Marilyn: : Someone was asking me if the number of megapixels a camera has in some way : correlates to a photographer using a larger sheet of film - in other words : (I don't understand that question the way it is worded, myself) - is using a : 16 megapixel digital camera equal in photographic quality to a photographer : using a large format film camera loaded with sheets of 16X20 film? : : I answered "yes," - more megapixels, more information recorded=better : quality. Likewise, more film surface, more information recorded=better : quality. How would some of you have answered? yes and no, While a 12Mp sensor might cover a 35mm frame (36x24mm) in size, it's capturing the equivalent of a half frame compared to most medium quality scanners, but it IS a full 35mm frame. Something like the Sony 828 even though it has 8Mp has a mere 8.8 x 6.6mm sensor - effectively a 1/4 frame in size, but 1/3 frame in quality. ANother way to look at it is like this: Sony F828 sensor size = 58 sq mm, so 8M/58 = .138M photosites/sq mm Canon 10D sensor size = 343 sq mm, so 6.3M/343 = .018M photosites/sq mm Canon 1Ds sensor size = 852 sq mm, so 11.1M/852 = .012M photosites/sq mm Sigma SD9 sensor size = 286mm^2, so 10.3/3/286 = .012 MP/mm^2 It's *probably* more like talking about differing films ISO's - higher ISO, more visiblity of the grain, less detail - finer films, less visible grain, more detail. Sensor size doesn't relate to format any more than saying a 3200 ISO 4x5 produces the *same* image as a 35mm using 100 ISO film. there are characteristics of format that go beyond resolution, sharpness and detail. But in a way, what you said makes sense in the digital world :) that's my take k
