Q. Why are the pixels on a compact camera sensor SO tiny? Why don't they use less, larger pixels? Would this not result in better pictures and low light performance?
The only thing I've heard about this is that they want to pack as many pixels in as possible so they can say they have the MOST pixels.
Does anyone have any insight about this?
Thanks.
The only thing I've heard about this is that they want to pack as many pixels in as possible so they can say they have the MOST pixels.
Does anyone have any insight about this?
Thanks.
Answer
Nikon did this with their DSLR's for many years, using a lower pixel count to increase light gathering ability for each pixel.
You are correct that the main reason for tiny sensors with huge pixel counts is marketing. 20 million pixels on a sensor 4x5mm is just silly. Half that number is plenty, but nobody wants to buy a 10mp camera now, since everybody else has a 16 or 18 or 24mp camera, and they believe that mp count is the important part of the camera. It is, in fact, the least important part.
Sony has improved the ability of smaller sensors to get decent shots in lower light conditions with their backlit sensors. That being said, you still have too many elements on a tiny little sensor, and image quality suffers.
Nikon did this with their DSLR's for many years, using a lower pixel count to increase light gathering ability for each pixel.
You are correct that the main reason for tiny sensors with huge pixel counts is marketing. 20 million pixels on a sensor 4x5mm is just silly. Half that number is plenty, but nobody wants to buy a 10mp camera now, since everybody else has a 16 or 18 or 24mp camera, and they believe that mp count is the important part of the camera. It is, in fact, the least important part.
Sony has improved the ability of smaller sensors to get decent shots in lower light conditions with their backlit sensors. That being said, you still have too many elements on a tiny little sensor, and image quality suffers.
Real Camera?
I own (and shoot) both a Nikon D200 (digital) and a Canon A-1 (film).
I have heard a lot of people lately saying that film cameras are "Real Cameras" or "True Cameras", implying that digital cameras are cheap, unrespectable, and amateurish.
So, here is your chance to make your case, and convince me and a lot of other people that you're not just being petulant and trying to make yourself feel superior by slamming digital photographers. So, why are film cameras the only true cameras?
Answer
Whoever says that digital cameras are cheap, has to be out of their minds. In the film days, their were very few photographers who used cameras that cost as much as yours does. I remember the A1 was hot in the 80s and its cost was around 5 or 600 dollars, close to $1000.00 less than your camera and your camera is not expensive by no means in the dslr realm. If the A1 sold today it would be about $800.00. The only advantage that film has on digital is that the latitude is better. Digital is sharper and has much better resolving power. As far as latitude, the new Canon 1D MKIII and the new Fuji S5 has address that problem very well. Even though it still hasn't equalled film, it shows that they are moving in a positive direction with it. It would take an 18MP camera to equal the top resolution of a 35mm camera. 18MP+ cameras are so close on the horizon, that by Christmas of this year, you may see several available. The problem is that most lenses are built to handle the resolution of 35mm film and will not be sharp enough to handle the resolution of 18MP+ cameras. Only Canon has already addressed that problem and they have several lenses that will handle an 18+ MP camera. (70-200mm 2.8 USM IS L, 70-200mm 4,0 USM IS L, 24-105mm 4.0 USM IS L, 85mm USM L II, 16-35mm 2.8 USM L II, 50mm 1.2 USM L, and the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. Theses lenses are prepared to handle 18+ MP DSLR and Canon is rumored to release a 22 - 24MP Full frame camera in August. Nikon is supposed to answer with a large MP camera also, but you would have to suspect that it will still have the APS size sensor, because none of Nikon's digitally optimized (DX) lenses will work on a full frame camera. If you go with film, you'll only be crying the blues in a few years, because the cost of film will be very expensive, so will film processing and the chemicals, if any companies will still make them. Remember, its the consumer, not the professionals that keep the likes of Canon & Nikon and all of the other camera makers in business. Hardly any of the consumers are buying film anymore and the same goes for the professionals. My advice to you is to leave the film alone, you'll only be beating a dead horse.
Whoever says that digital cameras are cheap, has to be out of their minds. In the film days, their were very few photographers who used cameras that cost as much as yours does. I remember the A1 was hot in the 80s and its cost was around 5 or 600 dollars, close to $1000.00 less than your camera and your camera is not expensive by no means in the dslr realm. If the A1 sold today it would be about $800.00. The only advantage that film has on digital is that the latitude is better. Digital is sharper and has much better resolving power. As far as latitude, the new Canon 1D MKIII and the new Fuji S5 has address that problem very well. Even though it still hasn't equalled film, it shows that they are moving in a positive direction with it. It would take an 18MP camera to equal the top resolution of a 35mm camera. 18MP+ cameras are so close on the horizon, that by Christmas of this year, you may see several available. The problem is that most lenses are built to handle the resolution of 35mm film and will not be sharp enough to handle the resolution of 18MP+ cameras. Only Canon has already addressed that problem and they have several lenses that will handle an 18+ MP camera. (70-200mm 2.8 USM IS L, 70-200mm 4,0 USM IS L, 24-105mm 4.0 USM IS L, 85mm USM L II, 16-35mm 2.8 USM L II, 50mm 1.2 USM L, and the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III. Theses lenses are prepared to handle 18+ MP DSLR and Canon is rumored to release a 22 - 24MP Full frame camera in August. Nikon is supposed to answer with a large MP camera also, but you would have to suspect that it will still have the APS size sensor, because none of Nikon's digitally optimized (DX) lenses will work on a full frame camera. If you go with film, you'll only be crying the blues in a few years, because the cost of film will be very expensive, so will film processing and the chemicals, if any companies will still make them. Remember, its the consumer, not the professionals that keep the likes of Canon & Nikon and all of the other camera makers in business. Hardly any of the consumers are buying film anymore and the same goes for the professionals. My advice to you is to leave the film alone, you'll only be beating a dead horse.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Compact Cameras: Less, Larger pixels?
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 92% based on 9788 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Yukie
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment