Question for the sensor experts

Which sensor (XT 8.2mp, XTi 10.1, 30D 8.2mp, 5D 12.8mp) provides the sharpest image? Are the pixel sizes the same? If so why is the 30D so much more than the XTi (I know the mag. frame and body is different but I dont think that is the reason)?

Technically the 5D should provide the sharpest image, but the real factor is the glass and methods used to stabilize the shot (tripods etc).

xanmato wrote in post #2321110
Technically the 5D should provide the sharpest image, but the real factor is the glass and methods used to stabilize the shot (tripods etc).

So, are you saying that all things being equal there should be no difference in images among these bodies? Or just to a certain image size (11 x 14 for example)?

I am no expert, but I think you need to look at the number of pixels in the area that the sensor covers.


For example:
The 5D has a Full frame sensor and only* 12MP to go in that area. On the other hand, the XTi has 10MP but not nearly as much area on it's sensor. It's pixels are jammed in really close. I believe that the fewer pixels/area of the 5D will give you sharper pictures compared to the XTi (because it's resolution is better?).

That being said, the same glass will need to be used, and of course a tripod as well.


*Compared to the 1Ds, for example.

Andrew.

If the lens is good (not the limiting factor), and lighting is good, then, the image qualities would be ranked: 5D, XTi/400D, 30D and XT/350D.

30D is more expensive than XTi is due to other reasons (better make, etc)

With the same glass used, the 30D will have the overall sharpest image. Why? Because the photo site is larger then the XTi and it uses the meat of the lens because its a crop sensor.

Why it cost more? When the 30D was release XTi was just a rumor at best. XTi was design and introduce as a startup DSLR and the 30D was introduced an intermediate level DSLR. When they replace the 30D the features will most likely exceed the XTi, but this won't happen until the 5D & 1D are to be replaced.

Personally, I think the image differences between the different bodies you mention is negligible (aside from different resolutions). They all are capable of producing some awesome images, the bigger limiting factor is the glass you put in front of the sensor.

pieq314 wrote in post #2321526
If the lens is good (not the limiting factor), and lighting is good, then, the image qualities would be ranked: 5D, XTi/400D, 30D and XT/350D.

30D is more expensive than XTi is due to other reasons (better make, etc)

I don't know how you can say the 30D ranks behind the 400D. Just because it has a 10MP sensor doesn't necessarily mean it takes better quality pictures.

JulianL wrote in post #2321820
I don't know how you can say the 30D ranks behind the 400D. Just because it has a 10MP sensor doesn't necessarily mean it takes better quality pictures.

You are probably talking about per pixel. I am talking about the photo (ie, the picture on a piece of paper).

And notice the qualifications I put in: assuming the lens is not the limiting factor, and lighting is good.

When you say "doesn't necessarily", you are right, if the lens is a junk. But for most lenses, they are not that bad, so that the you do see improvement in the 10MP sensor, although not by as much as 25% that you expect from pure MP count.

jra wrote in post #2321592
Personally, I think the image differences between the different bodies you mention is negligible (aside from different resolutions). They all are capable of producing some awesome images, the bigger limiting factor is the glass you put in front of the sensor.

I agree with you, but that is not the answer to the original question.

lostdoggy wrote in post #2321571
With the same glass used, the 30D will have the overall sharpest image. Why? Because the photo site is larger then the XTi and it uses the meat of the lens because its a crop sensor.

Why it cost more? When the 30D was release XTi was just a rumor at best. XTi was design and introduce as a startup DSLR and the 30D was introduced an intermediate level DSLR. When they replace the 30D the features will most likely exceed the XTi, but this won't happen until the 5D & 1D are to be replaced.

5D should produce better IQ, no doubt about it.

400D should produce better IQ than 30D under the qualifications that I listed (see my previous post for more details).

Though I have played with several, I haven't played with all 4, but I would venture a guess that no one, not even an expert would be able to tell the difference between pictures taken on all 4 bodies if all 4 were taken in identical conditions with identical glass even when enlarged to say A2 size unless one goes down to the pixel level and even then it's going to be nearly impossible. All 4 are capable of delivering world class pics and the limiting factor with all 4 is the photographer behind the camera and not some feature one body has that another does not. JMHO.

Some odd theories here by some
For what it's worth dpreview (who havge about the best test methods around) found the 1Ds mkII to give both sharper images than the 5D while giving less noise.
Another extremely thorough lens reviewer (http://www.16-9.net/) found the 1Ds MkII was more demanding of lenses than the 5D

ron chappel wrote in post #2322250
Some odd theories here by some
For what it's worth dpreview (who havge about the best test methods around) found the 1Ds mkII to give both sharper images than the 5D while giving less noise.
Another extremely thorough lens reviewer (http://www.16-9.net/) found the 1Ds MkII was more demanding of lenses than the 5D

The main reason that 1Ds MkII gives sharper images than 5D and demands more from the lens is because 1DsMkII sensor has more pixels. The same statements are true when comparing 400D and 30D with small changes: 400D's pixels inscrease from 30D's is not as large as 1Ds MkII's from 5D, and 400D demands more from the lens than 1Ds MkII because of its higher sensor density.

(Just to be sure not to be misunderstood, I am not saying 400D's 25% increase in resolution is essential for picture quality. It is not. Unless you print a poster, I doubt if you can notice any differences).

While a more expensive body tends to give you the "potential" to create superior images, I would second my view that the factors quoted below are MAJOR considerations. Was the image properly exposed? Was camera shake a factor? Was a superior lens used?

For most work done up to 8x10 with fine glass, I imagine it would be very difficult to discern which body was used. Push those enlargements though and that will separate the men from the boys . - Stu

gjl711 wrote in post #2322212
............... All 4 are capable of delivering world class pics and the limiting factor with all 4 is the photographer behind the camera and not some feature one body has that another does not. JMHO.