5 ms·

Why would a dedicated camera need to take huge numbers of photos to overcome sensor noise when it's not there in the first place? No, I think that's a bad exam

Why would a dedicated camera need to take huge numbers of photos to overcome sensor noise when it's not there in the first place? No, I think that's a bad example to choose. I do take your point, dedicated camera development is more conservative, but their market is different. If you splurge £10k on a camera system, you are likely a pro, and you want consistency, and longevity to the design and the operation of the system. Thinking about it, dedicated cameras have mainly been innovating in video production rather than stills in the last 5 years.

StavrosK 6y ago
I agree with the GP but for a different reason. It's unacceptable to me that I have to buy a separate trigger so I can take exposures 31 seconds long. There's no reason why the timer should only go up to 30, or that I shouldn't have better bracketing, or a timelapse mode, etc etc. Basically, all of Magic Lantern (a considerable feature set) should have been standard.
- sukilot 6y ago
  That's a weird nitpick. My phone doesn't even have a headphone jack or an SD card tray. A free aftermarket add-on isn't a blocker.
  - StavrosK 6y ago
    It's a blocker for me because I don't want to pay Canon $160 for something that was deliberately left off the software so I'd have to pay Canon $160. Also, it's a literal button. I'm paying $160 for a button with a timer on it.
    - c9fc42ad 6y ago
      I agree that the camera software should just let you pick any shutter speed, but you can get a pretty cheap remote button or intervalometer for <$30, or even DIY one for cheaper. What does the $160 canon button give you that a cheaper version doesn't?
      - StavrosK 6y ago
        The cheaper ones don't come with a timer, do they? Besides, it's not that I haven't found a solution (Magic Lantern lets me set the speed to however long I want), but I dislike the gesture. It's obvious that they're gating features so they can release them in the next model.
andromeduck 6y ago
Dynamic range and motion blur/shake reduction.
londons_explore 6y ago
> Why would a dedicated camera need to take huge numbers of photos to overcome sensor noise when it's not there in the first place? Except there is noise. There is always some dark spot that could do with a little more detail. There is always a bright reflection that saturates the sensor losing its color information. With a decent burst and enough computational photography, you can recover all that information.
- throwanem 6y ago
  First, that's not noise. Second, modern ILC sensors have dynamic range to spare; you can usually pull a couple stops of detail on both sides in post. Third, if you want HDR, which is what you're talking about here anyway, modern ILCs can do it and have been able to for years. You set it up like bracketing and it assembles the shots in camera just like a phone does.
hn_check 6y ago
"Why would a dedicated camera need to take huge numbers of photos to overcome sensor noise when it's not there in the first place?" You have clearly never looked at unprocessed RAW data from the sensor or you wouldn't be saying something so completely wrong.
- centimeter 6y ago
  Signal to noise ratio on any “real” camera format (FF, APSC, MFT) is vastly superior to SNR on a cell phone camera. It’s not even in the same ballpark. PhotonsToPhotos has a lot of numerical comparisons available.
  - hn_check 6y ago
    Firstly, I was responding to the claim that sensor noise "isn't there" on a dedicated camera [1], fullstop, which is ludicrously wrong. Without processing what comes out of the sensor is an ugly beast. Secondly, strange that you don't actually link anything to demonstrate this noise advantage. Much less that it's "vastly superior" and "not even in the same ballpark". Hint -- because it isn't. [1] - which is a revealing bit of cargo cult analysis. Sensor quality across "dedicated" cameras have enormous variations, and a lot are simply terrible. One of the reasons smartphones do burst and computational photography is for extended dynamic range, yet the iPhone 11 already has a sensor with more dynamic range than the significant majority of SLRs/mirrorless cameras. There are obviously better sensors, like the A7R II+, but there are many that are worse, sometimes much worse.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      > Secondly, strange that you don't actually link anything I told you the name of the website where you should look. How explicit do I have to be for you? Here's a link if it helps. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm Compare an iPhone XS Max to a an A7R4 or something. At ISO 100, The A7R4 has 11.6 bits of dynamic range and the iPhone has 6.4 bits. HUGE difference. > Without processing what comes out of the sensor is an ugly beast. RAWs from a large sensor without denoising look fine. On my camera I only have lens correction and color correction - zero denoising. I've done statistical analysis of dark frames using LibRaw to make sure this is actually the case, and indeed I exactly replicated the results from PhotonsToPhotos. > yet the iPhone 11 already has a sensor with more dynamic range than the significant majority of SLRs/mirrorless cameras Hahahaha, please, show me one even APS-C camera from Sony, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, or any other reputable manufacturer made in the last 4 years that has a worse PDR than the iPhone 11.
frooxie 6y ago
> dedicated cameras have mainly been innovating in video production rather than stills in the last 5 years. Well, not Sony. Their mirrorless cameras have gotten much better autofocus and battery life and slightly better ergonomics, usability, speed and weather-sealing, but there has basically been no change in their video capabilities.

StavrosK 6y ago

I agree with the GP but for a different reason. It's unacceptable to me that I have to buy a separate trigger so I can take exposures 31 seconds long. There's no reason why the timer should only go up to 30, or that I shouldn't have better bracketing, or a timelapse mode, etc etc. Basically, all of Magic Lantern (a considerable feature set) should have been standard.

sukilot 6y ago
That's a weird nitpick. My phone doesn't even have a headphone jack or an SD card tray. A free aftermarket add-on isn't a blocker.
- StavrosK 6y ago
  It's a blocker for me because I don't want to pay Canon $160 for something that was deliberately left off the software so I'd have to pay Canon $160. Also, it's a literal button. I'm paying $160 for a button with a timer on it.
  - c9fc42ad 6y ago
    I agree that the camera software should just let you pick any shutter speed, but you can get a pretty cheap remote button or intervalometer for <$30, or even DIY one for cheaper. What does the $160 canon button give you that a cheaper version doesn't?
    - StavrosK 6y ago
      The cheaper ones don't come with a timer, do they? Besides, it's not that I haven't found a solution (Magic Lantern lets me set the speed to however long I want), but I dislike the gesture. It's obvious that they're gating features so they can release them in the next model.

andromeduck 6y ago

Dynamic range and motion blur/shake reduction.

londons_explore 6y ago

> Why would a dedicated camera need to take huge numbers of photos to overcome sensor noise when it's not there in the first place? Except there is noise. There is always some dark spot that could do with a little more detail. There is always a bright reflection that saturates the sensor losing its color information. With a decent burst and enough computational photography, you can recover all that information.

throwanem 6y ago
First, that's not noise. Second, modern ILC sensors have dynamic range to spare; you can usually pull a couple stops of detail on both sides in post. Third, if you want HDR, which is what you're talking about here anyway, modern ILCs can do it and have been able to for years. You set it up like bracketing and it assembles the shots in camera just like a phone does.

hn_check 6y ago

"Why would a dedicated camera need to take huge numbers of photos to overcome sensor noise when it's not there in the first place?" You have clearly never looked at unprocessed RAW data from the sensor or you wouldn't be saying something so completely wrong.

centimeter 6y ago
Signal to noise ratio on any “real” camera format (FF, APSC, MFT) is vastly superior to SNR on a cell phone camera. It’s not even in the same ballpark. PhotonsToPhotos has a lot of numerical comparisons available.
- hn_check 6y ago
  Firstly, I was responding to the claim that sensor noise "isn't there" on a dedicated camera [1], fullstop, which is ludicrously wrong. Without processing what comes out of the sensor is an ugly beast. Secondly, strange that you don't actually link anything to demonstrate this noise advantage. Much less that it's "vastly superior" and "not even in the same ballpark". Hint -- because it isn't. [1] - which is a revealing bit of cargo cult analysis. Sensor quality across "dedicated" cameras have enormous variations, and a lot are simply terrible. One of the reasons smartphones do burst and computational photography is for extended dynamic range, yet the iPhone 11 already has a sensor with more dynamic range than the significant majority of SLRs/mirrorless cameras. There are obviously better sensors, like the A7R II+, but there are many that are worse, sometimes much worse.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    > Secondly, strange that you don't actually link anything I told you the name of the website where you should look. How explicit do I have to be for you? Here's a link if it helps. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm Compare an iPhone XS Max to a an A7R4 or something. At ISO 100, The A7R4 has 11.6 bits of dynamic range and the iPhone has 6.4 bits. HUGE difference. > Without processing what comes out of the sensor is an ugly beast. RAWs from a large sensor without denoising look fine. On my camera I only have lens correction and color correction - zero denoising. I've done statistical analysis of dark frames using LibRaw to make sure this is actually the case, and indeed I exactly replicated the results from PhotonsToPhotos. > yet the iPhone 11 already has a sensor with more dynamic range than the significant majority of SLRs/mirrorless cameras Hahahaha, please, show me one even APS-C camera from Sony, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, or any other reputable manufacturer made in the last 4 years that has a worse PDR than the iPhone 11.

frooxie 6y ago

> dedicated cameras have mainly been innovating in video production rather than stills in the last 5 years. Well, not Sony. Their mirrorless cameras have gotten much better autofocus and battery life and slightly better ergonomics, usability, speed and weather-sealing, but there has basically been no change in their video capabilities.