smaller pixels

Discussion in 'General Technical Discussion' started by Iliah, Jun 6, 2005.

  1. Iliah

    Iliah

    Jan 29, 2005
    nowhere
    are sharper; but slightest camera tremble makes them to pick up stray information, mute colours, and blur details. Some D2X cameras apparently have their dumping mechanisms and mirror balance poorer then others (compared 3 different cameras).
     
  2. Gale

    Gale

    978
    Jan 26, 2005
    Viera Fl
    Seem a bit to sensitive Iliah. Is this where all the focus prob are coming from..

    Glad I do not have a D2X
     
  3. Iliah

    Iliah

    Jan 29, 2005
    nowhere
    Dear Gale, I do not think this is the single source; our lack of skills, carelessness, misalignments of cameras add to the reasons. My own camera, which is one of the first bunch, has a very mild problem with long lenses, and it seems it will go for calibration to Nikon in September - when the current workload will be down (I'm not shooting tele right now anyway, 85/2.8PC is glued to the camera:). I think the vibration problem should not be too often, and hope that folks who experience it will send sample images to Nikon for diagnostics. It is always benefitial to have the camera serviced - you will have hand-made camera back :)
     
  4. twig

    twig

    745
    May 23, 2005
    Gee Gale, I don't know if I am "glad" I don't have a D2X, I kinda wish I did all problems/quirks aside.

    This small pixel issue is part of why Nikon has to get off their duff and produce some serious pro glass with VR. And not just the super tele's. Why oh why why why was it not incorporated in the 17-55DX?

    Hmmm, to any people who said you don't need VR at 50mm... when you have to shoot at 1/150th to get it sharp you could probably use a few stops from VR.
     
  5. Chris101

    Chris101

    Feb 2, 2005
    Arizona
    How big is each individual photo-reactive surface in the D2x sensor (not pixel pitch, but the actual size of the 'light bucket'?)

    Anything smaller than about 4 times the wavelength (red light = 0.7 micron, so 2.8 um) should lose information through quantum tunneling. Of course real world seems to be able to beat that by a bit as they've just developed a sub-2 micron sensor.
     
  6. According to Phil Askey's review, they are 5.5 x 5.5 um.

    I think this camera just requires a little time to adjust to it. Then again pretty much all of the cameras I have used required that.

    I am amazed almost daily at the images I can make with it.
     
  7. cwilt

    cwilt

    Apr 24, 2005
    Denver, CO
    Good thing we got MLU and a tripod mount then. :) When possible I use mirror lock up via remote and a tripod. If I didn't the D2x would show that I need to lay off the caffeine. :lol:
     
  8. Iliah

    Iliah

    Jan 29, 2005
    nowhere
    For the needs of levering camera and some objects in the scene I assembled a small tilt measuring device based on Memsic chip ( http://www.memsic.com/memsic/pdfs/Accel Primer.pdf ) I tried to use it to measure vibrations of the camera, and it seems that the camera producing sharpest images with 85 mm prime stopped to 5.6 has less vibration then 2 others. I'm not sure my experiment is good enough 9bandwidth seems limited), and will have no time in 3 weeks to come to do more on that. But I will surely return to the problem later, as it seems of be of some interest...
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Stored camera & bad pixels General Technical Discussion Aug 30, 2015
Why don't any pro lenses offer smaller than f/32? General Technical Discussion Apr 14, 2013
making a .nef smaller General Technical Discussion Sep 28, 2009
Smaller Aperture w/Sport Mode General Technical Discussion Aug 17, 2009
Shooting from a smaller lobster type boat off of Maine General Technical Discussion Jun 11, 2007