7 ms·

While pixel density is good, there is no substitute for pixel size ie, larger sensors. Hence the full-frame 35mm and larger sensors will always produce better i

by foobar1962 8y ago

While pixel density is good, there is no substitute for pixel size ie, larger sensors. Hence the full-frame 35mm and larger sensors will always produce better images. I have a Sony RX100 and its images are superb for a pocket camera -- a combination of the 1 inch sensor and fine Weiss glass. I studied photography before digital and the same was true then: larger formats equalled higher quality particularly for landscape and scenes with specular reflections. The reason was explained to me like this: there is a tree with shiny leaves and these leaves have specular reflections (reflecting the sun directly) so there are extremely small but very bright points of light. These specular reflections hit the film/sensor and spread around a bit. If the grains/pixels are small the highlights will spill into adjacent grains/pixels and reduce sharpness.

ekianjo 8y ago
Yes. it is dissapointing to ses so few large digital sensors on the market. Its all focusing on mobile phone sensors right now...
- Tloewald 8y ago
  There’s no shortage of large sensors, they just don’t make sense in a phone unless you want it to be huge. In fact there’s a migration upwards in camera sensor sizes owing to the decreasing size of the support electronics, e.g. you can now get a Hasselblad medium format camera that’s smaller than a DSLR. Of course the lenses are huge. I for one would love for Apple or Samsung or whoever to release a photographer’s smartphone with a micro 4/3 mount (it’s the only multi firm properly documented lens mount system and also seems to be the sweet spot for trading off image quality, sensor readout speed, and size) BUT the phone would be at minimum 20mm thick.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    No shortage? Are you kidding? There is only Sony and Canon who make full frame sensors right now at mass market level (nikon is supplied by Sony), and the amount of cameras available with not-really-medium-format size, you can count on one hand. This is a far cry from the situation of film cameras where you had at least at least several dozens of medium format cameras available for purchase at once.
    - namibj 8y ago
      What about CMOSIS, well, to be fair, the CMV50000 is still just sampling without bayer, but it's a really nice sensor, and you can't really say that it's brother the CMV12000 is bad.
    - Tloewald 8y ago
      Are you talking about sensors or film? Kodak and Fuji dominated film, and today Sony and Canon dominate sensors (Samsung had a pretty solid go of it and simply gave up). Lots of other companies make sensors but they aren’t competitive with Sony. There are plenty of camera companies, mostly using Sony sensors or Sony fabs. The lack of manufacturing diversity isn’t a shortage. It’s a different problem. Is there a shortage of cpus?
vermaden 8y ago
Panasonic CM1 Android smartphone also has the same 1" inch sensor from Sony along with f/2.8 28mm lens.
aparashk 8y ago
Larger sensors are better in respects other than megapixels: diffraction limits hit at much higher f/stops, there is higher dynamic range and less noise, much better microcontrast as a result.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  With smaller sensors and ND filters you don't need higher f/stops because of larger DoF from sensor size - more is sharp with smaller f/stops. One reason I wish more cameras had builtin ND filters though.
slededit 8y ago
But our eyes are much smaller and better performing. Surely a large sensor is not a fundamental requirement with the exception of depth of field.
- danbruc 8y ago
  Our eyes are not really that good, a lot of your visual experience is due to the processing in your visual system.
- sschueller 8y ago
  Aren't eyes actually quite bad and most the brain is doing the heavy lifting? We all have a huge blind spot yet we don't perceive it.
  - kevincox 8y ago
    The original computational photography.
- anfractuosity 8y ago
  I thought this was interesting "One reason for the saccadic movement of the human eye is that the central part of the retina—known as the fovea—which provides the high-resolution portion of vision is very small in humans, only about 1–2 degrees of vision, but it plays a critical role in resolving objects.[citation needed] By moving the eye so that small parts of a scene can be sensed with greater resolution, body resources can be used more efficiently. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- slavik81 8y ago
  The human eye is enormous compared to a smartphone camera, and the retina is still larger than the 1 inch squared sensor he mentioned. What exactly are you talking about?
WhitneyLand 8y ago
Is it really true that larger pixels are better, or is it really only true that sensing more photons is better? Specifically, what is the reason multiple sensors with smaller pixels could not perform as well or better if their combine total sensor area was larger? The L16 is an example. It had issues, but they mostly seemed like implementation problems rather than inherent limitations. After all their challenges seeing that they still apparently raised 100MM in capital, it would seem to suggest something better is possible. https://spot.light.co https://spot.light.co Also they have bigger hardware that today’s smartphones would want, but in principal I’ve never understood why smaller pixels are inherently worse as opposed to total photons collected.
- npunt 8y ago
  I forgot the specific term that describes this, but basically each pixel on a sensor is going to have a threshold for whether it activates (much like a neuron's action potential). Say its 20 photons. If it gets less than that, it is unable to see anything at all. Meanwhile a larger pixel will see something because it will be able to capture more than 20 photons in a given unit of time. On the other hand, the aggregate of several smaller pixels across many sensors will each fail to reach that threshold and thus see nothing. The L16 has some low light and dynamic range problems, I believe owing to this very situation.
  - dperfect 8y ago
    I believe the term you're looking for is reciprocity failure[1] (or schwarzschild effect), though apparently it doesn't happen with digital sensors - only film. Noise becomes an issue in similar situations, but it's not affected by the number of photons hitting the sensor. Correction: Shot noise[2] is related to the number of photons hitting the sensor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(photography)#Reciprocity_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(photography)#Reci... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
starky 8y ago
I wouldn't quite agree with your statement about there being no substitute for pixel size. The trade-offs between pixel size, dynamic range, and noise, when making fair comparisons is complex. Not to mention that today it seems that every phone is taking advantage of computational image processing in order to give a more "DSLR like" image, while ILC cameras aren't implementing this at all. I'm sure in many cases a cellphone camera will shoot a better image than something like your RX100 due to this.
- tigershark 8y ago
  No, when you have a bigger pixel size you have also a better dynamic range and s/n ratio. There is no substitute for pixel size in sensors with the same technology. If you compare different sensors technologies, like front-illuminated vs back-illuminated than at the same pixel size the back illuminated has clear advantages. The computational image processing can be applied also to bigger sensors, so it doesn’t make any sense to compare the raw capacity of a big sensor camera with the processed output of a phone camera. I don’t really think that you have ever seen the output of an RX-100 if you judge it inferior to cellphone cameras.
  - starky 8y ago
    The reasons I say it is complex is because depending on the sensor technology, resolution, image pipeline, etc. there are many different ways you could compare image quality. If you compare extremely different sensors, like a 1/3" and full frame, then of course the larger sensor will be better, but comparing say a 1/2" sensor with a 1" sensor is less clear. The smaller pixel sensor will have a better resolution in lp/mm for example, if downscaled to the same resolution as a lower resolution sensor, in many cases you will end up with an image with better detail and less noise (due to averaging out the noise). This is why cameras like the Sony A7iii take a 6K readout and downsample it to 4K for video output. My comment about computational processing still stands though. While a RAW file will give you much more ability to process, complex computational processing just isn't used to nearly the same level in any raw processor I'm aware of (DxO Photolab is probably the most advanced at this, but still is relatively basic), which does make it a valid comparison at the moment. The simple fact is that small sensors these days have closed the gap with larger sensors significantly, while there are areas they are inadequate in, there are other shooting conditions where the differences are minimal which is a statement I would have scoffed at when I started working with cameras 6 years ago.
_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
Weiss glass? Zeiss glass? :-) With 'Better images' people often mean today less noise and higher dynamic range. While this is true, the returns are diminishing. 10y ago a 35mm sensor was 1 stop better than APSC, today a 35mm sensor is 1 stop better than APSC [1]. The difference is that 10y ago an APSC sensor was usable at 800 iso and 35mm at 1600iso, while today an APSC sensor is usable at 6400iso and 35mm at 12800iso. The usable range today for the smaller sensor is 7 stops (starting at iso 100) and 35mm is 8 stops, while it was 4 stops and 5 stops 10y ago. 35mm will always be 1 stop better for the same generation [2], but the increase of 1 stop in relation to the usable range (1/5 vs. 1/8) is going down. Same for dynamic range. [1] Due to 35mm sensor being double the size of APSC and iso being log2 [2] And manufacturer
- petepete 8y ago
  They have all but diminished. Almost nobody can tell what equipment was used by looking at the end product, even if they zoom to 200%.
  - samastur 8y ago
    Of course you can for best of category products. Most people just don't care about the difference.
    - petepete 8y ago
      Perhaps if you have the 'same' image shot with different cameras side by side you could point out some minor differences. Sure. But if I showed you (or anyone) a shot with no context and background information you wouldn't have a clue. And that's a good thing. Equipment shouldn't matter, and now the playing field is more level than ever.
      - tombrossman 8y ago
        I think the thing to remember is that modern DSLRs are going to continue to produce decent images across challenging lighting conditions. A DSLR buys you more usable shots to select from later. You are correct, On a sunny day both types of device will produce similar looking 1000 pixel wide web-ready exterior landscape shots. Now take them into a dark cathedral with high stained-glass windows, try for a quick portrait of a priest walking by holding a candle, and the DSLR will still get the shot, and it will look great. Smartphones cannot do this...yet.
sigi45 8y ago
I got a Samsung S9 from work. Holy shit those images are sharp. Yeah at night the software cheats like hell but still. And while my mobile phone has tones of great features (super slow etc.) my DSLR is heavy and autofocus is okayisch. I really expect something good from Canons upcoming 90D otherwise i'm not sure how long hobby people will keep using DSLRs. Of course there are differences in bokey, low light performance, macro, tele etc. but i was very impressed what a Samsung S9 can do now already. I can't imagine that they will stop and you can do a lot with software.
- GordonS 8y ago
  I have an S8, and I actually stopped using my aging Canon 450D as the pictures it takes are so good (and I'm only taking family pics these days). As long as you don't need to zoom, the quality of the images modern phones can take really is incredible.
  - porker 8y ago
    I looked at the S8 recently; how do you find the curved glass at the edges in use? I found the distortion distracting, and thought the colour was shifting. Apart from that, loved the phone.
    - GordonS 8y ago
      I don't have the 'edge' version. It cost extra money for what I saw as a purely aesthetic feature that I also didn't like.
      - porker 8y ago
        Here in the UK the edge version of the S8 is all you can get.
        GordonS 8y ago
        Ah, my mistake - it's an S7! Still, it takes amazing photos.
coldtea 8y ago
>While pixel density is good, there is no substitute for pixel size ie, larger sensors. Actually, there is: improved sensor technology. A sensor is not just a passive collector of photons (which would make size the only thing that matters). All other things being equal, newer sensors usually improve on thermal noise, dynamic range, etc over older sensors. When things are not equal, a 5-6 generations older sensor might still have worse low light than a smaller one.
- ants_a 8y ago
  There is not much room to improve sensor technology. Photon shot noise is already the dominant factor. There is a bit of improvement available by modifying the bayer filter to filter less. But other than that, you just need more photons, which means a bigger sensor or a bigger aperture, both of which imply more glass. Or a longer exposure. Higher framerates and computational photography help make longer exposures an acceptable option.
  - namibj 8y ago
    Specifically, something like 200+ fps pipelined global shutter. That means you loose less than 1% time between exposures at these high frame rates. But maybe rolling shutter at similar speeds might be able to handle it too... It seems that is mostly trouble if shooting at fast shutter speeds, with a non-stationary scene/camera, due to the wobble e.g. periodic roll shake causes.
mtgx 8y ago
One other problem with high mp cameras with small pixels vs lower mp cameras with larger pixels is that they needlessly need to process those extra pixels and they also need to do a lot more work just to get to the same quality. That translates to needing more processing power and less battery life.
amelius 8y ago
Can't we have a combined (computational) approach, where we use a slower shutter-speed to get rid of noise, while at the same time we use a fast shutter-speed to avoid motion blur? Or use several pictures taken with a fast shutter-speed to reduce noise?
- Aeolos 8y ago
  Of course. I seem to recall this is built-in into the default Pixel 2 camera app.
  - amelius 8y ago
    Any references to papers describing this technique?
- Keyframe 8y ago
  You can have smaller sensor sites (pixels) and downsample to a lower resolution in order to average away most of the noise. That's one approach with, for example, cameras like RED's new 8k film camera.
jdietrich 8y ago
There's another essential factor that people just don't seem to be talking about - the decline of print. You don't need 40 megapixels of useful resolution if your photos will be viewed on a 2mp iPhone screen. You don't need a sensor with 14 stops of dynamic range if your images will be displayed on a screen with 6 stops of dynamic range. Sensor quality matters much less than it did at the beginning of the DSLR revolution, because the bottleneck in the image chain lies elsewhere. The vast majority of photographers rarely if ever print their images, so most of the advantages of a large sensor are rendered moot.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- crazygringo 8y ago
  Actually, it's the opposite. A 4x6 print didn't have crazy high resolution. They usually use 1800x1200px as input resolution (~2.2MP). Your iPhone X is actually slightly more detailed (2436x1125=2.7MP). And if you're talking about stops of dynamic range, print has always been less than a screen. But if you want a photo to look crystal-clear on your iMac's slide show screen saver? That's 5120x2800px=14.3MP. It allows for stunning detail which consumers just never had access to before. (Even the iPad Pro is 5.6MP, more than double a traditional photo.) But the real advantage, of course, in both megapixels and dynamic range is in post-processing: you can crop to the quarter of the photo that's interesting and bring out the detail in the shadows and it's still high-quality enough to use as an eye-catching retina-resolution header for your Medium post. Remember, phones don't have deep optical zoom lenses, so megapixels have to do that job instead.
  - jdietrich 8y ago
    >A 4x6 print didn't have crazy high resolution. Which is why most consumers used fairly crummy fixed-lens cameras with fast film and were perfectly happy with digital cameras with ~4MP effective resolution. You do need a whole bunch of resolution if you're printing to double-page magazine spreads, large-format fine art prints or billboards, which is why professional photographers (other than photojournalists) were relatively late adopters of digital cameras. >And if you're talking about stops of dynamic range, print has always been less than a screen. At your local photomat, yes. A good giclée print has about 11 stops of dynamic range. A normal 8-bit LCD has about six stops of dynamic range and a really good OLED has about ten stops under ideal viewing conditions. My broader point is that pretty much all modern cameras are more than good enough for 99% of users. It's a tiny minority who will actually see the benefit of better cameras in the images they produce. Most people will only ever notice an improvement in resolution if they're pixel-peeping in Lightroom and will only notice an extra stop of dynamic range on the histogram. If you go out and buy an entry-level DSLR with a kit lens, you probably won't get noticeably better results than just using your iPhone. That's a good thing for consumers, but a bad thing for camera manufacturers.
Keyframe 8y ago
Here's a good explanation, it's due to sensor size, not pixel size: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-s...
Puer 8y ago
Yup. The RX100 is an amazing little thing - Fits in my pocket but packs a huge punch. People are always surprised (almost put off) when they see me shooting with a tiny point and shoot. Shameless plug, but every single photo on my Instagram was taken with the camera: https://www.instagram.com/mabunday/ https://www.instagram.com/mabunday/ It really is awesome and when friends ask for camera recommendations I always recommend something small because it's the only thing they'll carry around (and thus use) consistently. I know so many people that bought a DSLR as their starter camera that now permanently sits as a house decoration because "it's too heavy."

ekianjo 8y ago

Yes. it is dissapointing to ses so few large digital sensors on the market. Its all focusing on mobile phone sensors right now...

Tloewald 8y ago
There’s no shortage of large sensors, they just don’t make sense in a phone unless you want it to be huge. In fact there’s a migration upwards in camera sensor sizes owing to the decreasing size of the support electronics, e.g. you can now get a Hasselblad medium format camera that’s smaller than a DSLR. Of course the lenses are huge. I for one would love for Apple or Samsung or whoever to release a photographer’s smartphone with a micro 4/3 mount (it’s the only multi firm properly documented lens mount system and also seems to be the sweet spot for trading off image quality, sensor readout speed, and size) BUT the phone would be at minimum 20mm thick.
- ekianjo 8y ago
  No shortage? Are you kidding? There is only Sony and Canon who make full frame sensors right now at mass market level (nikon is supplied by Sony), and the amount of cameras available with not-really-medium-format size, you can count on one hand. This is a far cry from the situation of film cameras where you had at least at least several dozens of medium format cameras available for purchase at once.
  - namibj 8y ago
    What about CMOSIS, well, to be fair, the CMV50000 is still just sampling without bayer, but it's a really nice sensor, and you can't really say that it's brother the CMV12000 is bad.
  - Tloewald 8y ago
    Are you talking about sensors or film? Kodak and Fuji dominated film, and today Sony and Canon dominate sensors (Samsung had a pretty solid go of it and simply gave up). Lots of other companies make sensors but they aren’t competitive with Sony. There are plenty of camera companies, mostly using Sony sensors or Sony fabs. The lack of manufacturing diversity isn’t a shortage. It’s a different problem. Is there a shortage of cpus?

vermaden 8y ago

Panasonic CM1 Android smartphone also has the same 1" inch sensor from Sony along with f/2.8 28mm lens.

aparashk 8y ago

Larger sensors are better in respects other than megapixels: diffraction limits hit at much higher f/stops, there is higher dynamic range and less noise, much better microcontrast as a result.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
With smaller sensors and ND filters you don't need higher f/stops because of larger DoF from sensor size - more is sharp with smaller f/stops. One reason I wish more cameras had builtin ND filters though.

slededit 8y ago

But our eyes are much smaller and better performing. Surely a large sensor is not a fundamental requirement with the exception of depth of field.

danbruc 8y ago
Our eyes are not really that good, a lot of your visual experience is due to the processing in your visual system.
sschueller 8y ago
Aren't eyes actually quite bad and most the brain is doing the heavy lifting? We all have a huge blind spot yet we don't perceive it.
- kevincox 8y ago
  The original computational photography.
anfractuosity 8y ago
I thought this was interesting "One reason for the saccadic movement of the human eye is that the central part of the retina—known as the fovea—which provides the high-resolution portion of vision is very small in humans, only about 1–2 degrees of vision, but it plays a critical role in resolving objects.[citation needed] By moving the eye so that small parts of a scene can be sensed with greater resolution, body resources can be used more efficiently. " from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
slavik81 8y ago
The human eye is enormous compared to a smartphone camera, and the retina is still larger than the 1 inch squared sensor he mentioned. What exactly are you talking about?

WhitneyLand 8y ago

Is it really true that larger pixels are better, or is it really only true that sensing more photons is better? Specifically, what is the reason multiple sensors with smaller pixels could not perform as well or better if their combine total sensor area was larger? The L16 is an example. It had issues, but they mostly seemed like implementation problems rather than inherent limitations. After all their challenges seeing that they still apparently raised 100MM in capital, it would seem to suggest something better is possible. https://spot.light.co https://spot.light.co Also they have bigger hardware that today’s smartphones would want, but in principal I’ve never understood why smaller pixels are inherently worse as opposed to total photons collected.

npunt 8y ago
I forgot the specific term that describes this, but basically each pixel on a sensor is going to have a threshold for whether it activates (much like a neuron's action potential). Say its 20 photons. If it gets less than that, it is unable to see anything at all. Meanwhile a larger pixel will see something because it will be able to capture more than 20 photons in a given unit of time. On the other hand, the aggregate of several smaller pixels across many sensors will each fail to reach that threshold and thus see nothing. The L16 has some low light and dynamic range problems, I believe owing to this very situation.
- dperfect 8y ago
  I believe the term you're looking for is reciprocity failure[1] (or schwarzschild effect), though apparently it doesn't happen with digital sensors - only film. Noise becomes an issue in similar situations, but it's not affected by the number of photons hitting the sensor. Correction: Shot noise[2] is related to the number of photons hitting the sensor. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(photography)#Reciprocity_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(photography)#Reci... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_noise
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

starky 8y ago

I wouldn't quite agree with your statement about there being no substitute for pixel size. The trade-offs between pixel size, dynamic range, and noise, when making fair comparisons is complex. Not to mention that today it seems that every phone is taking advantage of computational image processing in order to give a more "DSLR like" image, while ILC cameras aren't implementing this at all. I'm sure in many cases a cellphone camera will shoot a better image than something like your RX100 due to this.

tigershark 8y ago
No, when you have a bigger pixel size you have also a better dynamic range and s/n ratio. There is no substitute for pixel size in sensors with the same technology. If you compare different sensors technologies, like front-illuminated vs back-illuminated than at the same pixel size the back illuminated has clear advantages. The computational image processing can be applied also to bigger sensors, so it doesn’t make any sense to compare the raw capacity of a big sensor camera with the processed output of a phone camera. I don’t really think that you have ever seen the output of an RX-100 if you judge it inferior to cellphone cameras.
- starky 8y ago
  The reasons I say it is complex is because depending on the sensor technology, resolution, image pipeline, etc. there are many different ways you could compare image quality. If you compare extremely different sensors, like a 1/3" and full frame, then of course the larger sensor will be better, but comparing say a 1/2" sensor with a 1" sensor is less clear. The smaller pixel sensor will have a better resolution in lp/mm for example, if downscaled to the same resolution as a lower resolution sensor, in many cases you will end up with an image with better detail and less noise (due to averaging out the noise). This is why cameras like the Sony A7iii take a 6K readout and downsample it to 4K for video output. My comment about computational processing still stands though. While a RAW file will give you much more ability to process, complex computational processing just isn't used to nearly the same level in any raw processor I'm aware of (DxO Photolab is probably the most advanced at this, but still is relatively basic), which does make it a valid comparison at the moment. The simple fact is that small sensors these days have closed the gap with larger sensors significantly, while there are areas they are inadequate in, there are other shooting conditions where the differences are minimal which is a statement I would have scoffed at when I started working with cameras 6 years ago.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago

Weiss glass? Zeiss glass? :-) With 'Better images' people often mean today less noise and higher dynamic range. While this is true, the returns are diminishing. 10y ago a 35mm sensor was 1 stop better than APSC, today a 35mm sensor is 1 stop better than APSC [1]. The difference is that 10y ago an APSC sensor was usable at 800 iso and 35mm at 1600iso, while today an APSC sensor is usable at 6400iso and 35mm at 12800iso. The usable range today for the smaller sensor is 7 stops (starting at iso 100) and 35mm is 8 stops, while it was 4 stops and 5 stops 10y ago. 35mm will always be 1 stop better for the same generation [2], but the increase of 1 stop in relation to the usable range (1/5 vs. 1/8) is going down. Same for dynamic range. [1] Due to 35mm sensor being double the size of APSC and iso being log2 [2] And manufacturer

petepete 8y ago
They have all but diminished. Almost nobody can tell what equipment was used by looking at the end product, even if they zoom to 200%.
- samastur 8y ago
  Of course you can for best of category products. Most people just don't care about the difference.
  - petepete 8y ago
    Perhaps if you have the 'same' image shot with different cameras side by side you could point out some minor differences. Sure. But if I showed you (or anyone) a shot with no context and background information you wouldn't have a clue. And that's a good thing. Equipment shouldn't matter, and now the playing field is more level than ever.
    - tombrossman 8y ago
      I think the thing to remember is that modern DSLRs are going to continue to produce decent images across challenging lighting conditions. A DSLR buys you more usable shots to select from later. You are correct, On a sunny day both types of device will produce similar looking 1000 pixel wide web-ready exterior landscape shots. Now take them into a dark cathedral with high stained-glass windows, try for a quick portrait of a priest walking by holding a candle, and the DSLR will still get the shot, and it will look great. Smartphones cannot do this...yet.

sigi45 8y ago

I got a Samsung S9 from work. Holy shit those images are sharp. Yeah at night the software cheats like hell but still. And while my mobile phone has tones of great features (super slow etc.) my DSLR is heavy and autofocus is okayisch. I really expect something good from Canons upcoming 90D otherwise i'm not sure how long hobby people will keep using DSLRs. Of course there are differences in bokey, low light performance, macro, tele etc. but i was very impressed what a Samsung S9 can do now already. I can't imagine that they will stop and you can do a lot with software.

GordonS 8y ago
I have an S8, and I actually stopped using my aging Canon 450D as the pictures it takes are so good (and I'm only taking family pics these days). As long as you don't need to zoom, the quality of the images modern phones can take really is incredible.
- porker 8y ago
  I looked at the S8 recently; how do you find the curved glass at the edges in use? I found the distortion distracting, and thought the colour was shifting. Apart from that, loved the phone.
  - GordonS 8y ago
    I don't have the 'edge' version. It cost extra money for what I saw as a purely aesthetic feature that I also didn't like.
    - porker 8y ago
      Here in the UK the edge version of the S8 is all you can get.
      - GordonS 8y ago
        Ah, my mistake - it's an S7! Still, it takes amazing photos.

coldtea 8y ago

>While pixel density is good, there is no substitute for pixel size ie, larger sensors. Actually, there is: improved sensor technology. A sensor is not just a passive collector of photons (which would make size the only thing that matters). All other things being equal, newer sensors usually improve on thermal noise, dynamic range, etc over older sensors. When things are not equal, a 5-6 generations older sensor might still have worse low light than a smaller one.

ants_a 8y ago
There is not much room to improve sensor technology. Photon shot noise is already the dominant factor. There is a bit of improvement available by modifying the bayer filter to filter less. But other than that, you just need more photons, which means a bigger sensor or a bigger aperture, both of which imply more glass. Or a longer exposure. Higher framerates and computational photography help make longer exposures an acceptable option.
- namibj 8y ago
  Specifically, something like 200+ fps pipelined global shutter. That means you loose less than 1% time between exposures at these high frame rates. But maybe rolling shutter at similar speeds might be able to handle it too... It seems that is mostly trouble if shooting at fast shutter speeds, with a non-stationary scene/camera, due to the wobble e.g. periodic roll shake causes.

mtgx 8y ago

One other problem with high mp cameras with small pixels vs lower mp cameras with larger pixels is that they needlessly need to process those extra pixels and they also need to do a lot more work just to get to the same quality. That translates to needing more processing power and less battery life.

amelius 8y ago

Can't we have a combined (computational) approach, where we use a slower shutter-speed to get rid of noise, while at the same time we use a fast shutter-speed to avoid motion blur? Or use several pictures taken with a fast shutter-speed to reduce noise?

Aeolos 8y ago
Of course. I seem to recall this is built-in into the default Pixel 2 camera app.
- amelius 8y ago
  Any references to papers describing this technique?
Keyframe 8y ago
You can have smaller sensor sites (pixels) and downsample to a lower resolution in order to average away most of the noise. That's one approach with, for example, cameras like RED's new 8k film camera.

jdietrich 8y ago

There's another essential factor that people just don't seem to be talking about - the decline of print. You don't need 40 megapixels of useful resolution if your photos will be viewed on a 2mp iPhone screen. You don't need a sensor with 14 stops of dynamic range if your images will be displayed on a screen with 6 stops of dynamic range. Sensor quality matters much less than it did at the beginning of the DSLR revolution, because the bottleneck in the image chain lies elsewhere. The vast majority of photographers rarely if ever print their images, so most of the advantages of a large sensor are rendered moot.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
crazygringo 8y ago
Actually, it's the opposite. A 4x6 print didn't have crazy high resolution. They usually use 1800x1200px as input resolution (~2.2MP). Your iPhone X is actually slightly more detailed (2436x1125=2.7MP). And if you're talking about stops of dynamic range, print has always been less than a screen. But if you want a photo to look crystal-clear on your iMac's slide show screen saver? That's 5120x2800px=14.3MP. It allows for stunning detail which consumers just never had access to before. (Even the iPad Pro is 5.6MP, more than double a traditional photo.) But the real advantage, of course, in both megapixels and dynamic range is in post-processing: you can crop to the quarter of the photo that's interesting and bring out the detail in the shadows and it's still high-quality enough to use as an eye-catching retina-resolution header for your Medium post. Remember, phones don't have deep optical zoom lenses, so megapixels have to do that job instead.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  >A 4x6 print didn't have crazy high resolution. Which is why most consumers used fairly crummy fixed-lens cameras with fast film and were perfectly happy with digital cameras with ~4MP effective resolution. You do need a whole bunch of resolution if you're printing to double-page magazine spreads, large-format fine art prints or billboards, which is why professional photographers (other than photojournalists) were relatively late adopters of digital cameras. >And if you're talking about stops of dynamic range, print has always been less than a screen. At your local photomat, yes. A good giclée print has about 11 stops of dynamic range. A normal 8-bit LCD has about six stops of dynamic range and a really good OLED has about ten stops under ideal viewing conditions. My broader point is that pretty much all modern cameras are more than good enough for 99% of users. It's a tiny minority who will actually see the benefit of better cameras in the images they produce. Most people will only ever notice an improvement in resolution if they're pixel-peeping in Lightroom and will only notice an extra stop of dynamic range on the histogram. If you go out and buy an entry-level DSLR with a kit lens, you probably won't get noticeably better results than just using your iPhone. That's a good thing for consumers, but a bad thing for camera manufacturers.

Keyframe 8y ago

Here's a good explanation, it's due to sensor size, not pixel size: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-s...

Puer 8y ago

Yup. The RX100 is an amazing little thing - Fits in my pocket but packs a huge punch. People are always surprised (almost put off) when they see me shooting with a tiny point and shoot. Shameless plug, but every single photo on my Instagram was taken with the camera: https://www.instagram.com/mabunday/ https://www.instagram.com/mabunday/ It really is awesome and when friends ask for camera recommendations I always recommend something small because it's the only thing they'll carry around (and thus use) consistently. I know so many people that bought a DSLR as their starter camera that now permanently sits as a house decoration because "it's too heavy."