small sensor + tons of small pixels

Started Nov 4, 2011 | Discussions
(unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 831
small sensor + tons of small pixels

A new study reveals that the best images are produced by a very tiny sensor with as many megapixels as can possibly be crammed onto it.
--
Dr. Lecter

granitespider Contributing Member • Posts: 535
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

Isn't it funny? Everytime I see the megapixel push craze I just wonder... ever heard of film? Want better resolution and the best level of possible sharpness in an image? Leave the digital SLR to the side and go to film. Digital will never beat it unless they produce some crazy body/lens combo that nearly nobody will want to afford.

Aktios Forum Member • Posts: 68
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

I've already done it especially with B&W film. I've got tired with the Digital megapixels race.

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,845
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

Doctor Lecter wrote:

A new study reveals that the best images are produced by a very tiny sensor with as many megapixels as can possibly be crammed onto it.

"Best" based on which qualities and which situations?

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,845
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

granitespider wrote:

Isn't it funny? Everytime I see the megapixel push craze I just wonder... ever heard of film? Want better resolution and the best level of possible sharpness in an image? Leave the digital SLR to the side and go to film. Digital will never beat it unless they produce some crazy body/lens combo that nearly nobody will want to afford.

Digital outresolved film some years ago...

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,845
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

Aktios wrote:

I've already done it especially with B&W film. I've got tired with the Digital megapixels race.

But surely, which race you participate in is entirely up to you.

OP (unknown member) Contributing Member • Posts: 831
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

I just wanted to throw out something ridiculous like that... we all hear about a big FF sensor, BIGGER pixels instead of more pixels, etc., etc.... and now they are even saying, hey, maybe we don't really need 45 megapixels to take a picture of our kid's Halloween costume. So, I just threw out the exact reverse of all of this stuff: get the smallest sensor you can find... cell-phone camera size maybe, and then cram 45 megapixels onto it. That's where it's at!
--
Dr. Lecter

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,999
Mission Accomplished. : )

Doctor Lecter wrote:

I just wanted to throw out something ridiculous like that...

As in the subject line: Mission Accomplished!

we all hear about a big FF sensor...

A bigger sensor captures more light for a given exposure, thus giving a photo with less noise. A larger sensor system also make the option of a more shallow DOF easier, cheaper, and lighter.

BIGGER pixels instead of more pixels...

Just the opposite -- you want pixels to be as small as you can make them so long as they don't adversely affect sensor efficiency.

...etc., etc.... and now they are even saying, hey, maybe we don't really need 45 megapixels to take a picture of our kid's Halloween costume.

Or even ten, for that matter. This was taken with 8 MP on an out-of-date camera:

Canon 20D + 85mm / 1.8 @ f / 1.8, 1/250, ISO 400

So, I just threw out the exact reverse of all of this stuff: get the smallest sensor you can find... cell-phone camera size maybe, and then cram 45 megapixels onto it. That's where it's at!

Subject to diminishing returns due to diffraction softening. Currently, DSLRs can pack a lot more pixels into their sensors before that becomes an issue, however.

Look, if you're happy with what you have, more power to you. Tons of people are pleased as punch with the cameras in their cell phones, and they have no need or desire for a DSLR.

Others want to eek out the very best of every photon they can -- what's the problem with that?

But, yes, it's more than obvious that we've past the point long ago where more pixels and larger sensors have any practical benefit for the vast majority of people out there.

Trevor Carpenter
Trevor Carpenter Forum Pro • Posts: 15,265
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

granitespider wrote:

Isn't it funny? Everytime I see the megapixel push craze I just wonder... ever heard of film? Want better resolution and the best level of possible sharpness in an image? Leave the digital SLR to the side and go to film. Digital will never beat it unless they produce some crazy body/lens combo that nearly nobody will want to afford.

Everytime I see a post like this it makes me wonder if you are lib=ving on the same planet

I have some 20 year old magazines which when I look at the pictures, I realise that what I am producing today with my humble E-620 is better than 80% of what was produced then. When I look at today's magazines I'm still trailing a long way behiind the professionals but however you look t it digtal has been a fantastic step foeward.

-- hide signature --
 Trevor Carpenter's gear list:Trevor Carpenter's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic G85 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm 1:2.8 Macro Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-140mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / Power O.I.S +1 more
LinusP Contributing Member • Posts: 713
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

granitespider wrote:

Isn't it funny? Everytime I see the megapixel push craze I just wonder... ever heard of film? Want better resolution and the best level of possible sharpness in an image? Leave the digital SLR to the side and go to film. Digital will never beat it unless they produce some crazy body/lens combo that nearly nobody will want to afford.

I agree with olyflyer and Trevor Carpenter - I find that today's digital point-and-shoots are capable of better pictures than film in most respects, and higher-end DSLRs widen the gap even further.

 LinusP's gear list:LinusP's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Sony E 55-210mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Tokina AT-X 12-28mm f/4 Pro DX +5 more
faith_ps
faith_ps Senior Member • Posts: 1,102
Re: Mission Accomplished. It's all here all along...

Great Bustard wrote:

But, yes, it's more than obvious that we've past the point long ago where more pixels and larger sensors have any practical benefit for the vast majority of people out there.

Hack, i'd even not mind going smaller still

 faith_ps's gear list:faith_ps's gear list
Ricoh GR Digital Sigma DP3 Merrill Leica X Vario Olympus Stylus 1 Canon EOS 5D Mark II +17 more
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,999
Very nice!

faith_ps wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

But, yes, it's more than obvious that we've past the point long ago where more pixels and larger sensors have any practical benefit for the vast majority of people out there.

Hack, i'd even not mind going smaller still

Love them both! Two small nits, if I may -- I'd lift the shadows a bit on the riders in the 20D pic, and see if you could reconstruct the grass obstructed by the OOF weed in the extreme lower right corner in the E1 photo.

Regardless -- excellent pics!

granitespider Contributing Member • Posts: 535
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

I assume you're talking about comparing a digital image on computer screen against a true film print? Don't tell me the image resolutions are the same if not overtaken by digital. No way in hell.

Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 41,999
Digital vs Film

granitespider wrote:

I assume you're talking about comparing a digital image on computer screen against a true film print? Don't tell me the image resolutions are the same if not overtaken by digital. No way in hell.

Well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography

A 36 mm x 24 mm frame of ISO 100-speed film was initially estimated to contain the equivalent of 20 million pixels,[6], although this estimation was later revised to between 4 and 16 million pixel depending on the type of film used. [7]

The [7] refers to this page:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/film.vs.digital.summary1.html

which contains a link to these tests:

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/film_ccd/index.htm

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html

Might want to start a thread about it in Open Talk if you disagree -- I'm sure there are many who can supply many other comparisons.

olyflyer
olyflyer Forum Pro • Posts: 24,845
Re: small sensor + tons of small pixels

granitespider wrote:

I assume you're talking about comparing a digital image on computer screen against a true film print? Don't tell me the image resolutions are the same if not overtaken by digital. No way in hell.

Oh, please...

Welcome to the 21st century. Printed or not printed, digital has passed by the analog film technology a long time ago.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads