Sensor development - What's all this?

E

Engineer73

Messages
94
Name
Jeff
Edit My Images
Yes
I don't understand what is happening in the world of sensor development. On the one hand the press is full of articles that boil down to "best images require full size sensors" and most major camera makers are making a big thing of this eg Sony RX1. On the other hand pundits are super enthusiastic about the image quality of mirrorless cameras with small sensors. Then pundits such as Ken Rockwell seem to think that no one needs more than about 12 megapixels before all that happens is that you begin to show up the limitations of your . What is a practical photographer to make of all this?
 
Ken Rockwell is very entertaining but personally I'd be careful about reading too much into anything he writes, best to just be entertained by him IMVHO :D

So far I've had compact, Micro Four Thirds, APS-C and FF cameras and if I discount compacts, shoot RAW and process shots to get the best out of them I really can't see much difference between MFT, APS-C and FF shots at low to middling ISO settings unless I pixel peep. So much for image quality (at low to middle ISO settings) :D

On the subject of mp counts, I personally don't crop much and have never printed bigger than A3. The 8m count of my 20D seemed perfectly adequate as does the 12mp count of my G1 and 5D :D
 
Everyone has an opinion, have your own, buy what you require not what other people say is 'better'. All the sensors have their own advantages, FF quality, Crop reach and price, M4/3 size and video, obviously they all have their disadvantages.
 
Last edited:
"the press" are mainly made up of experienced pros so it's likely they will be biased towards full frame...amateurs etc have completely different needs, photos for Facebook use, convenience/compact size etc. Ultimately it's all good as it means camera manufacturers develop cameras for all markets giving us more choice(y)

Simon
 
Ken Rockwell just makes sensationalist statements to generate traffic. 12MP is fine, yes but I'm sorry, I need more than 12MP as I do a great deal of printing of my work at A2 and larger so to say no one needs more than 12MP is clearly a load of horse excrement.

Micro Four Thirds systems can be every bit as good, if not better than DX sized sensors due to highly optimised lens designs, this is a lens design advantage, not a sensor size advantage though.

Basically... with quality in mind, there's no substitute for size when it comes to sensors.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Ken Rockwell just makes sensationalist statements to generate traffic. 12MP is fine, yes but I'm sorry, I need more than 12MP as I do a great deal of printing of my work at A2 and larger so to say no one needs more than 12MP is clearly a load of horse excrement.
Click to expand...

That's true. However, I think it would be fair to say that most people don't need any more than 12MP.

I remember a thread here a few years ago where someone asked 'who prints their images?'. More than half of the responses were from people who stated that they only looked at them on their computers, used them on digital frames or uploaded them to websites. You don't need any more than 1MP for that.

I like Ken Rockwell. Who obviously writes in a style intended to provoke a response but a lot of what he writes is technically correct but is not necessarily what the people who have spent out on the latest and greatest, all bells and whistles, multi-mega-pixel marvel want to read!

Roger Hicks is another writer who I used to read in Amateur Photographer. His writing style made me want to argue with him on every point. However, he was usually right.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
To a certain extent I have to agree that for most people 12 Mp is about right. My ageing 5D still produce fine results and is still in regular use, alongside it's Mk 3 brother.

However megapixel count isn't everything. can your lens resolve those pixels that are available to you. No point in having a 20Mp camera and a poor lens that can't match up to the resolution available. Low noise and colour fidelity are as important if not more so than the number of pixels you can cram onto a chip.
 
Surely it depends on how large you want to print and/or how ruthlessly you want to crop? 12mp is easily enough if your framing is good and you want to print out less than 20-or so inches as I'd imagine the vast amount of photographers do.
 
When the Canon 7d came out (18mp?) review articles in the photo press said that image quality was as good as full frame. Having been a 7d owner for about nine months now, I can assure you that those articles were quite incorrect. Compared to my 5d2 the 7d is VERY noisy!
 
Personally I avoid anything he writes. If you feel the need to make stupid statements to get people to view your blog/review then surely you're doing something wrong in the first place.

A good factual review is what I'm always after, with comparisons and actual in the field photos. If there's more of that K.R. rubbish in there I'll generally go somewhere else for my info.
 
I remember reading (years ago), that 8 Mpixels was equivalent to the grain size of film.
 
Croatoan said:
I thought it was generally accepted to be 20-something Mp but in reality was quite difficult to compare.
Click to expand...

Just had a Google for the answer and it seems you're right, it's difficult to compare ...............

Here, then, are various "real world" figures that some people here have offered.
2-3 megapixels: Visual equivalent in a 4x6 print to 80-85% of the population, on a camera with a decent lens.
3 megapixels: Some people use the comparison with an A4 print. A 3 megapixel camera will do this happily.
6-8 megapixels: For cheap consumer negative film. People who own the 6-megapixel Nikon D70, or the Canon D60, say that a 20x30 poster print from one of these is roughly equivalent to that from 35mm film. Make of that what you will.

12 megapixels: Another arbitrary figure sometimes offered.

24 megapixels: Ken Rockwell's comparison of the 24-megapixel Nikon D3X showed that it resolved details about as well as Velvia 50 film scanned commercially. This is probably the answer that fits the real world of photography better than any others

Also .........

http://www.tfpsoft.com/fun/digitalcameraguide/megapixels.html
 
Thanks everyone.

This all started because I'm replacing my Canon 7D and L lenses with a lightweight 4/3 type camera and was wondering what sacrifices in performance I would have to accept.

I've looked a bit at the science behind this hoping this would help. Of course it's quite complicated. I started by thinking it was all about signal to noise ratio so big pixels must be better than small pixels as they collect more light so signal goes up. For Mirrorless cameras Fuji X Pro1 and Sony NEX 6 (pixel size 4.8 microns) must start with an advantage over the Olympus OMD E-M5 (Pixel size 3.8 microns). However it's a lot more complicated than that because the amount of noise also varies a lot. It comes not just from the quality of the sensor but also the electronic signal processing that goes on in the camera itself before the picture gets to our screen. There is a lot of this so it's very dependent on the quality of the manufacturers electronics technology. Then we have to add in the quality of the lens technology etc etc. so this hasn't helped me much.

From what you have all said I guess the bottom line don't overanalyse this. Just go and try it but for most purposes except large prints I might be OK.
 
I seem to remember Ameteur Photographer, probably 20 years ago, commenting on the fact that 90% of people didn't 'need' the resolution a 35mm camera offered....
Curiously, this was 'just' as APS was launched.....
Hmmmm... so when the press start making such comments... one has to wonder what the industry wants to foist on us next....
NOT that I am a cynic, but, well... OK... I'm a cynic! (I'm not a pessamist! I'm a dissolusioned optimist!)
Press is paid by the advertisers; advertisers want to flog us stuff. They don't put their advertising in magazines that say their stuff isn't wonderful and we have to have it. Consequently, most of what the journo's tell us is industry propaganda... certainly as far as stuff we can buy goes.
Bottom line is, its not about what we need, its about what we want.... then about what we can afford!
 
I still have a Nikon D100 (6mp) and it still does the business to me,admittedly I only print to A4.I started out in the early 80's with cheap film and a Zenit E,so even that is a step up the quality ladder.Most people, my wife included, can't tell the difference between the D100 and my D5100 on an A4 print,though I can tell by the Dynamic Range amongst other things.
 
well the thing is FF cameras are tanks, i love my D800 but the body and lenses are ridiculously cumbersome if you just want to go walkabout somewhere for a few hours. I did buy a grip for it, but that turned it into an even bigger heavier brick so that soon came off and is gathering dust.

Back in the film days the FF cameras were quite small beasts (ok there are exceptions, Nikon F5 im looking at you) and studio cams were medium formats so , not understanding micro electronics, its always surprised me a little just why digital FF has to be so flipping big and heavy.

So the emergence of these new mirror less things it awesome. I've just got a fuji x-e1 (aps-c) you barely notice it in your pocket and it takes marvelous pics. Its great to see Sony's FF "compact", roll on 2014 when i hope to see more makers dive into it too.
 
essexash said:
...not understanding micro electronics, its always surprised me a little just why digital FF has to be so flipping big and heavy.
Click to expand...

Because big and heavy things are manly... and they can charge more money for big heavy things than little light things.
 
Camera manufacturers are in business, to make money. And they are only interested in what we're going to buy next. Nothing else.

If we really wanted a camera the size of a matchbox, in pink with diamonte, that's what they'd make. Every product on the market reflects our wants (not needs), within the bounds of technology, at a price we will pay.
 
HoppyUK said:
...in pink with diamonte...
Click to expand...

If you Google that, I bet you find some.

An ex of mine makes a living buying and selling on line and she once got a batch of pink cameras in. The went like hot cakes. I kid you not :D
 
essexash said:
Back in the film days the FF cameras were quite small beasts (ok there are exceptions, Nikon F5 im looking at you) and studio cams were medium formats so , not understanding micro electronics, its always surprised me a little just why digital FF has to be so flipping big and heavy.
Click to expand...

I'm far, far from an expert either but I've thought about the same thing long enough to speculate, particularly because my tiny OM1 with minuscule 50mm lens on it used to sit in my camera bag next to my giant D700 in a space that you'd barely squeeze a modern digital zoom lens into. The D700 looked like it might eat the little Olympus at any moment.

I'm guessing that part of the bulk comes from the fact that in film days the film or 'sensor' if you like was right at the very back of the camera and also wafer thin. That then allows the mirror to sit much further back on the body and makes the body much thinner. I think I'm right in saying that may also allow the mirror box to be smaller as there is less diversion going on but that last point may be horse manure. I don't know how physically thick a typical digital sensor is so I don't know how far back it could ever be moved but I do know that invariably they also have an LCD screen mounted right behind them and associated connections. Add to that the increased functionality of the camera and the fact they need a hefty battery to run the electronics and you can start to see where the bulk is coming from. There are some good cut away images on the net that show that modern SLR's are definitely not full of air.

It leads me to wonder what would be possible if you were to produce a digital SLR with only the essentials. I'm thinking digital sensor, a battery but no screen or menu system, just a memory card or maybe even internal memory if it saved space... No menu system, just exposure controls and a shutter button. I wouldn't even care about an AF system. I realise such a thing would have next to zero market but I'd want one!
 
just to extrapolate a little further. If you were to buy a Leica or the Sony FF thing and whip it out in a paid for studio shoot for example. Do you think people would look at you kinda funny. Do people expect a pro to have a physically large camera? People do actually smirk a little when i take out my Bronica 6x6 in the studio!
 
I think in that scenario it would be down to the badge, most know Leica, Sony only make 'compacts'.
 
gad-westy said:
I'm far, far from an expert either but I've thought about the same thing long enough to speculate, particularly because my tiny OM1 with minuscule 50mm lens on it used to sit in my camera bag next to my giant D700 in a space that you'd barely squeeze a modern digital zoom lens into. The D700 looked like it might eat the little Olympus at any moment.

I'm guessing that part of the bulk comes from the fact that in film days the film or 'sensor' if you like was right at the very back of the camera and also wafer thin. That then allows the mirror to sit much further back on the body and makes the body much thinner. I think I'm right in saying that may also allow the mirror box to be smaller as there is less diversion going on but that last point may be horse manure. I don't know how physically thick a typical digital sensor is so I don't know how far back it could ever be moved but I do know that invariably they also have an LCD screen mounted right behind them and associated connections. Add to that the increased functionality of the camera and the fact they need a hefty battery to run the electronics and you can start to see where the bulk is coming from. There are some good cut away images on the net that show that modern SLR's are definitely not full of air.

It leads me to wonder what would be possible if you were to produce a digital SLR with only the essentials. I'm thinking digital sensor, a battery but no screen or menu system, just a memory card or maybe even internal memory if it saved space... No menu system, just exposure controls and a shutter button. I wouldn't even care about an AF system. I realise such a thing would have next to zero market but I'd want one!
Click to expand...

What about a mirrorless full frame with EVF. Lets assume that evf's will become much better. This will remove the need for a mirror box totally, and you could use the evf in place of the rear screen for previews and menus. Not sure of the ergonomics of operating the menus through an evf though....

This could mean that the camera is as small as possible (not really sure of the commercial prospects of a camera with no rear lcd, but lets play along anyway...)
 
but what do you want an lcd for though? shutter speed, aperture, iso, exposure meter are all in the viewfinder. People just want an lcd to chimp :) Lets lose it and bring back the anticipation of developing that we used to have! you only see your images when you get home and "develop" (stick your memory card in the pc)
 
SLR cameras got bigger before the move to digital didn't they. The film Canon EOS' cameras for example moved away from the OM and got bigger (but more ergonomic)

An FF can clearly be made small without a mirror (RX1) and removing the LCD is not going to save much in terms of size is it, 2mm maybe?

The question is, do the majority of FF users actually want a small camera? Holding a piddly little camera is not going to do much for the ego...
 
Last edited:
Rapscallion said:
What about a mirrorless full frame with EVF. Lets assume that evf's will become much better. This will remove the need for a mirror box totally, and you could use the evf in place of the rear screen for previews and menus. Not sure of the ergonomics of operating the menus through an evf though....

This could mean that the camera is as small as possible (not really sure of the commercial prospects of a camera with no rear lcd, but lets play along anyway...)
Click to expand...

I often use my Sonys with the screen turned inwards (switched off) when low on battery. Using the menus in the EVF is fine.
 
ernesto said:
The question is, do the majority of FF users actually want a small camera? Holding a piddly little camera is not going to do much for the ego...
Click to expand...

Well Canon have just released the 6D (60D size) so I guess there is a demand for large sensor smaller cameras.

As for sensor size vs IQ, in my opinion if you compare like for like technologuy the larger the sensor the better the IQ. There will always be anomolies, but as the saying goes 'there ain't no replacement for displacement!'
 
well the thing is FF cameras are tanks, i love my D800 but the body and lenses are ridiculously cumbersome if you just want to go walkabout somewhere for a few hours. I did buy a grip for it, but that turned it into an even bigger heavier brick so that soon came off and is gathering dust.
Click to expand...
You're dead right. Maybe it's useful to impress customers, studio photography/portraits/weddings but in the real world who wants to be carrying all that weight.
Four thirds or similar cameras are the wave of the future for most of us IMHO. They are already pretty good and I think the manufacturers have a lot of technology coming that will make them even better.
 
Engineer73 said:
Four thirds or similar cameras are the wave of the future for most of us IMHO. They are already pretty good and I think the manufacturers have a lot of technology coming that will make them even better.
Click to expand...

My G1 is about the size of the 35mm SLR's I've had but it's heavier. With a legacy lens fitted and the screen folded to the body I find it to be quite a film like experience and that and the fact that it's smaller and lighter than my DSLR+lens means it gets a lot more use :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top