Samsung's S5K3P3 Image Sensor Trades Better Quality For Smaller Size

Status
Not open for further replies.

LordConrad

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2007
862
14
19,165
54
High Megapixel cameras are completely unnecessary unless you're making poster size prints or doing ridiculously high digital zoom. I'd much rather have a phone with 8MP 2.0?m camera.
 

JPNpower

Honorable
Jun 7, 2013
1,072
0
11,360
41
Just use a stacked circuitry approach like Sony's EXMOR RS sensor to have a smaller sensor overall. Thickness isn't THAT important, just add a camera bulge. Those tend to make the phones seem thinner anyway.
 

JPNpower

Honorable
Jun 7, 2013
1,072
0
11,360
41
By the way, the larger pixel idea is a myth. Big pixels don't give you better performance. Sensor size is much, much, much, much, more important. Here's the more fleshed out explanation: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2.

TL;DR, yeah each pixel gets more light, but as a whole, the sensor receives the same amount of light regardless of pixel size.
 

Blazer1985

Honorable
May 21, 2012
206
0
10,690
1
@JPNpower:
it is almost true. In theory by binning 4 pixel togather you would have the same light reaching the sensor as you would have on a single pixel as big as those four. In practice though the extra "borders" between the pixels will make you lose some light, same for the smaller micro lenses on top of each photosite.

Take a look of what the Sony A7s is capable of in low light compared with other full-frame cameras.
 

alidan

Splendid
Aug 5, 2009
5,303
0
25,780
0
High Megapixel cameras are completely unnecessary unless you're making poster size prints or doing ridiculously high digital zoom. I'd much rather have a phone with 8MP 2.0?m camera.
this really depends, remember the nokia 41-48mp cameraphone?
if you downscale the images to 8mp they were/may still be the best images you can get out of a phone, however you look at the images at their natural size, you see detail that would otherwise have been lost, it may not be the cleanest detail, but detail none the less, the image i remember was a comparison between the 8mp and 41~48 and looking at the person's shoe, on the 8 you couldn't read the text but on the bigger image you could, though it wasn't pretty.

personally, what i want on a phone is i believe a higher iso so low light isnt so horrible, and a bigger lense/sensor so more light can get focused even if that means bulking out the phone a bit or putting some kind of protector on the lense.
 

LordConrad

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2007
862
14
19,165
54

If I want higher detail I'll use my Nikon DSLR. For a phone I want a good snapshots, even in low light.
 

JPNpower

Honorable
Jun 7, 2013
1,072
0
11,360
41


But is it so? Not really. There is theoretically light loss due to borders, but that isn't the main issue. If it were so, nokia's 40+ mp sensors would be useless, and Sony's new 42mp full frame sensor would perform terribly compared to the 36mp sensor it replaces. We know that both of those points are false. Besides, that is why technology like Samsung's favorite BSI sensors and Sony's special stacked circuit sensors exist. Also, the reason that Sony's 12mp sensor is so good in low light is not because of the larger pixels, but because of the low electrical noise that it produces. That is why you want a camera with a larger sensor, like with Sony's Z series for low light. (Too bad that Sony fudged the software side though).
 

JPNpower

Honorable
Jun 7, 2013
1,072
0
11,360
41


Well then you better save up for a big sensor smartphone then, like that behemouth from Panasonic. CM1 I think it was called.
 

LordConrad

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2007
862
14
19,165
54

And how would an 8MP 2um sensor be larger than the 16-20MP 1.1um sensors they're using now?
 

Blazer1985

Honorable
May 21, 2012
206
0
10,690
1
@JPNpower:
Nokia 1020's sensor is double the size of normal phone sensors.
The new sony A7r II doesn't perform worse than the A7r. The difference in photosite size from 36mp to 42mp is neglegible compared to the 12mp of the A7s. Then explain to me why you think sony doesn't magically make every sensor a low-light monster if resolution is not a factor.
Remember when the Nex 5 performed better at high iso than the Nex 7 due to lower resolution? Remember what happened next? They lowered the resolution of their flagship to achieve better s/n ratio :)
A7r II and canon 5Dr are good for studio shoots with good lights and low iso 800-1600. The A7s starts showing some noise in the 10-20k iso range.
 

JPNpower

Honorable
Jun 7, 2013
1,072
0
11,360
41


Nokia's sensor is double the size? Still, it has like 5x the pixel count and density then compared to iPhones. But to go back to Sony... the signal/noise performance has more to do with single pixel performance and technology, rather than the actual pixel size. Yes, it is somewhat easier to design a larger higher performing pixel, but that is not the largest factor. That is why Sony/Nikon's 36mp sensor can outperform Canon's 22mp sensor in noise. Why doesn't Sony try to make every sensor a low light monster you say? Well... they are trying. And if you downsample their 36mp images, they are getting close.
 

JPNpower

Honorable
Jun 7, 2013
1,072
0
11,360
41


Because a larger sensor would give you much better low light performance while larger pixels will give you close to negligible improvement if any.
 

Blazer1985

Honorable
May 21, 2012
206
0
10,690
1
As we were speaking Canon presented a 2mpix full frame video camera capable of 4 million iso :)
Btw if you downsample the a7r to 12mpix you end up having more color noise compared to the a7s.
 

JPNpower

Honorable
Jun 7, 2013
1,072
0
11,360
41


Ah, yes. That monster... I'm not sure how relevant a camera the price of a luxury car is though to this discussion!

As for the a7r, the noise is indeed significant, especially at higher ISOs. But then also, the A7R 12mp photo has more detail and contrast as well.
 

LordConrad

Distinguished
Jun 15, 2007
862
14
19,165
54

I call BS. Larger pixels perform much better in low light than a huge amount of smaller ones.
 

JPNpower

Honorable
Jun 7, 2013
1,072
0
11,360
41


Then why aren't there reasonably priced pro low light (video) cameras with 2mp full frames? Why are the two notable low light monsters a $2500 Sony and a $30k Canon? Or also... why aren't old digital cameras like the original 11mp Canon 1Ds absolute low light monsters?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS