reality, while significantly increasing resolution! I have written a blog post about the pros and cons of this technique, so if you're curious and want to find out more information, read my other blog post about the three ways with which you can accomplish this technique at http://surrealandnotable.blogspot.com/2016/06/photograph-in-miniature-world-how-do-we_10.html
Now, what I 've been wondering recently is what the image would come out like as compared to just using a wide angle lens. For that discussion, you can head on over here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4186768#forum-post-59909155
The Best Compact Camera In The World?
I consider my camera, along with some others, as the best compact camera in the world. You can use it much like a DSLR. It's called the Sony RX100 II. I love my Sony. I would like to have a mirrorless full frame camera one day, though I settled on a point-and-shoot camera because for astrophotography through a telescope, or microphotography through a microscope, it seems to be generally better suited, although it can still be very tedious. I tried once to take photos through my telescope using my Canon T1i but without success. I think that the Canon had more dynamic range, however.
No comments:
Post a Comment