more megapixels or lower noise in DSLRs?

gregbradley · #1 02-02-2012, 10:33 PM

The trend is to whack more megapixels in DSLR sensors and try to get lower noise using other tricks.

What's better - more megapixels or less megapixels but perhap easier lower noise or is it possible to get lower noise, high ISO performance and mega megapixels?

With Nikon D800 and 5D Mark iii coming out in the near future it would seem likely Nikon is opting for more megapixels and Canon perhaps the same but other features improved.

What do you think?

Greg.

Octane (Humayun) · #2 02-02-2012, 10:40 PM

Well, both company's flagship products now boast less megapixels. But, they're both aimed at a targeted audience.

Sensor technology improves with time; the resolution monsters (which will both likely be announced on the same day, next week) will be aimed at studio/landscape photographers with magnificent high ISO performance.

I mean, look at the ISO-3200 output from a now almost four year old 5D Mark II. It's scary to think what's just around the corner.

Personally, I can't wait. Wallet is ready.

H

h0ughy (David) · #3 02-02-2012, 10:43 PM

i would have thought you would go for a better signal/noise setup?

DavidTrap (David) · #4 02-02-2012, 10:49 PM

There has to be a compromise, although the electronics are always improving.

What are you planning to use the camera for? 90+% of my shots will be in well lit environments, so I don't need the ultimate low light performance. I'll get annoyed when taking shots of my kids at indoor concerts that I can't just ramp it up to ISO6400 or higher without concern, but I'll still get a memory of the event.

If it's pretty good at 3200, I'll be a happy camper. Beyond that is really just for shooting shots in a coal mine at midnight!

DT

gregbradley · #5 02-02-2012, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octane

Well, both company's flagship products now boast less megapixels. But, they're both aimed at a targeted audience.

Sensor technology improves with time; the resolution monsters (which will both likely be announced on the same day, next week) will be aimed at studio/landscape photographers with magnificent high ISO performance.

I mean, look at the ISO-3200 output from a now almost four year old 5D Mark II. It's scary to think what's just around the corner.

Personally, I can't wait. Wallet is ready.

H

Same. I think the competition is fierce and the need to produce an outstanding camera is high. Its much like a Formula 1 race.

The winner will be us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by h0ughy

i would have thought you would go for a better signal/noise setup?

The original 5D was much less megapixels yet they managed both with the 5D Mark ii or at least I think they did. Better processors, better microlenses, better pixel fill etc give some room for achieving both to some degree. Its probably like telescopes - no one camera is ideal for all uses. But it'd be nice to get the one that does the best at the most different type of uses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

There has to be a compromise, although the electronics are always improving.

What are you planning to use the camera for? 90+% of my shots will be in well lit environments, so I don't need the ultimate low light performance. I'll get annoyed when taking shots of my kids at indoor concerts that I can't just ramp it up to ISO6400 or higher without concern, but I'll still get a memory of the event.

If it's pretty good at 3200, I'll be a happy camper. Beyond that is really just for shooting shots in a coal mine at midnight!

DT

True but its annoying to process a daylight image at longer focal length and start to see noise in the dim areas. Noise shows its ugly head in daylight shots as well. Its just more in the background.

It'd be nice to have a clean sensor, high resolution, good low light performance so you could use it for time lapse or comet shots etc and access to some nice lenses or perhaps a nice smallish telescope!

Greg.

g__day (Matthew) · #6 03-02-2012, 01:05 PM

I tend to think of CCDs and CMOS as simply a grid of holes or wells that we call pixels - that have certain defining characteristics, their:

1. physical size and shape
2. depth
3. readout noise
4. dark current and noise

As to whether more or less is wells is desirable it depends what you want to do and what optics and targets you are shooting. I imagine a trillion wells that could be binned together to a huge extent would be very interesting and versatile - but too expensive!

As said above - most high end gear is diallying back the number of mega pixels nowadays.

Well depth is a critical aspect for many of us - if the well fills it bleds over onto other wells (blooming) - as wells have a certain capacity and the software treats this precision as an integer (not a float - not wanting to give away any secrets of what might be comming)! If the well isn't deep enough or have anti blooming gates you can overload your image if you have a target with high dynamic range and a bright object in it floods into dimmer areas of interest - e.g. M42

Lastly the readout capability of your wells - what Q/E at what temperature range (do they use low or high quality 12, 14 or 16 bit DA convertors) and dark current charectices of the wells at varying temperatures is very important.

gregbradley · #7 03-02-2012, 03:15 PM

The 1 DX Canon is not a huge megapixel camera but the new Nikon D800 is rumoured to be 36mp which is enormous when you consider my huge astrocamera 16803 chip which is twice the size is only 16.8mp.

Greg.

DavidTrap (David) · #8 03-02-2012, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregbradley

The 1 DX Canon is not a huge megapixel camera but the new Nikon D800 is rumoured to be 36mp which is enormous when you consider my huge astrocamera 16803 chip which is twice the size is only 16.8mp.

Greg.

The 1D-X and D4 are aimed at the photo-journalist, so speed (10fps) and available light photography are the requirements. Extreme resolution is not essential.

The D800 and 5DIII are for landscape and studio work - so quality is everything, but the subjects are slower moving or lighting can be controlled.

Different tools for different tasks.

DT

TrevorW · #9 03-02-2012, 07:01 PM

Lower Noise

acropolite (Phil) · #10 03-02-2012, 07:54 PM

Lower noise. When was the last time you actually printed an image from a DSLR. The humble 20D at just 8mp is capable of producing quality 16x20 inch prints, I've seen larger using some of the latest image resizing plugins available for PS.

How much more does the average Joe want. We're seduced by larger Mp but I'd take lower noise anyday. The achiles heel of the imaging chain is lenses, they are IMO, in many cases, way behind the technology, particularly at the wide end.

Octane (Humayun) · #11 03-02-2012, 08:02 PM

I print 36x24s, 30x20s, 24x16s and smaller, regularly. They look wonderful.

The people who have issues are those who don't know how to expose properly, or, how to process correctly.

H

Astroman (Andrew Wall) · #12 03-02-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Octane

I print 36x24s, 30x20s, 24x16s and smaller, regularly. They look wonderful.

The people who have issues are those who don't know how to expose properly, or, how to process correctly.

H

I printed a 20 x 30 off my Canon 400D it looked awesome

who needs modern technology... me!

Can't wait to see what the future holds for the next generation of cameras.... an exciting time we live in, but does it have a limit?