Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: wmchauncey on September 23, 2016, 10:21:28 am
-
I'm seeing the MP range from the low 20's MP to 50 MP in some of the new cameras.
Aside from shooting speed/file sizes/whatnot...what are the advantages of having fewer MP on that FF sensor?
-
Cost?
-
what are the advantages of having fewer MP on that FF sensor?
for example:
faster readout = more FPS, faster rolling electronis shutter, etc
more small sensels are not always eq. to less big sensels on the same area when you are still using actual real life raw converters (vs theoretical math) and it is not guaranteed that w/ that mind practical, with a given converter's code, downscaling of more small sensels will match less big sensels...
less need to bother about moving schematics around sensels to the other side of the sensor (less need for BSI)
etc
-
Hi,
For landsacpe shooters I see only benefits with smaller pixels as long as technology is not overstretched. The major loss with decreasing pixel size is loss of DR, but by and large the small pixel cameras are also DR kings.
If you need fast frame rates or storage place is an issue it may be an advantage to have large pixels.
With smaller pixels rendering will be more correct and probably smoother. So, pixel viewing there will be less microcontrast, but also there will be less fake detail.
Best regards
Erik
I'm seeing the MP range from the low 20's MP to 50 MP in some of the new cameras.
Aside from shooting speed/file sizes/whatnot...what are the advantages of having fewer MP on that FF sensor?
-
Hi,
Check this thread:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=113012.0
Best regards
Erik
-
Thanks for that link Erik...it seems to me that the decision lies in what you shoot.
-
I'm seeing the MP range from the low 20's MP to 50 MP in some of the new cameras.
Aside from shooting speed/file sizes/whatnot...what are the advantages of having fewer MP on that FF sensor?
As best I can recall, all recent cases where a company has introduced a new sensor of lower pixel count than an earlier sensor of the same size from same company have been with cameras built for speed: high frame rates and low noise at high ISO speed settings. Most evidence points to frame rate as the dominant reason.
It might also be that a well-designed bigger pixel sensor can have better DR and noise than any file you get by downsampling from a higher pixel count sensor to equalize resolution, but with Bayer CFA sensors, that comparison is tricky. It is not quite a fair comparison to down-sample to a TIFF or JPEG of the same pixel count as the lower resolution sensor, because that down-sampled file from the higher pixel count sensor has information for all three color channels at each "super-pixel", whereas the lower resolution raw file has only information for one color at each pixel; R, G, or B. So that down-sampled file probably still has higher resolution, ay least of color information.