RX100 - Sony, why 20 mp?

When I saw the preview article od Sony RX-100,
I was very intrigued when I discovered it has 1' sensor inside.
Initial thought was: finally something "serious" in really compact body.

But I can't see why Sony compromised fairly large sensor with 20 mp?

Let's be realistic. Do we really need 20 mp in compact camera? 12 or 14 mp is really enough, even 10.

I think that if Sony used, for example 12 mp 1' sensor, pixel density would be much lower which will give us one iso stop advantage (more-less).

Initially excellent camera could have been even better regarding IQ with lower pixel count (IMO).

What do you think?

Regards!

Shinichi

Already discussed.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=41706040

The details at low ISO is very good.
I shoot most at low ISO and landscape, but I don't need 20 MP.
But with the 20MP sensor you can use digital zoom, if needed and still
get excellent e.g 5 MP images.

Also downsample high ISO 20 MP images to e.g 5 MP and see for yourself
the good result.

Only for high speed shooting I can see less MP's is better because
you could get more RAW images in the buffer.

But 12 or 16 MP would be enough for me also. No need for 20 MP, but
it looks like the sensor is good so why not then. ISO 1600 images looks
very good, at least when downsample some.

I am waiting for DXO and Dpreview.com studio shoots, bring em on!

No worries, set JPEGs in 10 or 5mp or downsize from RAW.

The debate of MP vs noise just never goes away.

I used to be in the camp that lower MP is preferable and that lower noise always takes priority. But sensor developments in the last couple years have shown that increasing MP does not necessarily come with a cost of more noise in comparison to earlier sensors.

And I've read enough knowledgeable posts here on DPR by members conducting careful analysis, showing for example when a new gen high MP sensor is resized to match the resolution of a previous gen lower MP sensor, the resized image is at the very least no more noisy than the low MP image, and often times better. (I think you can already do such an analysis on the RX100 vs Nikon V1 samples over at imaging resources, but better to wait for RAWs)

High MP has its advantages

• Cropping
• Can be a solution for soft corners at maximum aperture / wide angle: crop away the edges leaving behind an all around sharper photo.
• Low ISO details and DR

Really the only disadvantage is the increased processing time and storage,

It's going to make cropping AMAZING

ShinichiWTB said:

When I saw the preview article od Sony RX-100,
I was very intrigued when I discovered it has 1' sensor inside.
Initial thought was: finally something "serious" in really compact body.

But I can't see why Sony compromised fairly large sensor with 20 mp?

Let's be realistic. Do we really need 20 mp in compact camera? 12 or 14 mp is really enough, even 10.

I think that if Sony used, for example 12 mp 1' sensor, pixel density would be much lower which will give us one iso stop advantage (more-less).

Initially excellent camera could have been even better regarding IQ with lower pixel count (IMO).

What do you think?

Regards!

Shinichi

Click to expand...

ShinichiWTB said:

Let's be realistic. Do we really need 20 mp in compact camera? 12 or 14 mp is really enough, even 10.

Click to expand...

No...at least not until you wish you had it for extra cropping. Downsizing will likely give more detail which might be nice for certain images like landscapes or cityscapaes.

ShinichiWTB said:

I think that if Sony used, for example 12 mp 1' sensor, pixel density would be much lower which will give us one iso stop advantage (more-less).

Click to expand...

Hard to say for sure, but it bests the J1's 10mp. Look at the results at IR.

The ridiculously-high pixel count is intended to limit its performance, not enhance it. They kill two or maybe three birds with one stone here. It appeals to those who don't know any better than to think that more pixels is better. It also reduces its performance to keep it from being too much of a threat to sales of their NEX and D-SLR models. And some people who might have bought one of their $400-$500. cameras, will give out a couple of hundred bucks extra.

I remember when Nikon announced an expensive pro-quality camera that had the astronomical number of 6 Megapixels on its sensor. This seemed impossibly high and a certainty that it would mark the ultimate limit. Those of us who had Sony H1/H2/H5 and Canon S1/S2/S3/S5 models with 8-MP as their highest pixel-count, know how much better and cleaner their photos were. How much less they showed in compression artifacts and noise. And this was before all the advances in sensor and processor technology we have today. But all this doesn't give the 16-MP to 20-MP small sensors equality with the older and simpler systems with fewer pixels.

The .57-inch sensor in the RX100 really is small compared to M4/3 and APS-C and becomes effectively smaller still, with all those unnecessary pixels. Remember, this is not a backlighted CMOS and doesn't have this feature to increase the available light for its tiny pixels. It may be that those very high-ISO photos on that review website we have been disparaging, had their levels auto-set by the camera in response to dim light and was not deliberately done by the inept photographer.

Why didn't Sony use the advanced BSI sensor system in this model? Maybe they had produced a number of these so-called 1-inch sensors a couple of years ago and ended up with nowhere to use them. To avoid losing their value, they might have designed this camera around them and called it new and improved. This sort of thing happens often in the electronics industry. Things that are old and recycled are transformed into the latest and improved versions as they pass through the marketing department.
--
Steve McDonald
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/
http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos

Because the Sony's 20mp beats the J1's 10mp from what I see over at IR.

If Sony had kept their megapixels down would it have been even better than Nikon's N1 than it is now?

smallcams said:

Because the Sony's 20mp beats the J1's 10mp from what I see over at IR.

If Sony had kept their megapixels down would it have been even better than Nikon's N1 than it is now?

Click to expand...

The whole myth that more MP can only be bad, just won't die. It held some truth when read noise and efficiency were respectively highly and mildly correlating with pixel densities some years ago. But with sensors now largely being shot noise limited with read noise incredibly low and efficiency (per unit area) from pixel packed sensors right up there with the best DSLR sensors out there, this one should be really burried.

smallcams said:

Because the Sony's 20mp beats the J1's 10mp from what I see over at IR.

If Sony had kept their megapixels down would it have been even better than Nikon's N1 than it is now?

Click to expand...

Yes, the 10 MP sensor would have be better than Nikon 1 at pixel level, as the sensor is better. However, you can achieve the same thing by downsampling the 20 MP pixels to 10 MP. Down-sampling reduces the noise, so RX100 is still better than Nikon 1 at pixel level once you down-sample it.

trale said:

The debate of MP vs noise just never goes away.

I used to be in the camp that lower MP is preferable and that lower noise always takes priority. But sensor developments in the last couple years have shown that increasing MP does not necessarily come with a cost of more noise in comparison to earlier sensors.

And I've read enough knowledgeable posts here on DPR by members conducting careful analysis, showing for example when a new gen high MP sensor is resized to match the resolution of a previous gen lower MP sensor, the resized image is at the very least no more noisy than the low MP image, and often times better. (I think you can already do such an analysis on the RX100 vs Nikon V1 samples over at imaging resources, but better to wait for RAWs)

High MP has its advantages

• Cropping
• Can be a solution for soft corners at maximum aperture / wide angle: crop away the edges leaving behind an all around sharper photo.
• Low ISO details and DR

Really the only disadvantage is the increased processing time and storage,

Click to expand...

Your post pretty much tells the true story about high MP counts.

20MP (1) better IQ at low ISO (2) No more noise at high ISO (noise if primarily a function of sensor area NOT MP density ) Each generation of digital cameras increases the MP density and the IQ gets better. What more is there to say.
Bert

smallcams said:

Because the Sony's 20mp beats the J1's 10mp from what I see over at IR.

If Sony had kept their megapixels down would it have been even better than Nikon's N1 than it is now?

Click to expand...

given sony and nikon's history, i would not be surprised that this new sensor in nikon 1 system. In fact sony might have designed the sensor just because of nikon and have used it for itself too.

So for a time being, it may better nikon but it won't be long before nikon come up with their version of this sensor. Expect announcement from nikon for 1 system in coming months.

--
::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

ShinichiWTB said:

When I saw the preview article od Sony RX-100,
I was very intrigued when I discovered it has 1' sensor inside.
Initial thought was: finally something "serious" in really compact body.

But I can't see why Sony compromised fairly large sensor with 20 mp?

Click to expand...

LOL. That's because it isn't.

ShinichiWTB said:

Let's be realistic. Do we really need 20 mp in compact camera? 12 or 14 mp is really enough, even 10.

Click to expand...

What kind of a Socialist are you to decide what is enough for me? If you don't want it, fine. Don't buy it. Go build you own camera to your liking.

Of course many people don't need 20 MP. This is not food or shelter, this is a gadget; For some it will be an EXTRA gadget to do similar things that their current (AND WORKING) gadget is already doing. NEED is not the point, want is. Some people want to print 16x20's, or want to have room to crop, or want to pixel peep, or do whatever they want ... and yet still have a small pocket camera.

Let me ask you this: Do 4-door sedans need more than 200hp? 120 or 140 should be enough right?

Why have them? It just wastes gas while poluting the air, so why have so much horsepower, most cars don't weigh much more than 3700 lbs, seems like you could get by with less at the same time get a big savings in gas money.... huh huh?

Heck, my '05 Civic has 115 hp yet can still reach speeds that would land me an expensive ticket or worse, a reckless driving citation. Surely 115hp is all anyone needs?

ShinichiWTB said:

I think that if Sony used, for example 12 mp 1' sensor, pixel density would be much lower which will give us one iso stop advantage (more-less).

Click to expand...

BS. Maybe 1/3 of a stop - not even that if you look at the V1/J1 for comparison. One-third of a stop is about all the NEX-5n has over my NEX-7; and my NEX-7 even has 8 Million more pixels crammed on to that APS-C sensor than the 5n does. ISO isn't everything - it just seems to be the latest buzz word people are latching on too. 5 years ago your cameras sucked at ISO800, now your ISO 1600 is pretty clean and usable for large prints - see chart below.

ShinichiWTB said:

Initially excellent camera could have been even better regarding IQ with lower pixel count (IMO).

Click to expand...

Yeah right, people said that about the NEX-7 too. (Actually every time a new camera is released with a increase in MP some idiot makes that claim). And they're wrong. At low ISOs, few cameras can match my NEX 7 in terms of detail gathering and DR. The extra resolution didn't hurt it a bit. Comparing the RX100 to the V1 or J1 and the same thing is true. The Nikons can't even come close to matching the detail of the RX100 at lower ISO and higher ISOs you can still make bigger prints - so no penalty.

ShinichiWTB said:

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think most people don't think like you. I think Sony's research and development department knows that too. I think regardless of what any of us thinks about the MP...that this camera is going to be build, shipped, and sold to hundreds of thousands of people.

Last thought... what else you gonna buy?

ShinichiWTB said:

Regards!

Shinichi

Click to expand...

--
NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

Yup easily missed though with all the hype
--
Alan.

...albeit with a small sensor and woeful IQ - agressive NR.

At least the RX100 is competitive with the Nikon 1 and better noise-wise than top compacts like G12, S100, LX5.

Imaging resource has a review with some samples that look pretty good.

Cheers

I was delighted to see another camera maker getting into development of compact cameras with larger sensor. I was a bit disappointed to see MP count going up along with sensor size. Translated to the proportions of a APS-C size this sensor would be 65 MP and > 150 MP on full frame. These are ridiculous numbers as of today.

If the research guys at Sony did their homework and designed the best compromise between MP and "lower noise" / "color depth" and found out that these 20 MP do not significantly impact image quality, then everything is fine for me and the arguments about cropping and low iso details hold. But if they sacrificed luminosity or reduced noise for MP then I would have preferred a new gen 12-14 MP sensor with optimum noise reduction and colors.

You probably won't do studio shots on a tripod under ideal conditions with this compact RX100. You take it with you on a trip and do handheld shots. You'll have a hard time to get these 20 MP sharp under these conditions.

trale said:

The debate of MP vs noise just never goes away.

I used to be in the camp that lower MP is preferable and that lower noise always takes priority. But sensor developments in the last couple years have shown that increasing MP does not necessarily come with a cost of more noise in comparison to earlier sensors.

And I've read enough knowledgeable posts here on DPR by members conducting careful analysis, showing for example when a new gen high MP sensor is resized to match the resolution of a previous gen lower MP sensor, the resized image is at the very least no more noisy than the low MP image, and often times better. (I think you can already do such an analysis on the RX100 vs Nikon V1 samples over at imaging resources, but better to wait for RAWs)

High MP has its advantages

• Cropping
• Can be a solution for soft corners at maximum aperture / wide angle: crop away the edges leaving behind an all around sharper photo.
• Low ISO details and DR

Really the only disadvantage is the increased processing time and storage,

Click to expand...

At first glance it does seem overkill, but I'd say Sony has earned themselves the benefit of the doubt with the 36MP sensor in the Nikon D800.

And we'll see how good the stabilization is on this rx100 once more reviews are in.

LowlightShadows said:

I was delighted to see another camera maker getting into development of compact cameras with larger sensor. I was a bit disappointed to see MP count going up along with sensor size. Translated to the proportions of a APS-C size this sensor would be 65 MP and > 150 MP on full frame. These are ridiculous numbers as of today.

If the research guys at Sony did their homework and designed the best compromise between MP and "lower noise" / "color depth" and found out that these 20 MP do not significantly impact image quality, then everything is fine for me and the arguments about cropping and low iso details hold. But if they sacrificed luminosity or reduced noise for MP then I would have preferred a new gen 12-14 MP sensor with optimum noise reduction and colors.

You probably won't do studio shots on a tripod under ideal conditions with this compact RX100. You take it with you on a trip and do handheld shots. You'll have a hard time to get these 20 MP sharp under these conditions.

Click to expand...

ShinichiWTB said:

Let's be realistic. Do we really need 20 mp in compact camera? 12 or 14 mp is really enough, even 10.

Click to expand...

4 MP is enough for everyone, even 2.

I agree and have said it many times here. For my use and need 4-6 MP is enough.
But it is ok to have more MP's so you can use digital zoom, or downsample
high ISO images so they look ok.

You have the option for both if you got many MP's.
But would be nice if the sensor had some sort of different sensor read-out
so you could get e.g 20 MP, 10 MP or 5 MP RAW files.

Just look at Nikon D700 vs. D800, that is FF sensors with 12 MP vs. 36 MP
if I remember right. The 36 MP sensor in D800 scores higher on all tests
I have seen. Both in high ISO and dynamic range.
And you also get higher resolution with D800, more so in low ISO values.

If the RX100 was e.g 5 MP, it would for sure have excellent high ISO performance
but the resolution for they who need it would be gone.
And it is not so sure a 5 MP sensor would have had better dynamic range, the
latest years have shown us the oposit with low vs. high MP's sensors.