Pixel density - can the playing field be leveled???

Started Jun 6, 2009 | Discussions thread
Malcolm Practice Contributing Member • Posts: 593
Re: Same result..

bushi wrote:

John Sheehy wrote:

What you're saying hasn't been happening, though. Even with tiny P&S pixels and incrementing pixel density, QE and total photon collection per unit of area has generally been on the increase.

OMG, and since when I am saying that it was decreasing??? All I am saying, over & over & over again, is IF THEY PUT LESS MP ON THE SAME CHIP IN THE SAME TECHNOLOGY IT WOULD INCREASE EVEN MORE!!!!!!!!

...and what many others say to that sort of statement is where is your evidence to support that conjecture? You would have to establish a direct causal link between pixel density and QE to be able to make that statement, and to my knowledge no-one on your side of the debate has been able to do that. If you look at families of sensors using essentially the sem technology (such as Canon, for instance) there seems to be no correlation between QE and pixel density, yet alone establishment of causality.

Unless that constant increase is caused by decreasing photosite size. Unlikely, agree?

I for one disagree. With modern sensors light gathering ability s determined as much as anything by the effectiveness of the microlenses, and there are several reasons to believe that it could be easier to design high coverage microlenses if pixels are smaller, the major one being that big pixels require very low f-numbers for the microlenses, and some may approach the f/0.5 limit for spherical optics (hence the use of aspherics in the D3. P&S sensors had 100% microlens coverage some time before DSLR's.

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow