More pixels doesn't necessarily mean a better image. The more pixels crammed onto a sensor, the more noise the image will present. This is as a result of the size of the photosites decreasing as resolution/pixel count increases. As the size of the photosites decreases so to does the number of photons able to be captured by each photosite per shutter opening for a given time. In order to compensate for this, sensor gain is increased which introduces noise. Most cameras overcome this noise by way of noise reduction algorithms however this is always at the expense of detail. All of a sudden, the extra pixels don't look so flash.
Exposure problems can also result. Think of a photosite as a bucket, and an image sensor die as a pallet with buckets arranged close together. If these buckets are small, you can only fill them with a small amount of water before they overflow into the next bucket with some dribbling down the side. In image sensor terms, this translates to blown highlights or blooming as the electrical charge from one photosite spills out into those surrounding it. On the other side of the coin, there's less ability to capture detailed images in low light conditions.
Dynamic and tonal range is also impacted. This is essentially the ability of the sensor to accurately reproduce all aspects of a scene including light and shaded areas and subtle variation in skin tones etc. With higher pixel density sensors, their ability to accurately reproduce such scenes is reduced. Think of a scene with someone sitting on a bench under a tree by a river with a couple of boats. In full sun, one of two things will happen. 1) the person on the bench will be correctly exposed with the river and boats blown out 2) the river and boats correctly exposed with the person nothing but a silhouette. An image sensor with large photosites is more likely to reproduce an image closer to what we see with our eyes such that detail can be extracted from all elements of a scene.
Having said all that, until youve decided on what type of photography really captures you, you're unlikely to experience too many problems. Canon are known for producing much cleaner images at given ISO settings than the competition. Both their APS-C and full frame CMOS (others use CCD but thats another discussion altogether)sensors are excellent and coupled with their Digic series processors, produce fantastic images.
As for lenses, Canon and Nikon have the best selection. However you'll have to choose a system and stick to it as lenses are not interchangeable between camera manufacturers without expensive adaptors which often limit certain functionality. With Canon, if you're going with a consumer/prosumer camera you'll have a choice of EF-S and EF series lenses. The smart buy is to put your money into EF lenses where possible as if you ever decide to upgrade to a full frame (5D, 1D, 1Ds etc) you'll be unable to use the EF-S lenses. The other thing is to stretch to the best lenses your budget will allow. You don't need to go straight to L series but avoid the kit lenses where possible. Lenses have a resolution limit too and the kit lenses are often not up to par with the resolution of current cameras. It's not to say you can't take nice photos with a kit lense but side by side with a better lense of the same focal length/aperture etc, the difference is chalk and cheese. Better contrast, colours, tonal range, exposure etc and less distortion, uneven focus, chromatic aberration.
Anyway, I've dribbled on enough for now. Canons a winner in my book. Fantastic IQ, range of lenses from both Canon and third party manufacturers such as Sigma, huge range of flashes and other accessories.
PS: Nikon fanbois DIAF.
Pepper Grey MY11 TIGUAN 125 TSI DSG | APR Stage 1 | Comfort Pack | Carpet Mats | MDI | BT | Tint | Custom Audio
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by eltonking
Bookmarks