Certainly with mirrorless cameras the high megapixel smaller pixelled sensors have performed beyond expectations. The traditional small pixel = noise has been bypassed to some degree by the electronics experts.
Specifically the BSI (backside illuminated) type sensors can have much larger wells than their pixel size would normally dictate.
Using a 183mm I found I could get away with the 2.3 micron pixels in reasonable to good seeing but if the seeing was poor then it was a waste with very soft images. Softer than the larger pixelled cameras would get.
Greg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xthestreams
I’ve been watching and involved in a thread with Chris Anderson and Jon Rista amongst others picking their brains on just this topic. My concern post-OnSemi is that we’re forced to think seriously about what next?
FLI will tell you that CCDs degrade with age, eventually those column deflects won’t calibrate out so well and the chip is all but dead.
Verdict isn’t quite there yet one way or the other, but a critical perspective from the “experts” is that smaller pixels aren’t really an issue provided that their QE and full well depth per square micron is roughly the same or better than their CCD competitors, provided that’s the case there’s no real loss of dynamic range and quite possibly a lot to be gained from shorter subs.
The walking/rain noise is a concern for me, I see it on my 1600 a lot.
The 2600MC is amazing, I wish I had waited for the MM though!
Having said all of the above, a 16803 or 0900 would be a welcome edition any time.
|