lens vs. image sensors in digital photgraphy

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 15:47:54 +0000, Richard Polhill
<richard@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote:

>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.


Take the sensor off the camera and you have a mosaic of static
electricity with no place to go. Take the lens off the camera and you
gave a stream of photons with no place to land. It's the control chip
in the middle and the firmware running it that makes static electricty
and the photons into a simple image.

And most important, it's the eye and brain of the operator using the
camera-- someone who knows how to work around the camera's quirks
and limitations-- that turns the simple image into something
approximationg a photograph.

jpc

My that's a complicated question! . Surely the skill and aesthetic judgement
of the photographer will always outweigh the any technical considerations.

Gerald

S<aniramca@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165629413.069963.271820@j44g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> 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.
>

> 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.

What is DR? All I can think of is dynamic range, but I don't know how that
figures in photography.

Norm Strong

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.
>snip
> Thanks for the discussion.

I would strongly argue this. The film made a LOT of difference- why do
you think the film companies offered so many types? For instance, Pan
X, especially developed in dilute developer, was for resolution (very
high) but was very slow. Sure, you could shoot in dim light in Tri-X,
but don't expect much resolution (very grainy).

I would say that what you say is MORE true of digitals. They all use
silicon photosensors, though CCDs have a somewhat different flavor
than CMOS.

The quality of the electronics is an issue too- not all noise in the
camera is from the imaging chip itself (it should be if the electronics
are highest quality). Size of chip makes a difference too (especially
size of pixels).

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 13:23:48 -0800, <normanstrong@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>> 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.
>
>What is DR? All I can think of is dynamic range, but I don't know how that
>figures in photography.
>
>Norm Strong
>


Yes, DR is dynamic range. It is hugely important to photography. More
dynamic range means fewer blown highlights and better shadow detail.

Steve

Don Stauffer in Minnesota wrote:

> The quality of the electronics is an issue too- not all noise in the
> camera is from the imaging chip itself (it should be if the electronics
> are highest quality). Size of chip makes a difference too (especially
> size of pixels).

Noise should NOT be from the "imaging chip itself!" The best noise
one can get is due to Poisson counting statistics from the
photons themselves (called photon noise), and that is independent
of the chip or electronics. Fortunately, ALL digital cameras,
from P&S to DSLR have been tested, have noise dominated by photon noise
for signals above a couple of dozen photons. See:

Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

Roger

Richard Polhill wrote:

> 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.

Digital camera sensors show a large performance range,
beyond megapixels, and include dynamic range, low light sensitivity,
signal-to-noise ratio, and high ISO performance. These performance
parameters are directly correlated to the size of each pixel.
But beyond basic sensor performance, the camera's electronics are
critical in many situations, including autofocus performance (speed
and accuracy), shutter lag, frames per second, start-up time,
and the user interface, which includes easy moving of focus points
during fast action and other information needed to make quick
decisions in some situations (e.g from baby's first steps, to wildlife
and sports action photography).

For sensor performance, see:

Digital Camera Sensor Performance Summary
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter?
Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter

Roger
Photos, other digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:21:25 -0500, Carlos Moreno
<moreno_at_mochima_dot_com@mailinator.com> wrote:

>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

True.
Since the sensor is replacing the film, it has to replace *all* types
of film that are relevant to the camera in question.
For anything more advanced than the most basic P&S cameras, that means
the camera must be able to emulate film of various speeds and white
balances, as well as sharpness, contrast, saturation, and many more
things that makes up the wide variety of film types.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 21:23:15 -0000, "Gerald Place"
<venosa@ndirect.co.uk> wrote:

>My that's a complicated question! . Surely the skill and aesthetic judgement
>of the photographer will always outweigh the any technical considerations.
>
>Gerald

I don't see how a camera that can't deliver what the photographer's
skill and aesthetic judgement want isn't a technical drawback.
While it's always possible for a good photographer to deliver good
photos with a pinhole camera, it's obvious that a pinhole camera
offers a lot of technical problems for a lot of photography.
Yes, the input of the photographer is very important. So is the camera
the photographer uses to implement that input.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 00:44:29 -0700, Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 21:23:15 -0000, "Gerald Place"
><venosa@ndirect.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>My that's a complicated question! . Surely the skill and aesthetic judgement
>>of the photographer will always outweigh the any technical considerations.
>>
>>Gerald
>
>I don't see how a camera that can't deliver what the photographer's
>skill and aesthetic judgement want isn't a technical drawback.
>While it's always possible for a good photographer to deliver good
>photos with a pinhole camera, it's obvious that a pinhole camera
>offers a lot of technical problems for a lot of photography.
>Yes, the input of the photographer is very important. So is the camera
>the photographer uses to implement that input.


That may be true, but the fact is that nobody is using pinhole
cameras. With regard to the cameras that are actually available
today, the photographer's input is FAR more important than a box with
buttons and dials on it.

Choice of a camera is more often a matter of personal preference and
convenience features than it is of actual technical limitations. That
being said, if you have specific needs such as shooting sports at high
speed, you may want a high FPS and good autofocus to make the job
easier for you. But good sports photgraphers took awesome pictures
back in the day when these things were not available. The difference
is that they had to rely on their own skill more than on the camera's
features.

Steve