[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1294831952' post='5442']
I personally don't think that the higher pixel density (as in 24mp APS-C) is more important than a decent low light performance. I don't make huge prints, but indeed use different lenses and some with low speeds. Sometimes even fast lenses with VR don't help to get the required results. So I think having an ISO boost (with keeping the level of detail and color performance) is more important as it allows higher shutter speeds, which is essential. All in all, it's a priority issue based on the given type of photography, and to me higher pixel density on APS-C does not have the priority. Of course a decent low light performance + higher pixel density is very wellcome but only if it could compete with the performance of a sensor with bigger pixels.
My arguement (as a consumer) here was, why dealing with a low light performance in 24mp APS-C, when there's no (let's say) 16-18mp FX sensor that definetly could have better overall performance. Sure the manufacturers would have their reasons to do so but who cares about the cost reduction & market share measures.
In Canon world people have high pixel density with affordable prices and I'm happy for them if the resolution is the most significant criteria that counts. But here at Nikon you must pay for each pixel and I'm not sure if it's worth it.
Serkan
[/quote]
Like I said, every new generation of sensors have given a better high ISO noise performance. And yet, time and time again, the same complaints pop up... About how they should focus on "better low light performance" and not resolution. While it is the resolution that is still lacking.
And again, most photography has NO use for very high ISO settings anyway.
It does not matter how small the pixels get... the 24mp sensor with similar sensor technology will give the same high ISO noise performance as the 16mp one from for instance the Nikon D7000. Yes, the smaller pixels will get fewer photons, so we will see more noise per pixel. And yet, the noise-pixel will be smaller in the resulting image, leading to NO image degradation compared to an image for the 16mp camera.
Yet the image DOES win in resolution.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1294837525' post='5445']
And again, most photography has NO use for very high ISO settings anyway.
[/quote]
But for higher resolution?
Personally, I don't really need more than 12 MP.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1294839727' post='5447']
But for higher resolution?
Personally, I don't really need more than 12 MP.
-- Markus
[/quote]
Why would you need more than 6mp then?
Why need more than 3mp?
If one never makes photos that warrant bigger prints, one doesn't need 12mp. But 12mp has it limits too. And judging by the interest in AA-less cameras for fake resolution and higher resolution FF 135format cameras and MF digital backs, higher resolution is not without interest.
It is fine if you never make photos that should or need to have bigger print sizes, but camera makers do not design cameras for one individual's needs. It is obvious that higher resolution sensors will bring gains, and that is what it is about.
When higher end digital cameras had 3mp (I had a lovely Canon S30 back then) people on internet forums used to say that should be enough for everyone too <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />. We all know now that was a bit silly.
The only problem I have with higher resolutions is the bigger file sizes that come with that.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1294837525' post='5445']
Like I said, every new generation of sensors have given a better high ISO noise performance. And yet, time and time again, the same complaints pop up... About how they should focus on "better low light performance" and not resolution. While it is the resolution that is still lacking.
[/quote]
Why do we need more pixel density, when there exist other things which can be improved? And also I'm not talking about focusing in low light here. I'm talking about having higher shutter speed without loosing detail / color quality / dynamic range.
Quote:And again, most photography has NO use for very high ISO settings anyway.
What does "very high" means is subjective. But I find it useful to be able to use ISO 1600 or 2000 with comparatively better detail and color quality.
Quote:It does not matter how small the pixels get... the 24mp sensor with similar sensor technology will give the same high ISO noise performance as the 16mp one from for instance the Nikon D7000. Yes, the smaller pixels will get fewer photons, so we will see more noise per pixel. And yet, the noise-pixel will be smaller in the resulting image, leading to NO image degradation compared to an image for the 16mp camera.
Yet the image DOES win in resolution.
Exactly, it wins in terms of resolution but I don't need that noisy high resolution, because I don't need that much of high (again: 24mp in APS-C!!!) resolution at first place. And furthermore, if the pay offs are worse color reproduction or dynamic range, I definitely keep them away from me. The noise levels of these high resolution APS-C cameras are always compared to their other relatives in test sites (K-5, 60D, D7000). What if a hypothetical D700x with 16mp could be added to this party in terms of IQ comparison?
Serkan
finaldesignrb
Unregistered
Would much rather have a 16 megapixel camera that has great ISO 12800 performance (15 times my Nex's limit of ISO 800), than to have a camera with a 15 times resolution 200 megapixel sensor. That would be such a huge game changer, to be able to use 1/150th of a second shutter speed everywhere I have to use 1/10th of a second now. And to be able to use 1/1000th to 1/4000th of a second shutter speed at F11 or F16 whenever am outside in the daytime! Much, much more important than some ability to make 40 inch prints instead of 10 inch ones that look smooth, with a lens that would have to be used at F4 or F5.6 to match the super resolution.
However, Brightcolours has made the interesting point that reducing noise or increasing pixels might end up leading to the same place. And if we had mega-resolution sensors, we could certainly throw away the AA filter, nice.
To be specific, if my camera had a 200 megapixel sensor with the same per-pixel noisiness as my current Nex, maybe it would indeed be usable at much higher ISO right now. Because I could down-sample the image to one-sixteenth size and get rid of a lot of noise.
Interesting arguments. Would not shed a tear if all APS-C sensor developers drew a line in the sand at 24 megapixels (something like 18x24 inch final prints at 240 dots per inch) and said "from here on in, we're only increasing dynamic range and usable ISO levels, or switching to Foveon-type no-color-filter-array technolgy".
[quote name='RussellB' timestamp='1294859806' post='5456']
However, Brightcolours has made the interesting point that reducing noise or increasing pixels might end up leading to the same place. And if we had mega-resolution sensors, we could certainly throw away the AA filter, nice.
[/quote]
If I understand you correctly, you mean down sizing pixels would provide so very small picture elements that we wouldn't be able to see the jagged edges (which are actually not there in the real image source), and we can easly get rid of the AA filters. If so, isn't it again a matter of magnification? I think this is only valid for very large prints, right?
Quote:To be specific, if my camera had a 200 megapixel sensor with the same per-pixel noisiness as my current Nex, maybe it would indeed be usable at much higher ISO right now. Because I could down-sample the image to one-sixteenth size and get rid of a lot of noise.
Would be nice, but see my comments below...
Quote:[
Interesting arguments. Would not shed a tear if all APS-C sensor developers drew a line in the sand at 24 megapixels (something like 18x24 inch final prints at 240 dots per inch) and said "from here on in, we're only increasing dynamic range and usable ISO levels, or switching to Foveon-type no-color-filter-array technolgy".
Yeah, they can keep the increase of pixel density up to a certain level, but make more efforts for; increase in dynamic range/color quality with higher ISOs, improved AF and metering in low light, better auto WB, 100% viewfinders with sensor cleaning for all, improve micro lens and photon collection technology etc...
Serkan
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1294844662' post='5451']
The only problem I have with higher resolutions is the bigger file sizes that come with that.
[/quote]
That and amplified corner problems.
finaldesignrb
Unregistered
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1294906868' post='5467']
If I understand you correctly, you mean down sizing pixels would provide so very small picture elements that we wouldn't be able to see the jagged edges (which are actually not there in the real image source), and we can easly get rid of the AA filters. If so, isn't it again a matter of magnification? I think this is only valid for very large prints, right?
[/quote]
Well you don't need an AA anti-aliasing filter if the sensor pixel size is way less than the lens's "circle of confusion". In other words, if the sensor pixels are small enough, every lens "looks blurry" to it anyway, even without an AA filter to provide artificial blurriness.
So if you have a lens that can resolve 50 million pixels, and you have a 200 million pixel sensor, then there is no need for an AA filter between the lens and the sensor, to get rid of weird, fine, false patterns in the result image.
The overall point theoretical point is that, if you had say 16 times more pixels in the sensor than you need in the result image, you could "downsample" the image by 4 times linearly, and end up with an image having 4 times less apparent noise. A fancy way of repeating what was said above, that as the pixels get smaller, if their per-pixel noisiness doesn't change, the final image to some extent could show less and less noise.
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1294909649' post='5468']
That and amplified corner problems.[/quote]
But isn't that highly desirable for lens testers? All lens flaws are clearly revealed. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> May the REALLY good lenses win!
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1294844662' post='5451']
Why would you need more than 6mp then?
Why need more than 3mp?
[/quote]
Well, I personally have 12mp because 3mp or 6mp does not have a better AF/metering/low light performance or LiveView etc... So high pixel density comes with the package...
|
