Reading mode: Light Dark

The 10mp sensors are lifeless

Go to last post
aarif

aarif

Veteran Member
Messages
9,459
Reaction score
1,117
Location
Dubai, AE
I don’t know if I’m alone but from what I’ve seen in all the new dslrs the images lack life and are flat.

With around a 1.5 crop factor the 6mp sensors to me deliver the best images (and I’m not talking about noise ) full of life but when they pack more and more pixels in the same size sensors it just deteriorates.

I remember a while back looking at images from the canon 10D and thought to my self these look better then the 20D.

I have both a 6mp and a 10mp dslr and the 6mp wins easily for me

does any one else feel the same.

Regards

--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites
 
There are too many factors involved in the whole process of gathering the image and converting the captured Bayer Pattern data to a usable format to simply blmae it on a particular processor size.

It may be that it's a firmware issue related to the fact that some 10mpx sensors are built on the same form factor as previous smaller chips... and, the manufacturer didn't optimize the conversion software to take into account dynamic differences in the two densities.

So, if a NEW manufacturer decided to create a new 10mpx chip and wrote compltely new firmware to take advantage of the chip's strength's then you'd see a very different output.

So, I don't know if it's SIZE or simply manfuacturers modifying old software instead of really optimizing new firmware that accounts for what you see.
 
You're getting close...

btw, you've done a a pretty good job spotlighting the strengths of the A100, it seems when browsing the Sony forum... so you are not letting the small pixels get in your way.

-gt
 
Don’t get me wrong it takes some great shots but there’s are few issues with these 10mp sensors too.

Regards

--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites
 
aarif said:
I don’t know if I’m alone but from what I’ve seen in all the new
dslrs the images lack life and are flat.
Click to expand...
You mean no "3D" effect like we are told we get from film, Foveon and Olympus E-1 sensors?

Now I no everybody doesn't agree about those three, but I repeatedly hear such reports from all three of those camps.

Anyway, I don't know what you've seen or how you define "life" or "flatness" when it comes to images. I don't find the images that I get from 8Mp 2/3" sensors or 7Mp 1/1.8" sensors to be "flat". I don't consider the images I've seen from 12Mp D2X cameras or my E-500/300 to be flat either. All of these have finer pixel pitches than the current 10Mp 1.5x crop cameras.

So basically, my guess is that this perception of yours won't hold out. Perhaps you are responding to a different contrast curve or perhaps you are not comparing the images on equal terms. Ya got me, but I'm skeptical as heck that there is much to your observations.
aarif said:
I remember a while back looking at images from the canon 10D and
thought to my self these look better then the 20D.
Click to expand...
Subjective evaluations can be influenced by all sorts of things. Different lighting, subject etc.
aarif said:
I have both a 6mp and a 10mp dslr and the 6mp wins easily for me
Click to expand...
Then by all means use the 6Mp. But I doubt you will find a lot of people doing the same.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
Agree, to really compare you'll have to take the same pictures at the same time (or in a controlled environment). Then experiment with the camera settings to get the result you like best from each model. If you still can tell the difference in a blind test then you might be on to something.
 
Among the 3 dslr's I've owned: 10D, 20D and 5D, pixel per pixel the winner is the 10D

The reason I say this, is because of the "smoothness" of the entire image and when "pushed" in ACR (more exposure) never showed artifacts of any kind. In the 20 and the 5 the noise* becomes in extreme cases patterns in the shape of a grid. Besides this, in the 5D sometimes I see micro banding when "pushed" slightly. Of course, this is mainly seen in the shadows.

Is it noise ? Sometimes I think is like the same pixel pattern position itself stamping its own on the capture.

With the 10D never had any of these problems even when increasing exposure more than 2, almost 3 steps. The noise always was film-like, I mean random. Therefore more usable images and a lot less retouching.

It maybe pixel count, sensor technology, internal interference or external, I don´t know, but to my understanding, Canon delivered a finer electronic image capture device 3 years ago.
Best

Eduardo
 
I was beginning to doubt my eyes, I was looking at a photographer’s gallery in Pbase and this guy was excellent he had some of the best portraits I’d seen.

His picture were from 3 different Canons but what caught my eye was the older 10D he had delivered beautiful IQ and skintones

By the way I have KM 5D and 7D and now I’ve bought the Alpha.

Regards

--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites
 
Very true I think you’ve got a reasonable point which I overlooked but when you buy a new camera you expect every thing to be better and I guess that’s not always the case
--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites
 
Edymagno said:
Among the 3 dslr's I've owned: 10D, 20D and 5D, pixel per pixel the
winner is the 10D
Click to expand...
But the issue isn't pixels, it is pictures. I'm sure that a 1Mp camera has certain pixel per pixel advantages. But it just doesn't have enough pixels.
Edymagno said:
The reason I say this, is because of the "smoothness" of the entire
image and when "pushed" in ACR (more exposure) never showed
artifacts of any kind.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are talking about dynamic range. Of course, how much dynamic range matters is very subject dependant. But it is reasonable to assume that the 10Mp cameras have a bit less DR than some of the 6Mp cameras.
Edymagno said:
In the 20 and the 5 the noise* becomes in
extreme cases patterns in the shape of a grid. Besides this, in the
5D sometimes I see micro banding when "pushed" slightly. Of course,
this is mainly seen in the shadows.
Is it noise ? Sometimes I think is like the same pixel pattern
position itself stamping its own on the capture.
Click to expand...
Objectively verifiable image artifacts are much easier to deal with than vague terms like "lifeless".
Edymagno said:
With the 10D never had any of these problems even when increasing
exposure more than 2, almost 3 steps. The noise always was
film-like, I mean random. Therefore more usable images and a lot
less retouching.
Click to expand...
Again. Sound like a DR advantage.

Maybe. In the end for me the answer is given by which makes the best print. It is easier to live with more noise when it is also accompanied by more image detail.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
Jay Turberville said:
But the issue isn't pixels, it is pictures. I'm sure that a 1Mp
camera has certain pixel per pixel advantages. But it just
doesn't have enough pixels.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone wants to be stuck with the 6mp sensors that is the reason I bought a 10mp DSLR but you also expect technology to move forward enough and not compromise IQ for pixels. It seems that the manufacturers haven’t moved quickly enough to cater the markets demand for more pixels

Regards

--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites
 
aarif said:
aarif said:
But the issue isn't pixels, it is pictures. I'm sure that a 1Mp
camera has certain pixel per pixel advantages. But it just
doesn't have enough pixels.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone wants to be stuck with the 6mp sensors that is
the reason I bought a 10mp DSLR but you also expect technology to
move forward enough and not compromise IQ for pixels. It seems
that the manufacturers haven’t moved quickly enough to cater the
markets demand for more pixels
Click to expand...
It apparently seems that way to you, but not to me. I get images that I'm very happy with that compare favorably to my and other people's DSLR image using 8Mp and 7Mp fixed lens digitals that have much smaller pixels and somewhat less DR.

So I'm very much unconvinced that there is any significant problems with the new 10Mp sensors or that what problems there might be aren't able to be dealt with. BTW, if you like your 6Mp DSLR images better than your 10Mp images, maybe you should look at some older 3Mp or 5Mp DSLRs. They might be just the ticket. You can pick up Olympus E-1s at bargain prices and people rave about the image quality.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
If you have a problem with Olympus have a go at them in Oly Talk don’t shove it down my throat. I don’t have one and don’t intend to buy one ever.
--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites
 
aarif said:
If you have a problem with Olympus have a go at them in Oly Talk
don’t shove it down my throat. I don’t have one and don’t intend
to buy one ever.
Click to expand...
I don't have any problem with Olympus. I have the E-500, E-300 and a C7070. I like them. They are good cameras. I bring up the E-1 precisely because a lot of E-1 users claim something similar about the E-1 that you are claiming about the 6Mp cameras vs. the 10Mp cameras. My initial post mentioned the claim about a "3D" effect that I hear from E-1 users from time to time.

As is clear, I'm very skeptical about all this. But the E-1 might very well have an image quality that you like. There was no joke, jibe or put-down intended.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com
 
Just maybe, this is like in the film days.

Tri-x never went out of fashion despite all the finer grain films and the "new technology" films of those days like Kodak T-Max and Ilford Delta.
The main reason was that fine art advocates found nothing could touch
Tri-x tonality and curve response.

If this is the case, we need bigger sensors, not just more pixel crowding wich of course also adds to the complexity of modern electronic devices.

Always and JUST always, simplicity works better and more flawless.

Eduardo
 
That’s water under the bridge then.

The thing is I have KM 5D and 7D and now I bought the Alpha 10mp which is a good camera and captures excellent details but I still prefer the KM IQ over the Sony. Also I have seen the images from the new Nikon and was not impressed at all specially with the water color look it has in higher ISO’s due to strong NR add that to what I noticed with the Canon 10D and 20D images from the same guy pushed me toward what I’ve said.

Now I know you do not agree but it’s just my observation and I wanted to know if anyone shares that’s with me.

Thank you

Regards

--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites
 
aarif - certainly not my experience. i moved from a nikon D100 to the nikon D200, and could not be happier with the image files and increased resolution. the difference in 13x19" prints between the two cameras is stunning. the D200 is turning out wonderful color rendition and excellent details. the two stock agencies i work for love the image files (8-bit 30mb tiffs).
--
jnorman
sunridge studios
salem, oregon
D200, nikon 12-24mm ED-IF AF-S DX, 18-70mm DX
Cambo 45NX, nikkor SW 90/8, 135/5.6, 210/5.6
Graflex Crown Graphic 4x5 (1948 model)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top