8 ms·

You buy a DSLR because it has a large sensor that can capture lots of light and detail. Lot's of smaller CMOS sensors when combined won't be able to capture th

You buy a DSLR because it has a large sensor that can capture lots of light and detail. Lot's of smaller CMOS sensors when combined won't be able to capture the same level of detail. So I fail to see how this camera what outperform a DSLR.

sohkamyung 10y ago
It might, depending on the usage. The Light camera captures the same image using multiple sensors, which may work out to the same, or higher resolution to a single DSLR sensor. One interesting thing the multiple sensors on the Light can do, which a single DSLR sensor can't, is to capture the same scene with multiple exposure settings, as mentioned in the article. Combining these different exposures together may allow for higher contrast (HDR) images to be captured.
- dingaling 10y ago
  It's not resolution which is the limiting factor for small sensors; in fact many of them have higher per-sensor resolution than a DSLR. It's the fact that as you push more and smaller detector-sites into a such a small array you experience more and more noise, which means the image quality degrades rapidly with falling light. There's a balance between size of detector-sites and array density and any technology that reduces small sensor noise can equally be applied to large sensors with larger detector-sites in order to maintain their advantage. The best analogy I encountered was to consider each detector-site as a 'light-gathering bucket'. A big bucket can catch more photons and hence has a higher SNR than a small bucket once you deduct cosmic rays and read-out errors etc. So a medium-format 21MP is better than an APS-C 21MP array which is better than a phone-sized 21MP array. It doesn't really matter how many small-arrays you point at one target because it's the SNR at the individual detector-sites that matters. ~~ TLDR: this camera can never compete directly with a DSLR on raw photo quality but will offer other interesting capabilities that DSLRs can't.
  - mnw21cam 10y ago
    Noise is much more noticeable in dark areas of an image, so having a method to produce a HDR image will naturally improve the noise. So, I think this camera could quite easily compete directly with a DSLR on photo quality - but a good DSLR will easily be better in low light conditions.
  - Aeolos 10y ago
    > It doesn't really matter how many small-arrays you point at one target because it's the SNR at the individual detector-sites that matters. This is quite incorrect. Detector noise is a combination of thermal/electrical/quantum effects and is essentially decorrelated. The image information captured by the sensors is not. That means that taking the mean of N images improves the SNR by sqrt(N). You can do this over time (and deal with motion artifacts) or you can do this by using multiple detectors at the same time. There is a physical limit of how many large detectors you can fit inside the physical body of a DSLR. At some point, it will more efficient to combine multiple smaller detectors instead.
awongh 10y ago
It says 52 megapixels... And maybe the total area of all 16 sensors > a dslr sensor? The low light example photos on their site look pretty good.
rodgerd 10y ago
> You buy a DSLR because it has a large sensor that can capture lots of light and detail. 35 mm imaging is traditionally referred to as "small format" film. You typically buy an SLR (or DSLR) because you're making a bunch of compromises to image quality because of price or convenience or similar factors. If you weren't, you'd be using a digital medium format, or large format film and a specialised scanner. This is another option on that scale. The DSLR is hardly the pinnacle of photography, except perhaps for high-speed action.
- contingencies 10y ago
  Digital medium format is basically dead; the Canon 5DS (51MP) killed it. Why would you pay ten times the money to get the same resolution but also have to shell out ten times the expense for every lens, with ~no resale value, rental, repair or second hand market, and higher weight and bulk to boot? You arguably get slightly higher dynamic range, but bracketing solves that in 90% of cases.
  - astrostl 10y ago
    Hasselblad and Fuji both have new digital medium format systems coming out, and it's probably been the biggest news in cameras for 2016.
    - contingencies 10y ago
      That may be true but if ~nobody buys them (which is basically guaranteed unless a major price drop occurs - which is unlikely as their entire raison d'être is "high resolution", which requires expensive hardware), then who cares?
      - astrostl 10y ago
        Now that the Sony A7 series has "democratized" full-format mirrorless, ILC camera folks are buying it in droves. And because of things like lower noise, shallower depth of field, and increased dynamic range. Not megapixels, which is especially evident with the 12MP high-sensitivity A7S line. Just a few years ago, the same comments about MF could have been made about FF. Even if it stays a high-end niche, rather than getting cheaper and broader like FF recently has, major and new endeavors in the space highlight the extent to which the format is the opposite of dead.
ClassyJacket 10y ago
You could try reading the article, which explains that in great detail.
slantyyz 10y ago
>> So I fail to see how this camera what outperform a DSLR. It might be better to look at it with a less narrow perspective. If you're a hardcore photographer, what you are saying is absolutely true. But a lot of "normals" want DSLR-like quality without bulk. A lot of people buy DSLRs because they want better quality photos and more flexibility, but after the honeymoon period, they get tired of lugging a big camera with them. This is probably why Sony's RX100 series has done so well. "The best camera is the one you have with you" -- that's typically someone's smartphone. If you can give a consumer a camera that size that roughly performs like a DSLR, it will probably make a lot of people happy.
- ghaff 10y ago
  A lot of people will still default to their smartphone because that's good enough and they already have one. But I agree that there's definitely a potential market for a pocketable "computational photography" camera if its capabilities can't (yet) be folded into a smartphone. Personally, I don't carry my Canon S100 with me much any longer mostly because my iPhone is good enough for snapshots and, if I want to do "real" photography, I have a couple of interchangeable lens options. But I'd be in the market for something that was clearly better/more versatile than my phone that would fit in my pocket.

sohkamyung 10y ago

It might, depending on the usage. The Light camera captures the same image using multiple sensors, which may work out to the same, or higher resolution to a single DSLR sensor. One interesting thing the multiple sensors on the Light can do, which a single DSLR sensor can't, is to capture the same scene with multiple exposure settings, as mentioned in the article. Combining these different exposures together may allow for higher contrast (HDR) images to be captured.

dingaling 10y ago
It's not resolution which is the limiting factor for small sensors; in fact many of them have higher per-sensor resolution than a DSLR. It's the fact that as you push more and smaller detector-sites into a such a small array you experience more and more noise, which means the image quality degrades rapidly with falling light. There's a balance between size of detector-sites and array density and any technology that reduces small sensor noise can equally be applied to large sensors with larger detector-sites in order to maintain their advantage. The best analogy I encountered was to consider each detector-site as a 'light-gathering bucket'. A big bucket can catch more photons and hence has a higher SNR than a small bucket once you deduct cosmic rays and read-out errors etc. So a medium-format 21MP is better than an APS-C 21MP array which is better than a phone-sized 21MP array. It doesn't really matter how many small-arrays you point at one target because it's the SNR at the individual detector-sites that matters. ~~ TLDR: this camera can never compete directly with a DSLR on raw photo quality but will offer other interesting capabilities that DSLRs can't.
- mnw21cam 10y ago
  Noise is much more noticeable in dark areas of an image, so having a method to produce a HDR image will naturally improve the noise. So, I think this camera could quite easily compete directly with a DSLR on photo quality - but a good DSLR will easily be better in low light conditions.
- Aeolos 10y ago
  > It doesn't really matter how many small-arrays you point at one target because it's the SNR at the individual detector-sites that matters. This is quite incorrect. Detector noise is a combination of thermal/electrical/quantum effects and is essentially decorrelated. The image information captured by the sensors is not. That means that taking the mean of N images improves the SNR by sqrt(N). You can do this over time (and deal with motion artifacts) or you can do this by using multiple detectors at the same time. There is a physical limit of how many large detectors you can fit inside the physical body of a DSLR. At some point, it will more efficient to combine multiple smaller detectors instead.

awongh 10y ago

It says 52 megapixels... And maybe the total area of all 16 sensors > a dslr sensor? The low light example photos on their site look pretty good.

rodgerd 10y ago

> You buy a DSLR because it has a large sensor that can capture lots of light and detail. 35 mm imaging is traditionally referred to as "small format" film. You typically buy an SLR (or DSLR) because you're making a bunch of compromises to image quality because of price or convenience or similar factors. If you weren't, you'd be using a digital medium format, or large format film and a specialised scanner. This is another option on that scale. The DSLR is hardly the pinnacle of photography, except perhaps for high-speed action.

contingencies 10y ago
Digital medium format is basically dead; the Canon 5DS (51MP) killed it. Why would you pay ten times the money to get the same resolution but also have to shell out ten times the expense for every lens, with ~no resale value, rental, repair or second hand market, and higher weight and bulk to boot? You arguably get slightly higher dynamic range, but bracketing solves that in 90% of cases.
- astrostl 10y ago
  Hasselblad and Fuji both have new digital medium format systems coming out, and it's probably been the biggest news in cameras for 2016.
  - contingencies 10y ago
    That may be true but if ~nobody buys them (which is basically guaranteed unless a major price drop occurs - which is unlikely as their entire raison d'être is "high resolution", which requires expensive hardware), then who cares?
    - astrostl 10y ago
      Now that the Sony A7 series has "democratized" full-format mirrorless, ILC camera folks are buying it in droves. And because of things like lower noise, shallower depth of field, and increased dynamic range. Not megapixels, which is especially evident with the 12MP high-sensitivity A7S line. Just a few years ago, the same comments about MF could have been made about FF. Even if it stays a high-end niche, rather than getting cheaper and broader like FF recently has, major and new endeavors in the space highlight the extent to which the format is the opposite of dead.

ClassyJacket 10y ago

You could try reading the article, which explains that in great detail.

slantyyz 10y ago

>> So I fail to see how this camera what outperform a DSLR. It might be better to look at it with a less narrow perspective. If you're a hardcore photographer, what you are saying is absolutely true. But a lot of "normals" want DSLR-like quality without bulk. A lot of people buy DSLRs because they want better quality photos and more flexibility, but after the honeymoon period, they get tired of lugging a big camera with them. This is probably why Sony's RX100 series has done so well. "The best camera is the one you have with you" -- that's typically someone's smartphone. If you can give a consumer a camera that size that roughly performs like a DSLR, it will probably make a lot of people happy.

ghaff 10y ago
A lot of people will still default to their smartphone because that's good enough and they already have one. But I agree that there's definitely a potential market for a pocketable "computational photography" camera if its capabilities can't (yet) be folded into a smartphone. Personally, I don't carry my Canon S100 with me much any longer mostly because my iPhone is good enough for snapshots and, if I want to do "real" photography, I have a couple of interchangeable lens options. But I'd be in the market for something that was clearly better/more versatile than my phone that would fit in my pocket.