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

[Guest]

Samsung announced a new 1.0?m-pixel image sensor that comes with a 20 percent reduction in height (to under a total of 5 mm) yet can still deliver the same quality as the previous generation 1.12?m-pixel ISOCELL sensor.

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

 

[LordConrad]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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.

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

 

[JPNpower]

@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.

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]

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.

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

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

 

[LordConrad]

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.

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

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

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

 

[JPNpower]

@LordConrad

Pardon?

 

[Blazer1985]

@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.

 

[LordConrad]

@LordConrad

Pardon?

Why would I have to save up for a huge sensor??

 

[JPNpower]

@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.

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]

@LordConrad

Pardon?

Why would I have to save up for a huge sensor??

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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

 

[JPNpower]

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

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

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?