Reading mode: Light Dark

16 Mpixels, Sony you've lost me !

Go to last post
rmbackus

rmbackus

Member
Messages
36
Reaction score
13
Location
Zeist, NL
Just now the world is realizing that we don't want any more pixels, but less and bigger pixels on bigger sensors that are more sensitive and produce less background noise, Sony is introducing 16 Mp for their consumer compact cameras.

And see all those crap-pictures, my family members take on the beach, boat, train, plane, station, building, streets, pub, all with huge Mb files, and I have to keep them all.
Sony, you've lost me... :(
 
You can set the number of MP recorded in camera - e.g. my camera has the option of 12 MP, 8 MP, 5 MP, 3 MP, and 0.3 MP ;).

There is no advantage to bigger pixels :O ... just as John's test (below) shows that the compact's sensor with very small pixels (left) outclasses a slice of the DSLR's sensor (right).

I don't know where you got the notion that smaller pixels are worse, but that's wrong. Wrong in theory and wrong in real-life.


rmbackus said:
Just now the world is realizing that we don't want any more pixels, but less and bigger pixels on bigger sensors that are more sensitive and produce less background noise, Sony is introducing 16 Mp for their consumer compact cameras.

And see all those crap-pictures, my family members take on the beach, boat, train, plane, station, building, streets, pub, all with huge Mb files, and I have to keep them all.
Sony, you've lost me... :(
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider
 
I tend to agree with you. 12 megapixels on a full frame sensor found on many DSLR's can produce images that blow the doors off 12 megapixels on a tiny sensor equipped P&S. But for some reason many folks figure more is better. If that's the case I guess the race must be on to jam 64 megapixels on a 1/2.3" sensor.

Dave
 
I'd give two key inputs:

1. I don't disagree with the general principle and idea of what you say, but at the same time I can reason down to what I need, and whether these cameras can deliver that. I don't much care if they are 4MP or 400MP - what I care about is whether I can make a nice 8x10 print, or display a lovely high-res (read: 1900 pixels wide) image on a good LCD flat panel for slideshow purposes...since those are the two things I will need the compact camera photos to do. I will hold judgement on any camera's resolution figure until I see if it will meet those needs.

2. No reason to go shunning Sony for the 16MP tiny sensors. Perhaps you've noticed the slate of new releases that have the very same sized sensor with the very same resolution from: Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, Samsung, and so on? So if anyone 'lost' you, it would seem to be the entire P&S compact 1/2.3" to 1/2.5" sensor marketplace...not just Sony.

--
Justin
galleries: http://www.pbase.com/zackiedawg
 
More is better. The image I posted has a compact on the left, and the 5D2 on the right.
DavePlugh said:
I tend to agree with you. 12 megapixels on a full frame sensor found on many DSLR's can produce images that blow the doors off 12 megapixels on a tiny sensor equipped P&S. But for some reason many folks figure more is better. If that's the case I guess the race must be on to jam 64 megapixels on a 1/2.3" sensor.

Dave
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider
 
TechOutsider said:
You can set the number of MP recorded in camera - e.g. my camera has the option of 12 MP, 8 MP, 5 MP, 3 MP, and 0.3 MP ;).
Click to expand...
No you can't. The sensor always record 16MP. All you pick how much downsampling the camera software does.
TechOutsider said:
I don't know where you got the notion that smaller pixels are worse, but that's wrong. Wrong in theory and wrong in real-life.
Click to expand...
It's a popular, sophomoric generalization. Sometimes it's true; sometimes it isn't. It all depends upon the implementation.

John's example shows that manufacturers of smaller sensors need to be more aggressive in making good use of sensor area. That should be obvious because they have no choice - they have such little to work with that tiny differences in design can make a relatively large difference in performance. That's really the only conclusion one can draw from that example. It doesn't give any insight into how to predict the performance of any particular pair of sensors.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Ron Parr said:
TechOutsider said:
You can set the number of MP recorded in camera - e.g. my camera has the option of 12 MP, 8 MP, 5 MP, 3 MP, and 0.3 MP ;).
Click to expand...
No you can't. The sensor always record 16MP. All you pick how much downsampling the camera software does.
Member said:
I don't know where you got the notion that smaller pixels are worse, but that's wrong. Wrong in theory and wrong in real-life.
Click to expand...
It's a popular, sophomoric generalization. Sometimes it's true; sometimes it isn't. It all depends upon the implementation.
Click to expand...
I would like to see one, single, real-life example of a compact camera beating an APS-C equipped camera. Show me two photographs of the same thing where a compact will produce a better image than a camera with a larger sensor.

Two real world photographs, one taken with an APS-C camera, the other taken with a pinky-nail sized sensor jammed with 14 million photodiodes, where the compact beats the larger sensor camera using any metric you desire.

The closest I have ever personally seen a digicam come close to a DSLR was the H5 (in capable hands), and how the H5 stacked up against my 20D with the 100-400L ($2900 worth, way back then). At base ISO, the H5 gave my 20D with a decent lens a real run for it's money. At 8 X 10 you probably couldn't tell the difference.

That was then, this is now.

Ron, you know better. While manufacturing tolerances are tighter for small sensors, and while thoughtful design and high quality electronics are necessary to make a tiny sensor work, a bigger sensor works better simply by the virtue of it's size. That is why every professional photograher (except for one guy named Alan) shoots with a DSLR, or with a camera with the largest sensor possible. Look down the sidelines of an NFL football game. Those big, white lenses you see aren't conversion lenses screwed onto the filter threads of an HX5.

So I ask again, show me a single, real world example where a compact camera beats a DSLR (or an NEX or M43 or anything with a larger sensor)
 
I'm sorry if I didn't explain the premise of the test clear enough. Note I said a "slice" of the 5D2's sensor as to emulate a pixel sparse sensor.

I don't know of any one time where there were tremendous differences in the number of pixels on camera sensors - in 2005 pixel counts hovered around 4 or 5 MP ... in 2010 it was 10 or 12 or 14 MP. Comparing a 4 MP camera to a 5 MP camera doesn't show much - they are too closely matched.

Here's the original thread for further clarification:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=37472402
harry cannoli said:
I would like to see one, single, real-life example of a compact camera beating an APS-C equipped camera. Show me two photographs of the same thing where a compact will produce a better image than a camera with a larger sensor.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/techoutsider
 
Member said:
TechOutsider said:
You can set the number of MP recorded in camera - e.g. my camera has the option of 12 MP, 8 MP, 5 MP, 3 MP, and 0.3 MP ;).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ron Parr said:
No you can't. The sensor always record 16MP. All you pick how much downsampling the camera software does.
Click to expand...
Ron, you're overlooking the option of Smart Zoom, that samples only the pixels from a smaller, inner sector of the sensor and doesn't process and record the pixels outside that area. There are typically four progressively smaller Smart Zoom settings.

This provides a higher magnification effect, since the effective sensor size becomes smaller. There is no downsizing process and the results are generally better than using a smaller size mode without Smart Zoom.

--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos



http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627
 
The 16MP new sensors will give you better pictures at same printed size or same size monitor display. If you insist on looking at the pixels to compare to a low MP sensor, you are looking at a much bigger magnification factor. In that case, of course you see more noise. For example, comparing the pixels of 4MP and 16MP sensors is like looking at the same distance of a A5 print to a A3 print.
rmbackus said:
Just now the world is realizing that we don't want any more pixels, but less and bigger pixels on bigger sensors that are more sensitive and produce less background noise, Sony is introducing 16 Mp for their consumer compact cameras.

And see all those crap-pictures, my family members take on the beach, boat, train, plane, station, building, streets, pub, all with huge Mb files, and I have to keep them all.
Sony, you've lost me... :(
Click to expand...
 
harry cannoli said:
harry cannoli said:
It's a popular, sophomoric generalization. Sometimes it's true; sometimes it isn't. It all depends upon the implementation.
Click to expand...
I would like to see one, single, real-life example of a compact camera beating an APS-C equipped camera. Show me two photographs of the same thing where a compact will produce a better image than a camera with a larger sensor.
Click to expand...
Why would you ask for such a thing? Nothing I wrote or anybody has written in this thread would encourage such an expectation.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Stephen McDonald said:
Stephen McDonald said:
TechOutsider said:
You can set the number of MP recorded in camera - e.g. my camera has the option of 12 MP, 8 MP, 5 MP, 3 MP, and 0.3 MP ;).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ron Parr said:
No you can't. The sensor always record 16MP. All you pick how much downsampling the camera software does.
Click to expand...
Ron, you're overlooking the option of Smart Zoom, that samples only the pixels from a smaller, inner sector of the sensor and doesn't process and record the pixels outside that area.
Click to expand...
OK, so hurray cropping?!?

I don't think anybody is proposing cropping as a way of dealing with noise.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Tom Hoots said:
TechOutsider said:
There is no advantage to bigger pixels ... just as John's test (below) shows that the compact's sensor with very small pixels (left) outclasses a slice of the DSLR's sensor (right).
Click to expand...
Yes, I suppose you can believe that there is no advantage to bigger pixels, if you believe the results of an insanely bogus "test."
Click to expand...
The test is good for what it is. The problem is that people don't understand what the test is intended to show. This (mostly) isn't John's fault either. He did a pretty good job of explaining the point he was making. The problem is that people don't even try to understand the details of the experiment.

--
Ron Parr
Digital Photography FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/
 
Ron Parr said:
Stephen McDonald said:
Member said:
TechOutsider said:
You can set the number of MP recorded in camera - e.g. my camera has the option of 12 MP, 8 MP, 5 MP, 3 MP, and 0.3 MP ;).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Ron Parr said:
No you can't. The sensor always record 16MP. All you pick how much downsampling the camera software does.
Click to expand...
Ron, you're overlooking the option of Smart Zoom, that samples only the pixels from a smaller, inner sector of the sensor and doesn't process and record the pixels outside that area.
Click to expand...
OK, so hurray cropping?!?

I don't think anybody is proposing cropping as a way of dealing with noise.
Click to expand...
One main advantage of using Smart Zoom, is that fewer bits are needed for the smaller J-PEG encoding. Because of this, for recent years, Sony cameras have given the largest of the Smart Zoom modes one more bit-per-pixel, than the full-size pictures. This higher encoding rate allows the camera to deal better with noise. The 16:9 mode also uses an extra bit for encoding and they look cleaner to me than the full-size 4:3 photos.

Smart Zoom also allows you to see exactly where the frame margins will be and the image is metered only for the inner sector that is used. The image becomes larger in the viewfinder and it's easier to focus and expose it properly.

--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos



http://video.yahoo.com/people/4019627
 
Bravo Justin, you have hit the nail on it's head. You are one of the rare people here in STF that understands that at the end of the day, a camera should be used to produce beautiful photos and not for wortheles mumbo jumbo "tests" and that what you hang on the walls are photos and not DXO charts.

My wife, who is a great photographer told me once - I became a good photographer the day I stopped counting pixels. That sums it all for me.

Cheers
Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.facebook.com/pixpix.photos
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
 
Biu said:
The 16MP new sensors will give you better pictures at same printed size or same size monitor display. If you insist on looking at the pixels to compare to a low MP sensor, you are looking at a much bigger magnification factor.
rmbackus said:
with huge Mb files
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Don't overlook the OP saying the above. Of course, this bit about bytes (sorry, had to say it) does get bantered about time and again then can fade from discussion depending on other factors like improved storage capacity/speed/price, as I'm sure you all are aware.

I'm always sensitive to the issue of large file sizes myself. It almost always requires more space and time. And then there's the internet sharing... family and friends many times don't downsize pictures of even the most mundane subject matter. It can be a minor problem but this thing about enormous pictures along with file sizes can become irritating sometimes.

I'm all for great PQ if the sensors/pixels can deliver it, sure, anyone would. Maybe this is more about a stagnation effect people feel concerning where the technology has been going (I still have hope for the future). I know I'd likely ignore working with huge files if I were being overwhelmed by magnificent output from the cameras. :) And I mean poster-size prints included. I've wanted to do that someday. You may say DSLR or proper type camera for that but I wonder when the pixel number will finally mean something beyond just a bigger number, as apparently others do to. Dynamic range is obviously one of the major things that could be improved upon before going with more pixels.
Uh, sorry, I wrote more than I intended so thanks for reading!
--



EsExThirty; PeeOneHundred; TeeZeeFive; blah-gy 360
 
Ron Parr said:
The test is good for what it is. The problem is that people don't understand what the test is intended to show. This (mostly) isn't John's fault either. He did a pretty good job of explaining the point he was making. The problem is that people don't even try to understand the details of the experiment.
Click to expand...
What is so difficult to comprehend that one sample is at 100% -- i.e., nothing resized in any way, and one sample is at 330% -- i.e., resized to over three times its actual size?

Have you ever resized anything to three times its original size? And then pixel-peeped at it? Rubbish, right?

Tom Hoots
http://thoots.zenfolio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomhoots/
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/4330317199/albums
 
I guess most people do understand the point in this test, they just find it completely silly and absolutely useless. It is merely comparing apples and oranges.

I own a 5dll and if I could take with me on a shoot a small part of it's sensor leaving the rest of it home, this test could have made sense. Until then, this test is not even an academic exercise.

And btw, I am sure that if he had used a MF digital back instead of th 5d, the results would have been even more impressive for him.

Moti

--
http://www.pixpix.be
http://www.facebook.com/pixpix.photos
http://www.musicalpix.com (under construction)
 
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