01-12-2011, 09:28 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-12-2011, 09:29 AM by Brightcolours.)
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1294820655' post='5439']
That's what I meant... Tiny pixels on a smaller cropped sensor. How much low light performance can be expected without loosing detail and color performance. They seem to be following the market needs and think that high pixel density APS-C sensors deserve that much investment. I just can't understand why not investing on a 16-18MP FF sensor with a brilliant low light performance?
Serkan
[/quote]
Your criticism does is not right, what is the obsession with "low light" anyway... Way more important is higher resolution, you actually get something from that with every image you take.
You can see that too from every discussion about AA-filters. Without AA-filter, you get more, but fake, detail. Apparently that is very attractive to some. But AA-filters are very important to capture a true image. More real detail can only be achieved by higher resolutions.
It is the same criticism every new sensor... from 6mp to 10mp, 10 to 12, 12 to 16, 16 to 24(?). Yet every generation gives on the whole better images, and even better low light performance. take for instance the current 18mp sensor from Canon, in high ISO it gives remarkable results for APS-C, something we could not have imagined 4 years ago. Or look at the 16mp sensor Pentax and Nikon are using, crazy low noise especially at base ISO, yet smaller pixels than the 12mp generation before it.
Only real downside to the higher resolution is the bigger and bigger file sizes for the RAW files.
That's what I meant... Tiny pixels on a smaller cropped sensor. How much low light performance can be expected without loosing detail and color performance. They seem to be following the market needs and think that high pixel density APS-C sensors deserve that much investment. I just can't understand why not investing on a 16-18MP FF sensor with a brilliant low light performance?
Serkan
[/quote]
Your criticism does is not right, what is the obsession with "low light" anyway... Way more important is higher resolution, you actually get something from that with every image you take.
You can see that too from every discussion about AA-filters. Without AA-filter, you get more, but fake, detail. Apparently that is very attractive to some. But AA-filters are very important to capture a true image. More real detail can only be achieved by higher resolutions.
It is the same criticism every new sensor... from 6mp to 10mp, 10 to 12, 12 to 16, 16 to 24(?). Yet every generation gives on the whole better images, and even better low light performance. take for instance the current 18mp sensor from Canon, in high ISO it gives remarkable results for APS-C, something we could not have imagined 4 years ago. Or look at the 16mp sensor Pentax and Nikon are using, crazy low noise especially at base ISO, yet smaller pixels than the 12mp generation before it.
Only real downside to the higher resolution is the bigger and bigger file sizes for the RAW files.