3 ms·
Yep. Pixels are great, but the big hole is in dynamic range. I'd love to get some high shutter speed shots of night time action in natural light, but I rarely h
by DanielBMarkham 9y ago
Yep. Pixels are great, but the big hole is in dynamic range. I'd love to get some high shutter speed shots of night time action in natural light, but I rarely have a use for creating prints the size of a drive-in movie screen.
- ksk 9y agoI'm curious... what kind of action were you thinking of?
- azhenley 9y agoI'm not the OP, but nighttime street photography would be great, such as walking around NYC at night. Right now I am having to handhold at 1/10th second and 3200 ISO, which makes any moving subject a blur (in addition to the shake from my hands).
- vardump 9y agoThe smaller the pixels get, the closer to log response dynamic range per unit area you're going to get. That's simple because of statistics of photons registering at random locations. Happens even if readout noise or whatnot increases. For those who doubt: imagine a sensor with so high resolution that each pixel is only being hit by just one photon or none at all. Such a sensor would have the ultimate dynamic range. No burned highlights at all. (Of course you might want to downsample the result before use. :)) Although you seem to be after quantum efficiency and low noise. You certainly wouldn't be getting either of those with the ultimate dynamic range extreme pixel count sensor.