gdanmitchell Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
Sauseschritt wrote:
Sensors arent growing. The sensor size of a system doesnt change, ever. Its builtin into the lenses, the lens mount, etc.
So why do people keep refering to smaller pixels as "larger sensor" ? This is a clearly absurd useage of language.
And no, smaller pixels just means less performant, plain and simple. Thats why smaller sensors are less performant, after all, because they have to have smaller pixels if you want the same resolution.
And, otherwise, if smaller pixels would yield better performance - why wouldnt they just give us Gigapixel sensors ? Even if reading such a sensor would take a minute people would still do it if the overall performance would be better. Which of course its not....Show more →
Oh. My.
Sensors are growing. Photo site density is increasing.
Sensors are growing larger because fabrication systems have lower error rates and because it is now possible to produce large sensors at much lower price points that in the past.
At the same time it is ALSO possible to make sensors with smaller photo sites.
In one sense, you are sort of correct to suggest that a smaller photo site could have lower performance than a larger photo site. It is undeniable that the number of photons collected by a smaller area is lower. But that's not the whole story, and you must know this!
If your claim that using smaller photo sites lead inevitably to a loss in sensor performance were true, by now the 50MP and higher sensors that rely on smaller photo sites would be unusable, and those sweet 3MP sensors we had back around 2000 would be way better!
Maybe it occurs to you that there is a potential weakness in this argument? ;-)
In fact, the "overall performance" of modern, high-density sensors IS "better" than that of the older low-density sensors. It is abundantly clear that the performance of the 50MP FF and the 24MP APS-C sensors that I use today is way better than that of the first digital sensor I used, in a camera that had less than 1MP resolution. It is better than that of the 8 MP APS-C sensor in the first DSLR I owned. It is better than that of the 12 MP sensor of the first FF camera I owned. (Even the 24MP APS-C sensor exceeds the performance of that 12 MP sensor.)
You are correct that if we take two sensors of a given size with different resolutions but otherwise using the exact same level of technology... that the lower resolution sensor will have the potential to collect "more light" per photo site, providing a potential benefit in DR and noise for the lower resolution sensor.
But that's not the real world scenario. Successive generations of sensor design produce increasingly better quality of data such that photo site density can be increased while maintaining or even improving the quality of the data collected by the sensor.
It is way past time to stop beating this "image quality will suffer if we increase photo site density" drum.
|