Dynamic Range: Does Sensor Size Really Matter?

[pmech]

All the cameras are pretty good these days to the extent that it matters. There are always tricky scenes that require protecting highlights or boosting shadows. A quick exposure bracket usually gives me plenty of options for final proofs.

 

[tbcass]

Any real-world differences would have to do with read noise, and even with read noise, the pixel readout rates and bit depths seem to be more of a factor than the actual size of the pixels, for the post-gain read noise which is a major bottleneck to base-ISO DR, both "as measured" and visibly, and at higher ISOs, the post-gain read noise is not affecting the simple noise deviation measurements, but if it has any spatial correlation to it, it may still be visible.

i can only go off the facts.

"Sports" is a pretty worthless metric, IMO, because it concerns mainly with midtones and highlights at medium ISOs and tells nothing about shadows at truly high ISOs, which is where the real challenge is.

I take the "Landscape" a bit more seriously for DR, but I never said that higher pixel counts never give more noise. What I have said is that smaller pixels do not necessarily result in higher noise or lower DR per unit of sensor area, and that the real challenge is the compromise between rolling shutter speed and low noise, when the pixel *count* is high (not because the density is high!).

Re: Dynamic Range: pixel size, not sensor size: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)

You might find this interesting.

DXOMARK camera sensor testing protocol and scores - DXOMARK

--
Tom

 

[ishwanu]

If camera A has a DR of 11 EV and camera B has a DR of 10 EV, 11 may be 10% more than 10, but Camera A's DR is double that of Camera B's .

How do you define double in this specific case?

Each full stop increment doubles the collected light. 11 stops vs. 10 stops = twice as much.

 

[Mako2011]

If camera A has a DR of 11 EV and camera B has a DR of 10 EV, 11 may be 10% more than 10, but Camera A's DR is double that of Camera B's .

How do you define double in this specific case?

Each full stop increment doubles the collected light. 11 stops vs. 10 stops = twice as much.

True (I think)...but also true you don't see double the detail going from 10 to 11 stops in terms of DR

 

[John Sheehy]

True, except this is an artifact of the electronic signal processing , not of the sensor,

That depends whether you consider the read-out circuitry from the sensors to be part of the sensor.

This reminds me of Roger N. Clark's published "Sensor DR" values, were he took the number of electron charges at full-well capacity at base ISO, and divided by the read noise in electrons at the highest ISO setting. That's academically interesting, I suppose, but it is something that the camera can never give you in a single exposure. You would have to take two exposures, one at base ISO, and the other at the highest analog gain ISO, and blend them together with a ramped threshold algorithm.

It doesn't matter what the sensor by itself can do, if you can never get just what the sensor captured. You must read it out, and consequently, add more noise, which has the greatest impact in the shadow areas.

and does not affect the DR.

It most certainly does affect the DR of the image.

It is actually what mainly affects it, with larger pixels, at base ISO.

 

[AlGears]

Hey fellow photogs!

I've been diving deep into the technical aspects of dynamic range lately, and I've come across some conflicting information regarding the impact of sensor size. Some argue that larger sensors inherently have better dynamic range,

For a given sensor technology, it is generally true.

while others believe that advancements in technology are closing the gap.

The only gap that closes is the gap between the new small sensors and the old large sensors. Large sensors with the new tech have the same amount of advantage as before.

The recent BSI / partial sensor designs also play a role here.

What's your take on this? Any personal experiences or scientific insights you'd like to share?

DR is not some one clear thing that can be measured like the length of a dowel. It is abstract, and has multiple definitions, but the basic idea is "how much can you expose below highlight clipping and still have an image that isn't too noisy in those poorly exposed areas?".

That is pretty much determined by noise. Noise can come from the total light itself, and can be added by electronics used to digitize the exposure.

If there were no added electronic noise, then the total amount of photons, or exposure times area, would determine the DR, and with the same quantum efficiency, the larger sensor would have the greater DR. Real world cameras have electronic noise, though, and part of that electronic noise has nothing to do directly with sensor area, so it is possible for a larger sensor to have so much electronic noise that it has less DR than a smaller sensor with less electronic noise.

This is a great perspective, thanks for sharing!

If I correctly think this through this also means that bigger sensors with a smaller pixel pitch from about the same generation of sensor design have lower dynamic range than smaller sensors with a bigger pixel pitch?

How did you reach that conclusion? A FF sensor with a given level of tech captures the same number of photons, regardless of whether the sensor is divided into 20MP or 50MP.

Great response here (in particular "The only gap that closes is the gap between the new small sensors and the old large sensors. Large sensors with the new tech have the same amount of advantage as before.")

I am not sure what else there was to say after this, but it appears my imagination was limited...

Carry on.

 

[tbcass]

Great response here (in particular "The only gap that closes is the gap between the new small sensors and the old large sensors. Large sensors with the new tech have the same amount of advantage as before.")

I am not sure what else there was to say after this, but it appears my imagination was limited...

Carry on.

The other issue is while the gap remains the same there comes a point where the practical advantage of a large sensor over a smaller one becomes far less important. For many the maximum performance of a larger sensor is unimportant. When I compare images from an M43 sensor and a 1" sensor I find it difficult to see a difference.

 

[roger6002]

I hope this topic has not been answered already: Does sensor size and/or sensor resolution matter in terms of picture quality? I own both the D90 and the D3200 DSLR cameras and I cannot notice any difference in picture quality in the photos taken by both which leads me to believe that although the D90 sensor resolution is half that of the D3200's, it makes up for its image sensor size (the D90's sensor is larger than the D3200's).

I uploaded two pictures here, one from each DX camera with no filters, using the same prime lens, and set to the same picture controls. You be the judge as to which photo is better in terms of sharpness, saturation, detail, exposure, etc. (the pictures were taken straight out of the cameras and converted to JPEG to be uploaded here; they were not enhanced) and explain if either sensor size, resolution, or both, are making the difference.

Photo taken by the Nikon D90.

Taken by the Nikon D3200.

 

[FingerPainter]

I hope this topic has not been answered already: Does sensor size and/or sensor resolution matter in terms of picture quality? I own both the D90 and the D3200 DSLR cameras and I cannot notice any difference in picture quality in the photos taken by both which leads me to believe that although the D90 sensor resolution is half that of the D3200's, it makes up for its image sensor size (the D90's sensor is larger than the D3200's).

There is no meaningful difference in size between the two sensors, and I'm surprised you can't see a difference in sharpness or noisiness in the shingles and air vents.

I uploaded two pictures here, one from each DX camera with no filters, using the same prime lens, and set to the same picture controls.

You invalidated your test by not giving the two cameras the same exposure. You gave the D3200 twice as much light.

You be the judge as to which photo is better in terms of sharpness, saturation, detail, exposure, etc. (the pictures were taken straight out of the cameras and converted to JPEG to be uploaded here; they were not enhanced) and explain if either sensor size, resolution, or both, are making the difference.

Resolution and exposure are both making a visible difference.

 

[ishwanu]

I hope this topic has not been answered already: Does sensor size and/or sensor resolution matter in terms of picture quality?

Sure. they both matter. If they didn't, there'd be very little reason for people to use cameras with anything but the smallest, lowest resolution sensors.

I own both the D90 and the D3200 DSLR cameras and I cannot notice any difference in picture quality in the photos taken by both which leads me to believe that although the D90 sensor resolution is half that of the D3200's, it makes up for its image sensor size (the D90's sensor is larger than the D3200's).

Sometimes it takes doubling the pixel count to observe any difference; sometimes it doesn't. I can directly compare images shot with the same lens on two cameras of the same format, one with a 10MP sensor and one with an 18MP sensor. If I record a well lit scene with fine details, I can definitely see the improved sharpness of the 18MP version when examining them closely.

Also, as noted, the sensor size difference between your two cameras is so minor that it's inconsequential. It's the difference between the center white area and the gray outlined area below.

 

[roger6002]

I hope this topic has not been answered already: Does sensor size and/or sensor resolution matter in terms of picture quality?

Sure. they both matter. If they didn't, there'd be very little reason for people to use cameras with anything but the smallest, lowest resolution sensors.

I looked over the pictures these two cameras took and with the same lighting conditions both were identical photos. To the unaided eye, it is impossible to spot any difference, the pictures they take under the same conditions are the spitting image of the other.

I sometimes think we are putting a lot of resolution in our cameras to justify the cost we want to see, and as a marketing strategy.

I own both the D90 and the D3200 DSLR cameras and I cannot notice any difference in picture quality in the photos taken by both which leads me to believe that although the D90 sensor resolution is half that of the D3200's, it makes up for its image sensor size (the D90's sensor is larger than the D3200's).

Sometimes it takes doubling the pixel count to observe any difference; sometimes it doesn't. I can directly compare images shot with the same lens on two cameras of the same format, one with a 10MP sensor and one with an 18MP sensor. If I record a well lit scene with fine details, I can definitely see the improved sharpness of the 18MP version when examining them closely.

Also, as noted, the sensor size difference between your two cameras is so minor that it's inconsequential. It's the difference between the center white area and the gray outlined area below.

The difference is much bigger than that, ishwanu.

 

[roger6002]

The difference in sensor size between the two cameras is not that small but, I agree, it would not make a significant difference in their picture quality.

 

[ishwanu]

The difference in sensor size between the two cameras is not that small .

Why do you say that? Are these specs incorrect?

The rectangles I posted are in those exact ratios.

 

[John Sheehy]

Also, as noted, the sensor size difference between your two cameras is so minor that it's inconsequential. It's the difference between the center white area and the gray outlined area below.

The difference is much bigger than that, ishwanu.

They're both Nikon 1.5x DX format. How different could they be, without one being 1.4x or 1.6x?

 

[ishwanu]

I hope this topic has not been answered already: Does sensor size and/or sensor resolution matter in terms of picture quality?

Sure. they both matter. If they didn't, there'd be very little reason for people to use cameras with anything but the smallest, lowest resolution sensors.

I looked over the pictures these two cameras took and with the same lighting conditions both were identical photos. To the unaided eye, it is impossible to spot any difference, the pictures they take under the same conditions are the spitting image of the other.

I sometimes think we are putting a lot of resolution in our cameras to justify the cost we want to see, and as a marketing strategy.

You can think that, but the answer to your questions is still yes, both matter.

I own both the D90 and the D3200 DSLR cameras and I cannot notice any difference in picture quality in the photos taken by both which leads me to believe that although the D90 sensor resolution is half that of the D3200's, it makes up for its image sensor size (the D90's sensor is larger than the D3200's).

Sometimes it takes doubling the pixel count to observe any difference; sometimes it doesn't. I can directly compare images shot with the same lens on two cameras of the same format, one with a 10MP sensor and one with an 18MP sensor. If I record a well lit scene with fine details, I can definitely see the improved sharpness of the 18MP version when examining them closely.

Also, as noted, the sensor size difference between your two cameras is so minor that it's inconsequential. It's the difference between the center white area and the gray outlined area below.

The difference is much bigger than that, ishwanu.

Why do you say that? Are these specs incorrect?

The rectangles I posted are in those exact ratios.

 

[roger6002]

I hope this topic has not been answered already: Does sensor size and/or sensor resolution matter in terms of picture quality?

Sure. they both matter. If they didn't, there'd be very little reason for people to use cameras with anything but the smallest, lowest resolution sensors.

I looked over the pictures these two cameras took and with the same lighting conditions both were identical photos. To the unaided eye, it is impossible to spot any difference, the pictures they take under the same conditions are the spitting image of the other.

I sometimes think we are putting a lot of resolution in our cameras to justify the cost we want to see, and as a marketing strategy.

You can think that, but the answer to your questions is still yes, both matter.

I own both the D90 and the D3200 DSLR cameras and I cannot notice any difference in picture quality in the photos taken by both which leads me to believe that although the D90 sensor resolution is half that of the D3200's, it makes up for its image sensor size (the D90's sensor is larger than the D3200's).

Sometimes it takes doubling the pixel count to observe any difference; sometimes it doesn't. I can directly compare images shot with the same lens on two cameras of the same format, one with a 10MP sensor and one with an 18MP sensor. If I record a well lit scene with fine details, I can definitely see the improved sharpness of the 18MP version when examining them closely.

Also, as noted, the sensor size difference between your two cameras is so minor that it's inconsequential. It's the difference between the center white area and the gray outlined area below.

The difference is much bigger than that, ishwanu.

Why do you say that? Are these specs incorrect?

The rectangles I posted are in those exact ratios.

Okay, without further ado, I will give you credit for that.

 

[roger6002]

I hope this topic has not been answered already: Does sensor size and/or sensor resolution matter in terms of picture quality?

Sure. they both matter. If they didn't, there'd be very little reason for people to use cameras with anything but the smallest, lowest resolution sensors.

I looked over the pictures these two cameras took and with the same lighting conditions both were identical photos. To the unaided eye, it is impossible to spot any difference, the pictures they take under the same conditions are the spitting image of the other.

I sometimes think we are putting a lot of resolution in our cameras to justify the cost we want to see, and as a marketing strategy.

You can think that, but the answer to your questions is still yes, both matter.

I am not going to be splitting hairs with you, ishwanu. Regardless of what you show here, my mind is made up. Sorry, I cannot agree with you.

I own both the D90 and the D3200 DSLR cameras and I cannot notice any difference in picture quality in the photos taken by both which leads me to believe that although the D90 sensor resolution is half that of the D3200's, it makes up for its image sensor size (the D90's sensor is larger than the D3200's).

Sometimes it takes doubling the pixel count to observe any difference; sometimes it doesn't. I can directly compare images shot with the same lens on two cameras of the same format, one with a 10MP sensor and one with an 18MP sensor. If I record a well lit scene with fine details, I can definitely see the improved sharpness of the 18MP version when examining them closely.

Also, as noted, the sensor size difference between your two cameras is so minor that it's inconsequential. It's the difference between the center white area and the gray outlined area below.

The difference is much bigger than that, ishwanu.

Why do you say that? Are these specs incorrect?

The rectangles I posted are in those exact ratios.

Okay, without further ado, I will give you credit for that.

 

[Ephemeris]

2-Layer Transistor Pixel | Technology | Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group

Sony Semiconductor Solutions Group develops device business which includes Micro display, LSIs, and Semiconductor Laser, in focusing on Image Sensor.

www.sony-semicon.com

I think it's clear many factors matter and if one can collect more light by whatever means that's likely to benefit.

Where would we find a device specifically designed and implemented to have the best ability to capture light?

Telescopes in space. Those systems are typically not small.

 

[roger6002]

That said, the device with a lower pixel count (but bigger pixels) has a better chance of taking better photos, depending on how large the picture is. This is one reason some pros say that a 6-megapixel camera takes just as good photos, am I right?

 

[Philip Eihuyar]

That said, the device with a lower pixel count (but bigger pixels) has a better chance of taking better photos, depending on how large the picture is. This is one reason some pros say that a 6-megapixel camera takes just as good photos, am I right?

IMO, it is generally true of most cameras, BUT, very high-end and expensive MF cameras have much improved read noise because of techniques of sensor/pixel manufacturing. It shows up in a cleaner image regarding noise in shadow areas. This of course gives greater dynamic range overall. To see if my opinion is correct, look at images of same pixel density and exposre time of highend and less expensive cameras. Point is there is a way to address read noise but it is expensive.