How do i explain to someone its not about megapixels ?

Started Oct 4, 2013 | Questions
Jay Ell Regular Member • Posts: 256
Re: Fujifilm F31fd vs. Nokia Lumia 1020

Joe186 wrote:

Jay Ell wrote:

Joe186 wrote:

Eh, those 41 MP phones are semi-bogus.

Hardly.

The lens and pixel density gets them.

Pixel pitch has little to do with noise. And the lens is very high performing.

The Lumia 1020 has not only a larger sensor than the F31, but also one that is significantly more modern, ie. has much lower read noise and higher quantum efficiency. Additionally the lens is faster. It has much higher performance potential in low light as well as other conditions than the F31 has.

My prints are 8.5x11, to fit in standard binders, etc. Though, all the models want those big, long (please don’t say it) 9x12 prints now.

Because of that, I need to shoot at ISO 200/400 with the F31. There’s no noise at all, but I do need to keep very steady hands.

No noise equals plenty of noise reduction. That was always one reason Fuji F31 was though to have excellent low light performance among it's peers. The real advantage of it was that the sensor was quite large for such camera. The sensor itself was mediocre in it's time, very inefficient compared to today's sensors.

As you may be aware of, light itself is noisy, thus if there is no noise, it's been sanitized in software.

An acquaintance has an RX100 II. Believe or not, I still prefer the colors and tones of the F31.

What’s your opinion of that?

Opinions are like [cencored] - everyone has one

(nothing wrong with preferring one camera's performance over another as long as one remains in subjective domain or agrees with evidence, or both. Nice that you like yours!)

Yes, it is a remarkable camera-phone, great high tech, etc. On the subject of the lens, the Lumia 1020 has a wider and faster lens than an F31fd, but is it actually better? Straying too far off 35-50mm always seems to bring compromises.

Well, the 31fd has a zoom lens which means more complex design is needed for similar performance, and usually the performance will be inferior, especially for older desings.

The reson why going much below 55mm tends to lower lens quality is a SLR-related issue (due the large flange focal distances) - compacts, mirrorless and cell phones have no such issue.

Additional note, the 31fd has 8-24mm zoom, the Lumia a 7.2mm lens.

The 1020 does have it’s six irregularly contoured lens elements, to offset barrel, pincushion, fringing, etc., but now we’re talking straight physics. To receive, you must give up, no matter what.

You're reading that from marketing material of Fuj, aren't you?

I have no idea what you mean by "irregularly countoured lens elements". It's not stardard optical vocabulary. Anyhow, all lenses have many elements to offset all kinds of distortions and other aberrations.There is nothing special in the Fuji zoom.

The 1020 has 6 elements, and all the 12 surfaces as aspherical. The cell phone cameras lenses tend to be very advanced designs, but 12 asph surfaces is just fantastic (and roughly equal to 12 non-aspherical element conventional design).

What does the 1020’s lens give up to get those specs, in such a compact design?

Nothing really. It is a high end prime lens with really fantastic element characteristics.

I honestly don’t know. In-camera image correction, has it’s compromises too.

What in-camera image correction?

The F31fd’s lens just isn’t asking so much of the light it receives.

Huh? That makes no sense. The lens is just a device which draws the light it collects into the film plane from where the sensor samples it. This cell phone lens puts more light on the film plane than the Fuji. Additionally the (Toshiba?) sensor in the Nokia is significantly more efficient and has much lower read noise to increase the difference still.

They are indeed apples and oranges.

In a way yes, but both are (or were in the case of the Fuji) filling the same niche - compact portable camera.

At that, possibly one of the best examples in compact style photography, of using that phrase. The sensors especially. So vastly different, the time it would take to do a sensor comparison, would far exceed diminishing returns.

Sensors can be measured quite easily if the raw data is available (Nokia doesn't give it), but side by side tests in the would shot the cell phone be significantly superior. This is just what happens when tecnology gets better - the Fuji was fine 6.5 years ago. The Nokia is today's state of the art.

In the F31fd’s favor, are still focus/image processing speed, battery life, insane reliability and nobody can say, that it still doesn't take great pictures.

Well, a photographer takes the great pictures. I am not sure I could take great ones with any tool.

And regarding reliability, I'm willing to bet a lot that the Nokia is far more durable than the Fuji. Youtube is filled with Nokia torture videos (though mainly alightly older and less camaraful 920) when the phone survives almost anything.

At this point, because they are so different, the only real answer would be an objective, public opinion oriented, image challenge

Obective public opinion based test? Sounds like an oxymoron to me

No amount of subjective opinions trups scientific tests.

Anyhow, there is zero objective reason to think that a 6.5 year old compact which shares the sensor of an over 7 year old compact, with a zoom lens, would somehow give a run for the money for a current state of the art imager with brighter prime lens and significantly superior image sensor.

Anyhow, some 6 or 7 years ago I recommended the Fuji F30 to a family member and she ended up being very happy with the camera. When it comes to image quality, pretty much all the currect compacts with large enough sensor and at least a couple of cell phones (Lumia 1020 ja the older symbian based Nokia) are much superior to the old horse.

-- hide signature --

Copyright © Jay Ell

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: the cult of DPR
5

dholl wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

The inventor of the CMOS sensor, so far as I'm aware, doesn't post on these forums. Eric invented the active pixel sensor.

Eric R. Fossum is best known for the invention of the CMOS image sensor “camera-on-a-chip” used in billions of cameras

Although..."billions" of cameras? Have they really made that many?

'CMOS Image sensor "camera on a chip"', not 'CMOS Image sensor'.

Eric's contribution (and it was a big one) was the idea of building a one stage CCD and charge amplifier in each pixel, as detailed in his 1995 Patent, while he was at Caltech

As Prior art, Eric's patent cites this one form Toshiba  for a CMOS sensor, with a priority date in 1990. CMOS sensors were originally developed from DRAM chips, and people were experimenting taking the lids of CMOS DRAMs in the 1980's. I tried it myself. Results weren't good, but it was a CMOS imager.

-- hide signature --

Bob

aandegoons Forum Member • Posts: 57
Re: How do i explain to someone its not about megapixels ?

You are so right!

It is also not about the lens choice, the format, the support,  the availability of accessories, useable ISO, Noise, etc....

It is actually all about the size of the camera.  When is the rest of the world going to get what the MFT guys already know?

 aandegoons's gear list:aandegoons's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G II Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM +5 more
dholl
dholl Veteran Member • Posts: 3,233
Re: the cult of DPR

bobn2 wrote:

dholl wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

The inventor of the CMOS sensor, so far as I'm aware, doesn't post on these forums. Eric invented the active pixel sensor.

Eric R. Fossum is best known for the invention of the CMOS image sensor “camera-on-a-chip” used in billions of cameras

Although..."billions" of cameras? Have they really made that many?

'CMOS Image sensor "camera on a chip"', not 'CMOS Image sensor'.

Eric's contribution (and it was a big one) was the idea of building a one stage CCD and charge amplifier in each pixel, as detailed in his 1995 Patent, while he was at Caltech

As Prior art, Eric's patent cites this one form Toshiba for a CMOS sensor, with a priority date in 1990. CMOS sensors were originally developed from DRAM chips, and people were experimenting taking the lids of CMOS DRAMs in the 1980's. I tried it myself. Results weren't good, but it was a CMOS imager.

Right. So Eric invented the CMOS Image Sensor, but he didn't invent the CMOS Image Sensor?

Gotya.

From Wikipedia:

Eric R. Fossum (born 1957) is an American physicist and engineer, inventor of the CMOS image sensor.

(note the full-stop at the end there.)

Calling it "active sensor, camera-on-a-chip" instead of "CMOS Image Sensor" just sounds like dancing around semantics.

Anyway, whichever is true is hardly relevant to the OP's query.  We've shared our opinions, yours is technical, mine seems more based in the real world.  The OP can take from our little debate what he needs for his argument.

jonrobertp Forum Pro • Posts: 12,876
Re: How do i explain to someone its not about megapixels ?

Tell her to get a smallish cam w lots of megs ...take in her purse..and she'l be happy.  For example, the Sony RX100.   Very popular cam.

 jonrobertp's gear list:jonrobertp's gear list
Canon PowerShot G7 X Canon G3 X Panasonic ZS100
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: the cult of DPR
5

dholl wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

dholl wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

The inventor of the CMOS sensor, so far as I'm aware, doesn't post on these forums. Eric invented the active pixel sensor.

Eric R. Fossum is best known for the invention of the CMOS image sensor “camera-on-a-chip” used in billions of cameras

Although..."billions" of cameras? Have they really made that many?

'CMOS Image sensor "camera on a chip"', not 'CMOS Image sensor'.

Eric's contribution (and it was a big one) was the idea of building a one stage CCD and charge amplifier in each pixel, as detailed in his 1995 Patent, while he was at Caltech

As Prior art, Eric's patent cites this one form Toshiba for a CMOS sensor, with a priority date in 1990. CMOS sensors were originally developed from DRAM chips, and people were experimenting taking the lids of CMOS DRAMs in the 1980's. I tried it myself. Results weren't good, but it was a CMOS imager.

Right. So Eric invented the CMOS Image Sensor, but he didn't invent the CMOS Image Sensor?

Gotya.

From Wikipedia:

Eric R. Fossum (born 1957) is an American physicist and engineer, inventor of the CMOS image sensor.

(note the full-stop at the end there.)

Have it as you like. Eric's first publication on CMOS Image sensors (according to the publication list on his site) was:

S.Mendis, S.E. Kemeny and E.R. Fossum, CMOS active pixel image sensor, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol. 41(3), pp. 452-453 (1994).

In that paper he cites

O. Yadid-Pecht, R. Ginosar and Y Shacham Diamand, "A random access photodiode array for intelligent image capture", IEEE Trans Electron Deviceces, vol 37, pp. 964-971, 1990. This is a CMOS image sensor (that is, an image sensor made using a CMOS process).

I can find two earlier (maybe Eric forgot them)

S. K. Mendis, S. E. Kemeny, and E. R. Fossum, “A MOS active pixel sensor for highly integrated imaging systems,” in IEDM Tech. Dig., 1993, pp. 583–586.

E. R. Fossum, “Active pixel sensors: Are CCD’s dinosaurs?,” in Proc. SPIE, Charge-Coupled Devices and Solid-State Optical Sensors III, Feb. 1993, vol. 1900, pp. 2–14.

Searching further in the literature reveals:

Renshaw, D., et al. "ASIC vision." Custom Integrated Circuits Conference, 1990., Proceedings of the IEEE 1990. IEEE, 1990. This paper describes a CMOS Image sensor, three years before Eric published.

Calling it "active sensor, camera-on-a-chip" instead of "CMOS Image Sensor" just sounds like dancing around semantics.

Dancing around semantics is spot on, your desperate attempt to prove you're right by making hopeful interpretations of secondary sources. You're doing that because you're desperately trying to convince people that you know more about it than me. You don't.

We've shared our opinions, yours is technical, mine seems more based in the real world. The OP can take from our little debate what he needs for his argument.

My opinion is certainly based on the real world. I also presented real world evidence (unlike you) which you conveniently found an excuse to ignore. So, what we have in actuality is my opinion based on theory and the real world evidence versus yours, based on nothing except your own preconceptions.

-- hide signature --

Bob

dholl
dholl Veteran Member • Posts: 3,233
Re: the cult of Bob

bobn2 wrote:

Dancing around semantics is spot on, your desperate attempt to prove you're right by making hopeful interpretations of secondary sources. You're doing that because you're desperately trying to convince people that you know more about it than me. You don't.

I'm not desperate, and I don't care about being right, and I certainly don't care if you know more than me about abstract sensor-tech which no photographer really cares about.

I'm offering the thread a different perspective to you, that's all.  My perspective is:

- Megapixels don't matter unless for very specific reasons.

- More (and smaller) megapixels can mean poorer high-ISO IQ (use DPR's comparison tool to check for yourself).

- A camera can offer the image so much more than just megapixels.

That last point is what this thread should be about...instead it's somehow morphed into another boring technical thread (and before that it was a Mumsnet-advice thread on relationships).

The OP's probably given up by now, haha

Rexgig0
Rexgig0 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,089
Re: If She handled the Canon, and liked it, the argument is finished.

redsf1 wrote:

i DO see where your coming from but i'm just trying to get more advice than i can give her before she spends her money. yes when she chooses the camera she will defo use it. she has a mind of her own and i bloody know it! I'm not saying to her don't buy it as i know canon make dam good camera and lenses all i want is to give her some advice and try and get her to try out a Nikon or Sony just so she can see what else is about. so far all she has done is gone to Curry's and looked at the 1100d and 600D and decided the 600D is the camera for her

Assuming she handled the Canons, and liked them, the debate is no longer just about MP. Fit is important, whether buying shoes or cameras.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and, primarily with 7D cameras, with 10-22mm and 100mm Macro L lenses, shoot evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, PJ, and occasional action.

 Rexgig0's gear list:Rexgig0's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED +44 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: the cult of Bob
6

dholl wrote:

I'm offering the thread a different perspective to you, that's all. My perspective is:

- Megapixels don't matter unless for very specific reasons.

Don't think that's right. In general, more megapixels gives higher resolution, and in general my guess is that many photographers think that resolution matters. Can't think why they'd be spending money on good lenses or why there'd be a market for lens reviews if it didn't.

- More (and smaller) megapixels can mean poorer high-ISO IQ (use DPR's comparison tool to check for yourself).

I did, I posted DPR's comparisons for the D800, D600 and D700 to demonstrate. Here we are again 25600 ISO, A3/300ppi

In know it's convenient for you to ignore them, but there they are.

- A camera can offer the image so much more than just megapixels.

Most (not all) things that 'a camera can offer the image' are improved by more megapixels. That's why we get more megapixels. As competition drives sensor manufacturers to try to develop better sensors, the best and quickest way to do it is make the pixels smaller and put more of them on the same size chip. Some say that the improvements are all about (unspecified) process improvements, but the fact of the matter is, that as the processes are improved and smaller geometries adopted, the optimum size of a pixel reduces. The process improvements are nowadays about reducing source follower size (to increase charge voltage 'gain' and thus reduce read noise), reducing voltage to reduce heat and therefore thermal noise and increasing quantum efficiency. Do all those things together and pixel size has to be reduced. The outcome is increased dynamic range and lower shot noise. The major downside is an increase in crosstalk, but DSLR pixels are still a long way from where that is a problem. Bringing it back on topic, the point is, even if smaller pixels suffer the depredations that you and others suggest, DSLR's, all of them, still have very big pixels.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Rexgig0
Rexgig0 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,089
Re: The easiest way to be heard is to listen ...

Jeff wrote:

redsf1 wrote:

Whilst i'm after a Pentax K30 or one of the K5's and will use it for multitude of subjects she wants a 600D for the only reason of its got 18MP. and the only reason she is going for a Canon is cos its what everyone uses. so how do i explain to her its not just MP? i currently have a basic Oly CSC with only 12mp but its more than good enough for looking at the pics on a screen or printing at a reasonable size. she wants it for portraits so is never going to massive posters. i just don't know how to explain it to her.

You're lucky to have a friend that shares your interest in photography. Learning to do portraits with a friend would be a blast. Life's short. Enjoy.

With regard to the MP question. The 600D is a perfectly sound choice for a starter system. In the long run, the only way to really understand is to learn this yourself through experience. So go out -- together -- and get that experience.

As a hint, based on 36+ years of marriage, listening is often more effective then talking. Show, don't tell.

Based upon fifteen years of marriage, I fully agree!

Especially if she has actually handled the Canon, it is probably an excellent choice, for HER!

I bought my wife a D7000, a couple of years ago, but I already knew she would like it, because I had been listening. Well, actually, I gambled just a bit, because I knew the loved the D300s, too, but she was recovering from a rotator cuff injury, and her employer's D200 and D300 cameras, and SB-800 flashguns, that she was using at work, were causing pain. The lighter D7000 largely solved her problem.

Sharing a love of photography is, indeed, wonderful. In our case, it my wife who mentored me when I started digital photography.

-- hide signature --

I wear a badge and pistol, and, primarily with 7D cameras, with 10-22mm and 100mm Macro L lenses, shoot evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, PJ, and occasional action.

 Rexgig0's gear list:Rexgig0's gear list
Canon EOS 7D Mark II Canon EF 135mm F2L USM Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Canon EF 100mm F2.8L Macro IS USM Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED +44 more
dholl
dholl Veteran Member • Posts: 3,233
Re: the cult of Bob

bobn2 wrote:

In know it's convenient for you to ignore them, but there they are.

D700 is a 5-year old sensor.  And I already agreed that the D600's 5% high-ISO improvement over the D800 isn't significant.

I'm not ignoring your posts because it's convenient, I'm ignoring them because you're just repeating yourself.

- A camera can offer the image so much more than just megapixels.

The process improvements are nowadays about reducing source follower size (to increase charge voltage 'gain' and thus reduce read noise), reducing voltage to reduce heat and therefore thermal noise and increasing quantum efficiency.

I think the OP should tell his girlfriend this sentence word-for-word.

On second thoughts, maybe she won't understand a word of it.

Ok, so on that basis maybe we should focus the thread on more practical reasons why a camera can offer more than megapixels in its pursuit of optimum IQ.  And as counter to that you can continue your megapixel-race crusade (is that cool again now?).  But I'm out, it's just too irrelevant for me.

@OP, here's another reason:

4) faster shot-to-shot bursts, bigger buffer, less memory card space required, easier/faster photoshopping due to smaller files.

MediaArchivist
MediaArchivist Veteran Member • Posts: 5,065
But it *is* about megapixels!!

Have you considered the possibility that it is, in fact, all about the megapixels?

-- hide signature --

Want a roXplosion!?

 MediaArchivist's gear list:MediaArchivist's gear list
Sony a99 II Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF Sony 24mm F2 SSM Carl Zeiss Distagon T* Sigma APO Macro 180mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Sony Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm F1.4 ZA SSM +23 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: the cult of Bob
4

dholl wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

In know it's convenient for you to ignore them, but there they are.

D700 is a 5-year old sensor. And I already agreed that the D600's 5% high-ISO improvement over the D800 isn't significant.

And so a whole load of your argument disappears through the window.

I'm not ignoring your posts because it's convenient, I'm ignoring them because you're just repeating yourself.

Let's do it once more just in case you want go on about the differences in DPReview's high ISO noise for these two again, these from those images displayed

D800

D600

(hastily captured from a screen grab, look full size you'll see pixel for pixel)

- A camera can offer the image so much more than just megapixels.

The process improvements are nowadays about reducing source follower size (to increase charge voltage 'gain' and thus reduce read noise), reducing voltage to reduce heat and therefore thermal noise and increasing quantum efficiency.

I think the OP should tell his girlfriend this sentence word-for-word.

Obviously it was intended for this discussion and to try to get through to you why your argument is wrong. It's probably not relevant to anyone's choice of camera, you'd just buy the one that does the best job, wouldn't you?

On second thoughts, maybe she won't understand a word of it.

Or maybe she will. You have no idea what she might understand.

Ok, so on that basis maybe we should focus the thread on more practical reasons why a camera can offer more than megapixels in its pursuit of optimum IQ. And as counter to that you can continue your megapixel-race crusade (is that cool again now?).

I'm not on a 'megapixel race' crusade. There is no megapixel race, there is simply manufacturers giving us better cameras each generation by advancing the tech. That's competition for you.

But I'm out, it's just too irrelevant for me.

It was always irrelevant for everyone - can't think why you ever thought introducing your own prejudices with no supporting evidence would be relevant.

@OP, here's another reason:

4) faster shot-to-shot bursts, bigger buffer, less memory card space required, easier/faster photoshopping due to smaller files.

Well, she'll see all those in the spec, won't she? The 'easier/faster photoshopping' bit is a red herring anyway, a lot of photoshopping operations become easier with more pixels, sometimes even unnecessary.

-- hide signature --

Bob

prime Senior Member • Posts: 2,214
Re: How do i explain to someone its not about megapixels ?

redsf1 wrote:

. . . she wants a 600D for the only reason of its got 18MP. and the only reason she is going for a Canon is cos its what everyone uses. so how do i explain to her its not just MP? ... she wants it for portraits so is never going to massive posters. i just don't know how to explain it to her.

Second, follow John1940's sage advice.

First, however, ask her to sit before her highest resolution computer monitor and open a web browser. Then -- in separate tabs in the browser -- open:

This 18 MP -- 5184 x 3456 pixels -- photo taken by DPReview editor Richard Butler using a Canon 600D

and

This 6 MP -- 2816 x 2112 pixels -- photo taken, handheld, with an 'umble Fujifilm XF1

Then select Original size; the monitor will be able to show only a small fraction of either image. Wordlessly, scroll the images to places in each photo where very fine hairs on the faces (not coarse beard stubble) show -- where a forehead or a chin or an ear, for instance, is silhouetted against a darker background; scroll to look at areas of skin texture. This will provide a clue to portraiture rendition, but don't spoil it with words. Images sometimes speak louder than words.

Then, follow John1940's sage advice.

John1940
John1940 Senior Member • Posts: 2,820
Re: the cult of DPR
1

bobn2 wrote:

dholl wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

What it says is if you had the EXIF you might well find that the answer was what you expected. Without the EXIF, you don't expect anything.

right...very good then.

The images really are still there, and they really are DPReview's test scene at 25,600 ISO with a D800, a D600 and a D700.

Production economics more than technology.

...in your opinion.

which is a better opinion than your opinion, in my opinion. Better as in better informed.

It would also balk at a camera which introduced very poor results in brighter light.

Who's making sensors like that and why would they? You're just making the same point I'm making.

The saturation capacity of a CMOS sensor is dictated by its voltage output swing and its charge/voltage characteristic. The charge/voltage characteristic dictates the read noise. This sensor has a huge collection area per pixel and a large charge/voltage and therefore will have a very low per area saturation capacity, that means low high light DR. That's why Canon doesn't build this sensor into all of its cameras, it is specially made for low light video surveillance.

It is designed to be ultra noise-free at high ISO and low-light, to do that it needs very large and very few pixels on a full-frame sensor. They can't reach the same quality-of-sensitivity if they packed ultra-HD on there (8mp).

It's all to do with the read noise. They made the sensor to match the requirements of a particular application.

That doesn't tell anyone anything. You're avoiding the question: could Canon have made that same sensor but with 8mp instead of 2mp and still keep the same quality of lowlight performance?

No, but they couldn't either build a sensor that size with that few pixels that had decent low light performance. As I said, it's all about the read noise, more specifically the balance of charge collection area versus charge/voltage characteristic. They've just made a choice which effectively raises the base ISO of the sensor, probably to something like 1600 ISO.

Production economics more than technology.

...in your opinion.

which is a better opinion than your opinion, in my opinion. Better as in better informed.

It would also balk at a camera which introduced very poor results in brighter light.

Who's making sensors like that and why would they? You're just making the same point I'm making.

The saturation capacity of a CMOS sensor is dictated by its voltage output swing and its charge/voltage characteristic. The charge/voltage characteristic dictates the read noise. This sensor has a huge collection area per pixel and a large charge/voltage and therefore will have a very low per area saturation capacity, that means low high light DR. That's why Canon doesn't build this sensor into all of its cameras, it is specially made for low light video surveillance.

This post and the above paragraph are very useful and interesting for folks like me. Photography has been a major hobby for me for over 50 years but I always shied away from developing film because I liked mathematics and physics more than chemistry. (I was mostly a Kodachrome user.) The advent of digital photography and video came at the right time for me, i.e., fairly late in life. Keep up the great work in explaining how sensors and other parts of my cameras function.

I'm sure that I know how sensors work (not as well, probably, as someone like Eric Fossum, but better, in all probability, than someone like you)

The inventor of the CMOS sensor very likely might join this thread and answer the 8mp question (or this thread might need to be moved into the Science-Tech forum).

The inventor of the CMOS sensor, so far as I'm aware, doesn't post on these forums. Eric invented the active pixel sensor.

I'm not getting into a who-knows-more-about-sensors willyfight. I'd just like that question answered reliably, for it helps the OP's case.

Where 'reliably' means an answer that you agree with.

-- hide signature --

Bob

-- hide signature --

John1940

 John1940's gear list:John1940's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill
dholl
dholl Veteran Member • Posts: 3,233
Re: But it *is* about megapixels!!

MediaArchivist wrote:

Have you considered the possibility that it is, in fact, all about the megapixels?

How times have changed...DPR used to be a refuge away from the megapixel-race..we all used to sing from the same hymn-sheet, wishing manufacturers would stop the pixel-increases and focus on IQ & FPS.

Now? Now everyone loves the megapixel race (and everyone loves camera phones).

Times have changed indeed...

bobn2 wrote:

dholl wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

In know it's convenient for you to ignore them, but there they are.

D700 is a 5-year old sensor. And I already agreed that the D600's 5% high-ISO improvement over the D800 isn't significant.

And so a whole load of your argument disappears through the window.

Jesus wept, bob.

I wrote that 3 pages ago. Keep up

I'm not on a 'megapixel race' crusade. There is no megapixel race.

Right on.

The 'easier/faster photoshopping' bit is a red herring anyway, a lot of photoshopping operations become easier with more pixels, sometimes even unnecessary.

Now you're just being silly.

I vote that the girlfriend makes a DPR account and joins this thread before it hits the 150.

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: But it *is* about megapixels!!
3

dholl wrote:

D700 is a 5-year old sensor. And I already agreed that the D600's 5% high-ISO improvement over the D800 isn't significant.

And so a whole load of your argument disappears through the window.

Jesus wept, bob.

I wrote that 3 pages ago. Keep up

Yup, then you came back and said: - More (and smaller) megapixels can mean poorer high-ISO IQ (use DPR's comparison tool to check for yourself).

Just a few posts up, so having lost that argument, you decided to use it again, just in case no-one noticed.

I'm not on a 'megapixel race' crusade. There is no megapixel race.

Right on.

Really, there isn't. How come Canon managed to stick at 18MP for a couple of years without it adversely affecting their sales? Even now, with the 70D, they've made no attempt to surpass competitors which have been available more than a year. All the others use the same sensors, so they're hardly racing. The 'megapixel race' is a myth.

The 'easier/faster photoshopping' bit is a red herring anyway, a lot of photoshopping operations become easier with more pixels, sometimes even unnecessary.

Now you're just being silly.

Nope, it's absolutely true. My D800 files require much less work than my 5D files.

I vote that the girlfriend makes a DPR account and joins this thread before it hits the 150.

She'd probably get better advice that way.

-- hide signature --

Bob

bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,446
Re: the cult of DPR
1

John1940 wrote:

This post and the above paragraph are very useful and interesting for folks like me. Photography has been a major hobby for me for over 50 years but I always shied away from developing film because I liked mathematics and physics more than chemistry. (I was mostly a Kodachrome user.) The advent of digital photography and video came at the right time for me, i.e., fairly late in life. Keep up the great work in explaining how sensors and other parts of my cameras function.

You should thank dholl, because I probably wouldn't have made the point if he hadn't raised that sensor. That is one reason why discussions on these forums can be much more informative than technical web sites and blogs.

Anyway, so far as I'm concerned, you're welcome.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,719
Re: But it *is* about megapixels!!

bobn2 wrote:

dholl wrote:

SNIP

I vote that the girlfriend makes a DPR account and joins this thread before it hits the 150.

She'd probably get better advice that way.

I was thinking the same thing.

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
John1940
John1940 Senior Member • Posts: 2,820
Re: the cult of DPR

bobn2 wrote:

John1940 wrote:

This post and the above paragraph are very useful and interesting for folks like me. Photography has been a major hobby for me for over 50 years but I always shied away from developing film because I liked mathematics and physics more than chemistry. (I was mostly a Kodachrome user.) The advent of digital photography and video came at the right time for me, i.e., fairly late in life. Keep up the great work in explaining how sensors and other parts of my cameras function.

You should thank dholl, because I probably wouldn't have made the point if he hadn't raised that sensor. That is one reason why discussions on these forums can be much more informative than technical web sites and blogs.

Anyway, so far as I'm concerned, you're welcome.

OK, thank you dholl and thank you Bob!

John1940

 John1940's gear list:John1940's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads