So maybe I'm just missing something? You say that more MPs are pretty much proven to be useless (and therefore do not add to the quality of an image), but then you go on to correctly say that for consumer devices like "point-and-shoot" cameras the additional MPs compensate for the lack of superior optics. I understand how this operates and have understood that all along. But for arguments sake, don't those additional MPs increase the quality of images, merely in a round-about way due to lesser grade parts and technology? Sure, industrial HD cameras are able to produce HD images at a mere 2MPs, but you're also talking thousands of dollars for such capability, not a consumer grade "point-and-shoot" device. I guess my point has been all along that, sure, the iPhone is capable of outputting HD imagery, but I would only rank its current 2MP as "satisfactory" due to the fact the iPhone does not sport any fancy optical equipment, etc etc. Therefore, given this, wouldn't an increase in MP to 3.2 (or anything above) come as an added benefit and increase the overall image quality?
Well, perhaps, sorta.
The entire chain in the camera portion of the device must be upgraded when the sensor is using more pixels. If you just increase the number of pixels, you might get a bit more resolution, but every other aspect of the image will suffer.
If you've followed the entire series of posts here on this subject, you'll have seen why.
I'm assuming, a dangerous thing to do, that Apple has upgraded every part of the photo subsystem to accommodate the higher rez sensor, including the QUALITY of the sensor itself. If they have, then a 3.2 MP camera could offer noticeably better images. If not, then they could look worse, though perhaps a bit sharper, if the cheap lens could handle some more pixels.
But, other than the technical problems of resolution, s/n, dynamic range, lens distortion and aberrations, there is the question of whether a "camera" with such a small sensor and short fl lens can even take good photos.
By good, I mean something other than a nice snapshot.
My feeling is that they can't.
One focus (arrgh! No pun intended) I'm reading here and other places is a concentration on depth of field. It seems that some people want as much as they can get. Well, to be accurate, these cameras already have too MUCH depth of field. Why anyone would want more is hard to understand.
Not only do these cameras have tiny sensors that require very short lens that give an enormous depth of field, but the lenses, being crappy, are very slow, on the order of about f8.
The problem with these devices is that you can't get RID of the depth of field!
Most people will want to take a picture of the chihuahua sitting under the "Beware of Dog" sign and send it to all their friends. As long as the chihuahuha is visible and the sign is legible, most people won't care how many megapixels.
He doesn't want to have a discussion. He wants to push people's buttons and provoke
a reaction. Notice how often his posts include references to fanboys, drinking koolaid,
and Apple products sucking. I was given some hope last night when I read a post from
Solipsism, where he seemed to be getting tired of bickering with Teckstud. Now you seem
to be volunteering to step in and satisfy Teckstud's neediness. Spare us please and just
ignore him.
What I don't get about the moderation here is how people like "teckstud" never seem to suffer from their constant personal attack posts. I try to be civil as much as possible, but when I veer even slightly off course I get a warning from the mods.
I recently reported on five posts in a single thread by "teckstud" however, where he was just calling people all kinds of names and going on in the rudest manner. He was being personally insulting to about a half dozen people which is a total violation, yet later that same day he is posting as usual.
He seems to have a few alts as well, so banning him for a day or two is hardly likely to cause any problems for him anyway.
Maybe he's related to Kasper? Or perhaps he is just a "character" to make the forum more lively and is actually run by one of the mods.
What I don't get about the moderation here is how people like "teckstud" never seem to suffer from their constant personal attack posts. I try to be civil as much as possible, but when I veer even slightly off course I get a warning from the mods.
I recently reported on five posts in a single thread by "teckstud" however, where he was just calling people all kinds of names and going on in the rudest manner. He was being personally insulting to about a half dozen people which is a total violation, yet later that same day he is posting as usual.
He seems to have a few alts as well, so banning him for a day or two is hardly likely to cause any problems for him anyway.
Maybe he's related to Kasper? Or perhaps he is just a "character" to make the forum more lively and is actually run by one of the mods.
Well I am mod.
But you fail to realize that I usually get attacked first , like you just have,with usuallly something entirely not related to my posts, which are always topic related. Speaking of which can we talk about the iPhone camera. Everyone is naysaying megapixels- why do you think Apple is going up to 3.2 MP in the first place? Because it is better.
Well, now you're talking. I would sell my niece for one of those.
Nephews and a brother in my case, still negotiating ...
The point I was trying to make was obviously nobody told RED that MPs don't count as stated in this thread so many times .. What a waste eh .. <29 sq. micron pixels. And 12,065,000 pixels> They should have asked the MP experts on this blog before developing it
Is this this theory based on; light is a wave, a particle or is this quantum mechanics?
I am being facetious, sorry. I just meant show me a camera in the same light conditions with a larger MP sensor (with associated lens) that can't do a better job.
First of all, we have to talk about the same generation of devices. It's not (usually) possible to discuss different generations, with different resolutions, and come up with a useful answer.
I said much earlier here, that in a few years, Apple could likely put a 5 MP sensor in, and have a better picture than a 3.2 now.
We are making progress. If we look at spanning generations of product, we will see that higher resolution cameras today, with the same physical size sensor than those of earlier generations have better IQ overall.
But, when you look at cameras from the same generation, you will see that cameras with a substantially higher rez chip (assuming the cameras are priced about the same), or, a chip with about the same rez, but a smaller physical size (APS-C vs 4/3, or ff 35mm) will have worse performance overall.
It comes down to pixel site size. The smaller the sensing site is, the less light it takes in, and the greater the percentage of signal the dark current from the site affects the areas of the image with less light. The brightest areas may be unaffected, but as it gets down to the mid tones, noise intrudes. Dynamic range is also lessened.
As the ISO is increased, noise moves up into the lighter parts of the image until the entire image is affected, and the darker parts are unusable. Detail also disappears at the higher ISOs, because the "grain" begins to obscure it.
Then we have noise reduction. The poorer s/n the sensor has, the more noise reduction is needed, which also obscures detail.
What happens is that a camera with a high rez according to specs, can often have less rez at higher ISOs than a camera with a substantially lower rez.
These problems can pop in at very low ISOs if the sensor is small, and the rez high.
For example, the Canon G10, a "pro" compact has a very high IQ at ISO 100, its base ISO. But when it gets to 800, it's about useless.
This camera has 14.7 MP, and a good lens.
The Canon 50D, a D-SLR, has 15.1 MP, but the image IQ regarding s/n and dynamic range is much better at 3200, and even 6400.
But that camera's s/n is slightly worse at lower ISO's than the older 40D which is a 12 MP camera. It is better at higher ISO's though.
How far do you want to take this? It's a very complex subject.
Sorry, I meant to say RED cameras not IMAX and mentally blinked ...
The Red info is a good indicator of sensors quality, drool. I quote ..
"Typical high-end HD camcorders have 2.1M pixel sensors and record with 3:1:1 color sub-sampled video at up to 30fps. RED offers the Mysterium ™ Super 35mm cine sized (24.4×13.7mm) sensor, which provides 4K (up to 30 fps), 3K (up to 60 fps) and 2K (up to 120 fps) capture, and all this with wide dynamic range and color space in 12 bit native RAW. At 4K, that’s more than 5 times the amount of information available every second and a vastly superior recording quality. In addition, you get the same breathtaking Depth of Field and selective focus as found in film cameras using equivalent 35mm P/L mount lenses. Mysterium ™ boasts greater than 66db Dynamic Range thanks to its large 29 sq. micron pixels. And 12,065,000 pixels deliver resolution that can only be called Ultra High Definition."
You've looked at the price of that body (which is considered cheap by motion picture standards), and lenses?
First of all, we have to talk about the same generation of devices. It's not (usually) possible to discuss different generations, with different resolutions, and come up with a useful answer.
I said much earlier here, that in a few years, Apple could likely put a 5 MP sensor in, and have a better picture than a 3.2 now.
We are making progress. If we look at spanning generations of product, we will see that higher resolution cameras today, with the same physical size sensor than those of earlier generations have better IQ overall.
But, when you look at cameras from the same generation, you will see that cameras with a substantially higher rez chip (assuming the cameras are priced about the same), or, a chip with about the same rez, but a smaller physical size (APS-C vs 4/3, or ff 35mm) will have worse performance overall.
It comes down to pixel site size. The smaller the sensing site is, the less light it takes in, and the greater the percentage of signal the dark current from the site affects the areas of the image with less light. The brightest areas may be unaffected, but as it gets down to the mid tones, noise intrudes. Dynamic range is also lessened.
As the ISO is increased, noise moves up into the lighter parts of the image until the entire image is affected, and the darker parts are unusable. Detail also disappears at the higher ISOs, because the "grain" begins to obscure it.
Then we have noise reduction. The poorer s/n the sensor has, the more noise reduction is needed, which also obscures detail.
What happens is that a camera with a high rez according to specs, can often have less rez at higher ISOs than a camera with a substantially lower rez.
These problems can pop in at very low ISOs if the sensor is small, and the rez high.
For example, the Canon G10, a "pro" compact has a very high IQ at ISO 100, its base ISO. But when it gets to 800, it's about useless.
This camera has 14.7 MP, and a good lens.
The Canon 50D, a D-SLR, has 15.1 MP, but the image IQ regarding s/n and dynamic range is much better at 3200, and even 6400.
But that camera's s/n is slightly worse at lower ISO's than the older 40D which is a 12 MP camera. It is better at higher ISO's though.
How far do you want to take this? It's a very complex subject.
I was obviously assuming that any two cameras being compared in my question were of the same technological moment in time, why on earth would you assume otherwise?
I worked for a decade with Scitex, Leaf and other high end scanner companies so could bore the rest of the readers with technical blurb too, it doesn't get away from my basic premise is that at a given price / performance level (yes same era) more is usually better all things being equal. Look at the specs on the RED video camera I posted! Granted one manufacturer could obviously stick in a larger chip with lousy optics hence the generalization of assuming all things are equal.
What I don't get about the moderation here is how people like "teckstud" never seem to suffer from their constant personal attack posts. I try to be civil as much as possible, but when I veer even slightly off course I get a warning from the mods.
I recently reported on five posts in a single thread by "teckstud" however, where he was just calling people all kinds of names and going on in the rudest manner. He was being personally insulting to about a half dozen people which is a total violation, yet later that same day he is posting as usual.
He seems to have a few alts as well, so banning him for a day or two is hardly likely to cause any problems for him anyway.
Maybe he's related to Kasper? Or perhaps he is just a "character" to make the forum more lively and is actually run by one of the mods.
I never got that notice.
I don't like to cut people out if their "insults" are moderate. Calling people four letter words, or their equivalent, is more serious.
Him calling me lame, and my responding that he's chicken for not debating me, isn't really cause for any moderation. Calling someone an ass is cause for warning though.
People have to allowed to let some steam out, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
First of all, we have to talk about the same generation of devices. It's not (usually) possible to discuss different generations, with different resolutions, and come up with a useful answer.
I said much earlier here, that in a few years, Apple could likely put a 5 MP sensor in, and have a better picture than a 3.2 now.
We are making progress. If we look at spanning generations of product, we will see that higher resolution cameras today, with the same physical size sensor than those of earlier generations have better IQ overall.
But, when you look at cameras from the same generation, you will see that cameras with a substantially higher rez chip (assuming the cameras are priced about the same), or, a chip with about the same rez, but a smaller physical size (APS-C vs 4/3, or ff 35mm) will have worse performance overall.
It comes down to pixel site size. The smaller the sensing site is, the less light it takes in, and the greater the percentage of signal the dark current from the site affects the areas of the image with less light. The brightest areas may be unaffected, but as it gets down to the mid tones, noise intrudes. Dynamic range is also lessened.
As the ISO is increased, noise moves up into the lighter parts of the image until the entire image is affected, and the darker parts are unusable. Detail also disappears at the higher ISOs, because the "grain" begins to obscure it.
Then we have noise reduction. The poorer s/n the sensor has, the more noise reduction is needed, which also obscures detail.
What happens is that a camera with a high rez according to specs, can often have less rez at higher ISOs than a camera with a substantially lower rez.
These problems can pop in at very low ISOs if the sensor is small, and the rez high.
For example, the Canon G10, a "pro" compact has a very high IQ at ISO 100, its base ISO. But when it gets to 800, it's about useless.
This camera has 14.7 MP, and a good lens.
The Canon 50D, a D-SLR, has 15.1 MP, but the image IQ regarding s/n and dynamic range is much better at 3200, and even 6400.
But that camera's s/n is slightly worse at lower ISO's than the older 40D which is a 12 MP camera. It is better at higher ISO's though.
How far do you want to take this? It's a very complex subject.
Apparently to infinity as long as you're discussing it. Talk about making mountains out of mole hills. We are discussing adding to the iPhone a 3.2 MP camera. Why don't you talk to us about the Hubble telescope camera while you're at it?
Yep I agree, they bring pin-hole cameras to mind ... wait a a minute ... they are pin hole cameras!
Of course, and they are very good for those special photos that a few people take from time to time.
But would you seriously want every image to look like that?
Would you like to take a portrait and have every stitch of the background cloth be as sharp as the subjects eyelashes?
This is what a diaphragm is for (No, not THAT kind of diaphragm!)
We all want fast lenses so that we can shoot in darker venues, and so that we can open up to get that razor thin depth of field when we need it to separate the subject from the background, as one example.
If we want the depth, we can close down.
These tiny sensor cameras don't allow that at all. Every picture must have depth from almost one foot to infinity. They'll never put a fast lens in, because that would cost too much, and be too big.
I was obviously assuming that any two cameras being compared in my question were of the same technological moment in time, why on earth would you assume otherwise?
I worked for a decade with Scitex, Leaf and other high end scanner companies so could bore the rest of the readers with technical blurb too, it doesn't get away from my basic premise is that at a given price / performance level (yes same era) more is usually better all things being equal. Look at the specs on the RED video camera I posted! Granted one manufacturer could obviously stick in a larger chip with lousy optics hence the generalization of assuming all things are equal.
I test backs for Leaf.
The assumption you're making is "all things being equal". They rarely are equal though. Moving one spec up always results in moving at least one other spec down.
The RED is interesting. It's considered to be a very basic camera, hence the cheap price. But as you add those features, the price rises considerably.
Of course, and they are very good for those special photos that a few people take from time to time.
But would you seriously want every image to look like that?
Would you like to take a portrait and have every stitch of the background cloth be as sharp as the subjects eyelashes?
This is what a diaphragm is for (No, not THAT kind of diaphragm!)
We all want fast lenses so that we can shoot in darker venues, and so that we can open up to get that razor thin depth of field when we need it to separate the subject from the background, as one example.
If we want the depth, we can close down.
These tiny sensor cameras don't allow that at all. Every picture must have depth from almost one foot to infinity. They'll never put a fast lens in, because that would cost too much, and be too big.
All true BUT you assume some of the analog processes of which you speak could not be performed digitally. I can imagine all of the depth of field controls currently done with aperture / speed variations being controlled with a few sliders on a touch screen.
Apparently to infinity as long as you're discussing it. Talk about making mountains out of mole hills. We are discussing adding to the iPhone a 3.2 MP camera. Why don't you talk to us about the Hubble telescope camera while you're at it?
Why don't you actually do some good, and give us a definitive argument about this, instead of making useless comments?
Everything I said, as most people likely realize, applies to low rez cameras with tiny sensors as well, as was the point. Most people are likely also familiar with the compact and D-SLR camera rez vs IQ argument.
Come on. Give us some of your understanding of what should be done and why. I promise to read it. Really!
All true BUT you assume some of the analog processes of which you speak could not be performed digitally. I can imagine all of the depth of field controls currently done with aperture / speed variations being controlled with a few sliders on a touch screen.
Eventually, that might be possible. But it would require much more intelligence on the part of the program. How would it recognize what part of the image should be in focus, and by how much. How would that slider "know" what to affect? Would we have to make image selections first? How accurate would that selection need to be. What about depth inside the selection. We don't want that artificial cardboard cutout 3D effect.
We can do this in a way now, by taking photographs with different focus, and using a program that combines them in CS4 to make one image. It's crude, but it can work in a post way. But it's not really accurate. You can't pick what you want to be in focus, and what you don't want to be in focus. There are other problems too, but it's sometimes ok when you need the entire image to be in focus.
Comments
So maybe I'm just missing something? You say that more MPs are pretty much proven to be useless (and therefore do not add to the quality of an image), but then you go on to correctly say that for consumer devices like "point-and-shoot" cameras the additional MPs compensate for the lack of superior optics. I understand how this operates and have understood that all along. But for arguments sake, don't those additional MPs increase the quality of images, merely in a round-about way due to lesser grade parts and technology? Sure, industrial HD cameras are able to produce HD images at a mere 2MPs, but you're also talking thousands of dollars for such capability, not a consumer grade "point-and-shoot" device. I guess my point has been all along that, sure, the iPhone is capable of outputting HD imagery, but I would only rank its current 2MP as "satisfactory" due to the fact the iPhone does not sport any fancy optical equipment, etc etc. Therefore, given this, wouldn't an increase in MP to 3.2 (or anything above) come as an added benefit and increase the overall image quality?
Well, perhaps, sorta.
The entire chain in the camera portion of the device must be upgraded when the sensor is using more pixels. If you just increase the number of pixels, you might get a bit more resolution, but every other aspect of the image will suffer.
If you've followed the entire series of posts here on this subject, you'll have seen why.
I'm assuming, a dangerous thing to do, that Apple has upgraded every part of the photo subsystem to accommodate the higher rez sensor, including the QUALITY of the sensor itself. If they have, then a 3.2 MP camera could offer noticeably better images. If not, then they could look worse, though perhaps a bit sharper, if the cheap lens could handle some more pixels.
But, other than the technical problems of resolution, s/n, dynamic range, lens distortion and aberrations, there is the question of whether a "camera" with such a small sensor and short fl lens can even take good photos.
By good, I mean something other than a nice snapshot.
My feeling is that they can't.
One focus (arrgh! No pun intended
Not only do these cameras have tiny sensors that require very short lens that give an enormous depth of field, but the lenses, being crappy, are very slow, on the order of about f8.
The problem with these devices is that you can't get RID of the depth of field!
That makes good photography impossible.
He doesn't want to have a discussion. He wants to push people's buttons and provoke
a reaction. Notice how often his posts include references to fanboys, drinking koolaid,
and Apple products sucking. I was given some hope last night when I read a post from
Solipsism, where he seemed to be getting tired of bickering with Teckstud. Now you seem
to be volunteering to step in and satisfy Teckstud's neediness. Spare us please and just
ignore him.
What I don't get about the moderation here is how people like "teckstud" never seem to suffer from their constant personal attack posts. I try to be civil as much as possible, but when I veer even slightly off course I get a warning from the mods.
I recently reported on five posts in a single thread by "teckstud" however, where he was just calling people all kinds of names and going on in the rudest manner. He was being personally insulting to about a half dozen people which is a total violation, yet later that same day he is posting as usual.
He seems to have a few alts as well, so banning him for a day or two is hardly likely to cause any problems for him anyway.
Maybe he's related to Kasper? Or perhaps he is just a "character" to make the forum more lively and is actually run by one of the mods.
Sorry, I meant to say RED cameras not IMAX and mentally blinked ...
Well, now you're talking.
Well, perhaps, sorta.
The problem with these devices is that you can't get RID of the depth of field!
That makes good photography impossible.
partial quote:
Yep I agree, they bring pin-hole cameras to mind ... wait a a minute ... they are pin hole cameras!
What I don't get about the moderation here is how people like "teckstud" never seem to suffer from their constant personal attack posts. I try to be civil as much as possible, but when I veer even slightly off course I get a warning from the mods.
I recently reported on five posts in a single thread by "teckstud" however, where he was just calling people all kinds of names and going on in the rudest manner. He was being personally insulting to about a half dozen people which is a total violation, yet later that same day he is posting as usual.
He seems to have a few alts as well, so banning him for a day or two is hardly likely to cause any problems for him anyway.
Maybe he's related to Kasper? Or perhaps he is just a "character" to make the forum more lively and is actually run by one of the mods.
Well I am mod.
But you fail to realize that I usually get attacked first , like you just have,with usuallly something entirely not related to my posts, which are always topic related. Speaking of which can we talk about the iPhone camera. Everyone is naysaying megapixels- why do you think Apple is going up to 3.2 MP in the first place? Because it is better.
Well, now you're talking.
Nephews and a brother in my case, still negotiating ...
The point I was trying to make was obviously nobody told RED that MPs don't count as stated in this thread so many times .. What a waste eh .. <29 sq. micron pixels. And 12,065,000 pixels> They should have asked the MP experts on this blog before developing it
Is this this theory based on; light is a wave, a particle or is this quantum mechanics?
I am being facetious, sorry. I just meant show me a camera in the same light conditions with a larger MP sensor (with associated lens) that can't do a better job.
First of all, we have to talk about the same generation of devices. It's not (usually) possible to discuss different generations, with different resolutions, and come up with a useful answer.
I said much earlier here, that in a few years, Apple could likely put a 5 MP sensor in, and have a better picture than a 3.2 now.
We are making progress. If we look at spanning generations of product, we will see that higher resolution cameras today, with the same physical size sensor than those of earlier generations have better IQ overall.
But, when you look at cameras from the same generation, you will see that cameras with a substantially higher rez chip (assuming the cameras are priced about the same), or, a chip with about the same rez, but a smaller physical size (APS-C vs 4/3, or ff 35mm) will have worse performance overall.
It comes down to pixel site size. The smaller the sensing site is, the less light it takes in, and the greater the percentage of signal the dark current from the site affects the areas of the image with less light. The brightest areas may be unaffected, but as it gets down to the mid tones, noise intrudes. Dynamic range is also lessened.
As the ISO is increased, noise moves up into the lighter parts of the image until the entire image is affected, and the darker parts are unusable. Detail also disappears at the higher ISOs, because the "grain" begins to obscure it.
Then we have noise reduction. The poorer s/n the sensor has, the more noise reduction is needed, which also obscures detail.
What happens is that a camera with a high rez according to specs, can often have less rez at higher ISOs than a camera with a substantially lower rez.
These problems can pop in at very low ISOs if the sensor is small, and the rez high.
For example, the Canon G10, a "pro" compact has a very high IQ at ISO 100, its base ISO. But when it gets to 800, it's about useless.
This camera has 14.7 MP, and a good lens.
The Canon 50D, a D-SLR, has 15.1 MP, but the image IQ regarding s/n and dynamic range is much better at 3200, and even 6400.
But that camera's s/n is slightly worse at lower ISO's than the older 40D which is a 12 MP camera. It is better at higher ISO's though.
How far do you want to take this? It's a very complex subject.
Sorry, I meant to say RED cameras not IMAX and mentally blinked ...
The Red info is a good indicator of sensors quality, drool. I quote ..
"Typical high-end HD camcorders have 2.1M pixel sensors and record with 3:1:1 color sub-sampled video at up to 30fps. RED offers the Mysterium ™ Super 35mm cine sized (24.4×13.7mm) sensor, which provides 4K (up to 30 fps), 3K (up to 60 fps) and 2K (up to 120 fps) capture, and all this with wide dynamic range and color space in 12 bit native RAW. At 4K, that’s more than 5 times the amount of information available every second and a vastly superior recording quality. In addition, you get the same breathtaking Depth of Field and selective focus as found in film cameras using equivalent 35mm P/L mount lenses. Mysterium ™ boasts greater than 66db Dynamic Range thanks to its large 29 sq. micron pixels. And 12,065,000 pixels deliver resolution that can only be called Ultra High Definition."
You've looked at the price of that body (which is considered cheap by motion picture standards), and lenses?
It's a bit out of the iPhone range.
First of all, we have to talk about the same generation of devices. It's not (usually) possible to discuss different generations, with different resolutions, and come up with a useful answer.
I said much earlier here, that in a few years, Apple could likely put a 5 MP sensor in, and have a better picture than a 3.2 now.
We are making progress. If we look at spanning generations of product, we will see that higher resolution cameras today, with the same physical size sensor than those of earlier generations have better IQ overall.
But, when you look at cameras from the same generation, you will see that cameras with a substantially higher rez chip (assuming the cameras are priced about the same), or, a chip with about the same rez, but a smaller physical size (APS-C vs 4/3, or ff 35mm) will have worse performance overall.
It comes down to pixel site size. The smaller the sensing site is, the less light it takes in, and the greater the percentage of signal the dark current from the site affects the areas of the image with less light. The brightest areas may be unaffected, but as it gets down to the mid tones, noise intrudes. Dynamic range is also lessened.
As the ISO is increased, noise moves up into the lighter parts of the image until the entire image is affected, and the darker parts are unusable. Detail also disappears at the higher ISOs, because the "grain" begins to obscure it.
Then we have noise reduction. The poorer s/n the sensor has, the more noise reduction is needed, which also obscures detail.
What happens is that a camera with a high rez according to specs, can often have less rez at higher ISOs than a camera with a substantially lower rez.
These problems can pop in at very low ISOs if the sensor is small, and the rez high.
For example, the Canon G10, a "pro" compact has a very high IQ at ISO 100, its base ISO. But when it gets to 800, it's about useless.
This camera has 14.7 MP, and a good lens.
The Canon 50D, a D-SLR, has 15.1 MP, but the image IQ regarding s/n and dynamic range is much better at 3200, and even 6400.
But that camera's s/n is slightly worse at lower ISO's than the older 40D which is a 12 MP camera. It is better at higher ISO's though.
How far do you want to take this? It's a very complex subject.
I was obviously assuming that any two cameras being compared in my question were of the same technological moment in time, why on earth would you assume otherwise?
I worked for a decade with Scitex, Leaf and other high end scanner companies so could bore the rest of the readers with technical blurb too, it doesn't get away from my basic premise is that at a given price / performance level (yes same era) more is usually better all things being equal. Look at the specs on the RED video camera I posted! Granted one manufacturer could obviously stick in a larger chip with lousy optics hence the generalization of assuming all things are equal.
What I don't get about the moderation here is how people like "teckstud" never seem to suffer from their constant personal attack posts. I try to be civil as much as possible, but when I veer even slightly off course I get a warning from the mods.
I recently reported on five posts in a single thread by "teckstud" however, where he was just calling people all kinds of names and going on in the rudest manner. He was being personally insulting to about a half dozen people which is a total violation, yet later that same day he is posting as usual.
He seems to have a few alts as well, so banning him for a day or two is hardly likely to cause any problems for him anyway.
Maybe he's related to Kasper? Or perhaps he is just a "character" to make the forum more lively and is actually run by one of the mods.
I never got that notice.
I don't like to cut people out if their "insults" are moderate. Calling people four letter words, or their equivalent, is more serious.
Him calling me lame, and my responding that he's chicken for not debating me, isn't really cause for any moderation. Calling someone an ass is cause for warning though.
People have to allowed to let some steam out, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.
You've looked at the price of that body (which is considered cheap by motion picture standards), and lenses?
It's a bit out of the iPhone range.
Can't argue there lol.
I dream of it most nights.
The point of mentioning it is that I always try to argue with the 'We don't need more' brigade.
We would never need more than 1MB RAM and a 100 MB hard drive etc ...
One day ... not too far away the iPhone (or its descendant) will surpass the RED of today ... and be 3D
First of all, we have to talk about the same generation of devices. It's not (usually) possible to discuss different generations, with different resolutions, and come up with a useful answer.
I said much earlier here, that in a few years, Apple could likely put a 5 MP sensor in, and have a better picture than a 3.2 now.
We are making progress. If we look at spanning generations of product, we will see that higher resolution cameras today, with the same physical size sensor than those of earlier generations have better IQ overall.
But, when you look at cameras from the same generation, you will see that cameras with a substantially higher rez chip (assuming the cameras are priced about the same), or, a chip with about the same rez, but a smaller physical size (APS-C vs 4/3, or ff 35mm) will have worse performance overall.
It comes down to pixel site size. The smaller the sensing site is, the less light it takes in, and the greater the percentage of signal the dark current from the site affects the areas of the image with less light. The brightest areas may be unaffected, but as it gets down to the mid tones, noise intrudes. Dynamic range is also lessened.
As the ISO is increased, noise moves up into the lighter parts of the image until the entire image is affected, and the darker parts are unusable. Detail also disappears at the higher ISOs, because the "grain" begins to obscure it.
Then we have noise reduction. The poorer s/n the sensor has, the more noise reduction is needed, which also obscures detail.
What happens is that a camera with a high rez according to specs, can often have less rez at higher ISOs than a camera with a substantially lower rez.
These problems can pop in at very low ISOs if the sensor is small, and the rez high.
For example, the Canon G10, a "pro" compact has a very high IQ at ISO 100, its base ISO. But when it gets to 800, it's about useless.
This camera has 14.7 MP, and a good lens.
The Canon 50D, a D-SLR, has 15.1 MP, but the image IQ regarding s/n and dynamic range is much better at 3200, and even 6400.
But that camera's s/n is slightly worse at lower ISO's than the older 40D which is a 12 MP camera. It is better at higher ISO's though.
How far do you want to take this? It's a very complex subject.
Apparently to infinity as long as you're discussing it. Talk about making mountains out of mole hills. We are discussing adding to the iPhone a 3.2 MP camera. Why don't you talk to us about the Hubble telescope camera while you're at it?
partial quote:
Yep I agree, they bring pin-hole cameras to mind ... wait a a minute ... they are pin hole cameras!
Of course, and they are very good for those special photos that a few people take from time to time.
But would you seriously want every image to look like that?
Would you like to take a portrait and have every stitch of the background cloth be as sharp as the subjects eyelashes?
This is what a diaphragm is for (No, not THAT kind of diaphragm!)
We all want fast lenses so that we can shoot in darker venues, and so that we can open up to get that razor thin depth of field when we need it to separate the subject from the background, as one example.
If we want the depth, we can close down.
These tiny sensor cameras don't allow that at all. Every picture must have depth from almost one foot to infinity. They'll never put a fast lens in, because that would cost too much, and be too big.
I was obviously assuming that any two cameras being compared in my question were of the same technological moment in time, why on earth would you assume otherwise?
I worked for a decade with Scitex, Leaf and other high end scanner companies so could bore the rest of the readers with technical blurb too, it doesn't get away from my basic premise is that at a given price / performance level (yes same era) more is usually better all things being equal. Look at the specs on the RED video camera I posted! Granted one manufacturer could obviously stick in a larger chip with lousy optics hence the generalization of assuming all things are equal.
I test backs for Leaf.
The assumption you're making is "all things being equal". They rarely are equal though. Moving one spec up always results in moving at least one other spec down.
The RED is interesting. It's considered to be a very basic camera, hence the cheap price. But as you add those features, the price rises considerably.
Can't argue there lol.
I dream of it most nights.
The point of mentioning it is that I always try to argue with the 'We don't need more' brigade.
We would never need more than 1MB RAM and a 100 MB hard drive etc ...
One day ... not too far away the iPhone (or its descendant) will surpass the RED of today ... and be 3D
I'm not one of that brigade. I always want more! I'm just willing to wait until technology catches up to what I want.
Of course, and they are very good for those special photos that a few people take from time to time.
But would you seriously want every image to look like that?
Would you like to take a portrait and have every stitch of the background cloth be as sharp as the subjects eyelashes?
This is what a diaphragm is for (No, not THAT kind of diaphragm!)
We all want fast lenses so that we can shoot in darker venues, and so that we can open up to get that razor thin depth of field when we need it to separate the subject from the background, as one example.
If we want the depth, we can close down.
These tiny sensor cameras don't allow that at all. Every picture must have depth from almost one foot to infinity. They'll never put a fast lens in, because that would cost too much, and be too big.
All true BUT you assume some of the analog processes of which you speak could not be performed digitally. I can imagine all of the depth of field controls currently done with aperture / speed variations being controlled with a few sliders on a touch screen.
Apparently to infinity as long as you're discussing it. Talk about making mountains out of mole hills. We are discussing adding to the iPhone a 3.2 MP camera. Why don't you talk to us about the Hubble telescope camera while you're at it?
Why don't you actually do some good, and give us a definitive argument about this, instead of making useless comments?
Everything I said, as most people likely realize, applies to low rez cameras with tiny sensors as well, as was the point. Most people are likely also familiar with the compact and D-SLR camera rez vs IQ argument.
Come on. Give us some of your understanding of what should be done and why. I promise to read it. Really!
All true BUT you assume some of the analog processes of which you speak could not be performed digitally. I can imagine all of the depth of field controls currently done with aperture / speed variations being controlled with a few sliders on a touch screen.
Eventually, that might be possible. But it would require much more intelligence on the part of the program. How would it recognize what part of the image should be in focus, and by how much. How would that slider "know" what to affect? Would we have to make image selections first? How accurate would that selection need to be. What about depth inside the selection. We don't want that artificial cardboard cutout 3D effect.
We can do this in a way now, by taking photographs with different focus, and using a program that combines them in CS4 to make one image. It's crude, but it can work in a post way. But it's not really accurate. You can't pick what you want to be in focus, and what you don't want to be in focus. There are other problems too, but it's sometimes ok when you need the entire image to be in focus.