lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:

> ...how would you rate for the
> distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
> producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would
> you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo
> meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter
> and 5% film?

The lens is critical. That's pretty much a matter of your budget though
with any of the major SLR brands. Some would argue that Pentax is the
best because of the availability of great old affordable lenses and
that's a good argument, same for Nikon, and hell Canons can mount most
anything with an adapter. I like that my Nikon D200 will mount and meter
with 'antique' Nikkors. I think the new Sony mounts & meters with old
Minolta lenses.

The sensor is important, as others said, because it's the film and it's
fixed in the body. Along with that is the method of capture and speed
and noise, dynamic range, etc. Most of them are perfectly capable, Canon
has the edge on full size low noise sensors on the high end. Not a lot
of difference between manufacturers at the same price point though. Some
designs are better for certain uses like full frame for wide angle or
extra fast burst for action.

Larger pixels produce better dynamic range and less noise/grain. This
means full frame sensors and or lower pixel counts perform better. More
pixels are useful too though, it depends on your needs.

The metering, autofocus & such, I don't think there's a lot of
difference. They are all great. You might add into this category
features like built-in image stabilization that Pentax & Sony offer.

The next category of critical engineering features is the ergonomics and
feature set of the camera body. This is quite obviously useful even if
it's possible to get great photos with the simplest field camera, it's a
heck of a lot more convenient to be able to have easy intuitive access
to all the modern features that are common these days. Again, I'm happy
that my Nikon D200 has lots of knobs for quick manual control of most
settings and a very well designed LCD menu system. There are way more
features than I need but we each have different needs and some of the
features I love, others would ignore, the important thing is to be able
to use those features easily.

On a more general level, the size and feel of the body is important. My
D200 is a nice sturdy metal machine with weather seals for the dirty
work I do outdoors and plenty of room for accessing the features &
balancing a big lens on. Big bright viewfinder also! That's a huge plus
for me. It would also be cool to have a compact body for portability &
light weight even if that meant a dim viewfinder & less control. A full
time pro would probably want something even bigger with a vertical grip
& extra battery pack but that would be too much for me.

Kennedy McEwen wrote:
> In article <1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
> aniramca@yahoo.com writes
>> Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon?
>
> The CCD was first proposed on October 17th 1969 by Willard Boyle and
> George Smith of Bell Labs which, as of last week, is now part of the
> French communications giant Alcatel-Lucent.

I actually thought of the CCD on October 13, 1969, but forgot to tell
anyone.

On 8 Dec 2006 17:56:53 -0800, aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:

>Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
>distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
>producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would
>you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo
>meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter
>and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most
>films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica.
>The lens was what the camera manufacturers try to emphasize. Superior
>cameras were famous for their lenses - Nikkor, Canon, Zuikor,
>Leitz/Leica, Zeiss, Schneider-Kreutznach, Rollei, etc.
>Now, in the new digital technology, good quality lens alone may not
>make a good camera. Do you agree?
>My questions are about another critical component which makes good
>quality picture cameras. Is it the image sensor, from CCD to the new
>CMOS technology? Or you may call it the "brain" of the camera. I
>visited a few sites which describe about the technology, such as
>http://www.shortcourse.com/how/sensors/sensors.htm Camera review sites
>undoubtedly talk a lot about how good a CCD or CMOS of one camera from
>others, etc., etc. Unfortunately, if you read all of those sites, you
>find out conclusively that all cameras are all good (Just like when to
>read all different car magazines for best cars). Well... I like to know
>what are the superiority of a camera over the other. Nikon is famous
>for its lenses, but do they incorporate a good CCD or CMOS to get
>excellent digital cameras? Could someone provide me with some input on
>this?
>In the past we never heard a Sony 35mm or SLR cameras, but now we see a
>lot of Sony digital cameras. They are now using Zeiss Ikon to utilize
>their excellent lenses and name... but what about their image sensor
>technology?. Are there websites which specifically discuss about this
>issues? You can have excellent lens, but if your technology of image
>sensor is behind or lagging, then your images in the digital camera
>will be crappy.
>On the other hand, could someone tells me that perhaps all CCD and all
>CMOS are the same (just like you get a Windows OS.... the same whether
>you use it in IBM computer or Dell or Toshiba). So, who makes these CCD
>and CMOS anyways? Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon?
>Are they just common computer chip companies such as Intel, AMD, etc
>who makes and designs the CCD and/or CMOS? Is one CCD or CMOS
>technology better than the other?
>So, which digital camera has superiority in terms of both lens and
>image sensor technology? Is Nikon among the top? Canon, Sony,
>Panasonic, Samsung, HP, Fuji or others?
>I heard from someone in this newsgroup suggested that Minolta/Konica
>(who made good SLR cameras) failed to produce good CCD in their digital
>cameras, and therefore they now go under and end up being picked up by
>Sony.
>Thanks for the discussion.

Ok, all techno mumbo jumbo gear talk aside, none of the above is as
critical as it may seem. A good photograph is 10% the result of the
camera and 90% the result of the photgrapher. A trite statement,
perhaps, but true nonetheless,

That being said, looking at the 10% that the camera contributes:

Conventional wisdom has always said the lens is the most important
thing. I don't think that's true any more, as almost all lenses made
today are pretty darned good. There are subtle differences, but even
inexpensive kit lenses on a modern dslr are capable of some excellent
output. But even if you have the sharpest lens available, I'm
reminded of one of Ansel Adams' famous quotes, "A sharp image of a
fuzzy concept is worthless."

With digital slrs, I believe the camera body to be the most important
thing. Why more than the lens? Simple, if you don't like your lens,
just put on a different one.

I don't separate the sensor from the camera body. I think people get
too hung up on what particular sensor is in a given camera. What is
more important is how that sensor functions as part of the image
processing "team," which involves the entire camera body. Each camera
handles image processing in a different way, and it is the final
output that counts. For instance, it was mentioned that Nikon uses
Sony sensors. That doesn't mean that Nikons are really Sony cameras
in disguise... Nikon does some proprietary things with their cameras
that make them unique.

The other reason I think the body is the most important thing is that
it is the interface between your mind's eye and the captured image.
The more ergonomic, reliable, fast, etc the camera body, the easier it
is to capture the image. The photo you have is always better than the
one you could have had if your camera didn't get in the way.

If you're looking for generalizations about how different
sensor/bodies packages compare, here are some: Canon seems to be
better at low noise high ISO pictures, Fuji is acknowledged to have
more dynamic range and more pleasing skin tones, Nikon has better
colors and overall image "snap." But there are so many variables
that there are no clear lines between these things.

If you're looking for generalizations on camera bodies in particular,
Canon is usually the first to introduce new technology, while Nikon is
better at ergonomics and build quality. Again, these are
generalizations and your mileage may vary.

If you're looking for generalizations on lenses, all lens companies
make excellent ones and not so excellent ones. Pick the ones that
meet your needs.

I think too many photographers get hung up on the technical details.
Fact is, under many conditions a cheap P&S camera is capable of
putting out images that are as good as a multi-thousand dollar dslr:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-...lar-camera.htm

Another trite but true statement is that the camera is nothing but a
tool. The more expensive camera just makes things a whole lot easier
and expands the range of conditions you can work under. Both a
screwdriver and an electric drill will drive screws with the same
results. The drill can do it faster and with less effort, but
sometimes a plain screwdriver is all you need.

Steve

aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:
> Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
> distribution of critical components of a camera which contribute to
> producing excellent photos (excluding human talent and touch) ? Would
> you say they were 60% lens quality, 30% technical/mechanism or photo
> meter, and 10% film? Or were they even 70% lens, 25 % mechanism/meter
> and 5% film? I don't think that film played much of a role, as most
> films were either Kodak, Fuji or Sakura/Konica.
Well the film was easily the most important if you used the wrong film.
If you used an 800 ISO print film no lens in the world would make it
look good and you might as well use a crappy camera cause the image was
going to look pretty bad no matter what you did.

In many ways the sensor is the most important part, a FF sensor can
have large pixels but produce an image with a high pixel count. A
camera like the 5D will produce a lot sharper image with the same lens
that a camera like the 30D would capture, and it can do it in much
lower light.

Scott

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
>> Finally the camera. Well, that's pretty irrelevent. It's just a box
>> to keep out the light.
>
> That's only true of film cameras. With Digital cameras, it is quite
> relevant --- true that the variation between quality for different
> cameras is perhaps not as high, or doesn't have as much impact, as
> the variation between different types of film. But still, the rules
> completely change with digital cameras, since the film is now one
> of the intrinsic, non-removable-non-replaceable-non-refillable
> components of the camera.
>
> Also, for P&S cameras, the lens is part of the camera as well (but
> then, P&S things do not even qualify as "cameras", so we'll keep
> them out of the discussion )
>
> Carlos

Good point. I would say the camera (which has the sensor and the first
level processing of the data) is not only the camera, but the film as well.
Some cameras offer different initial processing and many allow different
sensitivities which are akin to different films.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

John schrieb:
> aniramca@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Going back to the old style film cameras, how would you rate for the
<snip>
oh yes, and of course, if answering, post the complete(!) original post
above your elaborate and enlighting answer...
and crosspost in as many newsgroups as possible...

Carlos Moreno wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>
>> Finally the camera. Well, that's pretty irrelevent. It's just a box
>> to keep out the light.
>
>
> That's only true of film cameras. With Digital cameras, it is quite
> relevant --- true that the variation between quality for different
> cameras is perhaps not as high, or doesn't have as much impact, as
> the variation between different types of film. But still, the rules
> completely change with digital cameras, since the film is now one
> of the intrinsic, non-removable-non-replaceable-non-refillable
> components of the camera.
>
> Also, for P&S cameras, the lens is part of the camera as well (but
> then, P&S things do not even qualify as "cameras", so we'll keep
> them out of the discussion )

No. Once you take the sensor off the back and the lens off the front the
camera is pretty much irrelevant to the quality of the pictures. Better
cameras are just tougher and better sealed against dust and fluids as
well as light.

In article <MYmdnT-vTK_hDOfYnZ2dnUVZ_ubinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Cynicor
<j.?.?.tru.p.?.?.in@speak.ea.sy.net.invalid> writes
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>> In article <1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
>>aniramca@yahoo.com writes
>>> Who developed the technology? (Kodak, Philips, Canon?
>> The CCD was first proposed on October 17th 1969 by Willard Boyle and
>>George Smith of Bell Labs which, as of last week, is now part of the
>>French communications giant Alcatel-Lucent.
>
>I actually thought of the CCD on October 13, 1969, but forgot to tell
>anyone.


Tough that one.

Really.

You would have been famous if you had mentioned it.

Instead, you are still a tosser.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

Richard Polhill wrote:

>>> Finally the camera. Well, that's pretty irrelevent. It's just a box
>>> to keep out the light.
>>
>> That's only true of film cameras. With Digital cameras, it is quite
>> relevant --- [...] the rules
>> completely change with digital cameras, since the film is now one
>> of the intrinsic, non-removable-non-replaceable-non-refillable
>> components of the camera.
>
> No. Once you take the sensor off the back and the lens off the front the
> camera is pretty much irrelevant to the quality of the pictures.

[Philosophical debate warning]

But sorry, your point of view does not make sense --- if you take the
sensor off the back of the camera, then you no longer have a camera;
you have *the remainings* of what once was a camera (which may
become a camera again, some time in the future if you re-install
the sensor).

My point is precisely that --- for *film* cameras, the argument is
perfectly valid that the camera is just a dumb box to keep the light
out (or to keep the dark sealed inside the box) --- better cameras
mean just better features that allow you to take good pictures without
getting in the way; and better durability/etc.

But with Digital cameras, it's not just a box --- the sensor *is part
of the camera*, as well as the elecrtonics and software (firmware, if
you will) that make the initial, low-level processing of the pixels'
output.

Carlos
--

The sea-change in cameras was the sensor. Canon, always an "also ran"
when it came to professional cameras in the SLR realm, took over from
Nikon once it was realized Canon sensors produced better (cleaner)
images. Of course massive Canon marketing and pro support helped as
well. Lens design also plays part, but sheer imaging quality takes a
back seat to functionality. What good is top flight glass if the AF
doesn't work as well as the "B" brand? For those interested in the
very finest image quality, the Canon 1DsMkII with its 16 megapixel
sensor is the choice, along with lenses from Canon and other mfgs known
for high quality. But, there are some interesting choices out there,
depending on what you are looking for. Fuji is the king of DR, no
doubt, and to some this is as important as resolution, especially given
the conditions people face in photography.