Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-27-2015, 09:24 AM   #76
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,880
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
While there are many sites that offer more technical explanations and examples, may I suggest that you check out the link to a good dissertation on pixel sizes. Cramming more pixels into the small Q size sensor is NOT going to improve the image. However, if Pentax had started out with 8MP then grew to 10MP at most, it might have been a better sensor but in this day and age when buyers think more MP is gooder coming out with a really good 8MP sensor would not have been a smart business decision.
Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter
What's happened is that individuals who refute the "Megapixel Myth" are guilty of the same nature of thought processing that plagues individuals who believe "More Megapixels are Better": both look for a singular bottom-line "fact" and cling to it, never contemplating that technology improves.

AC is too dangerous to use, I'm certain of it, Thomas Edison's boys electrocuted animals with it.

The problem with the article you reference in your contention of "cramming more megapixels..." is that the author of that article (and you) are assuming that the technology is stagnant. It's not. Engineering improves, the fabbing process improves, the sensor improves. The algorithms of the on-sensor NR chip improve.

A great example of this is comparing the Nikon D7200 with a 24MP sensor to the Pentax K-5 IIs with a 16MP sensor. Same size sensor, Nikon has 50% more megapickles, Nikon "wins" the measurables war.


Last edited by luftfluss; 06-08-2016 at 08:23 AM.
11-27-2015, 09:42 AM   #77
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by 99exposures Quote
I would take a 1/1.7" sensor too, as long as it has the smallest pixel pitch that makes sense. Why? Because then i can get max resolving power with max reach, on a shoestring budget.

Image quality will never be the strength of the q. Dont even bother.
There is a difference between "not a strength" and "weakness".

I purchased my Q-7 last December; I could have purchased a Q or a Q-10, but I bought the Q-7, for very specific reasons. I have identified seven specific uses I make of a camera, and I want to cover those uses with at most two cameras, so one camera needs to meet more than just one of them. I had gone through this logic around Halloween 2014, when Canon came out with their SX-60, and the SX-50 was offered at close-out prices. I decided that the widest view available on the SX-50 limited its utility to me, and its Image Quality further limited it. I eliminated the 1/2.3" members of the Q family for exactly the same reasons. Since I got my Q-7, I have been extremely pleased by the Image Quality it provides to me. I will not claim IQ as a strength of this camera, but it is not a weakness either; I was especially pleased with pictures I took on our trip to San Diego, when the Q-7 + 01 lens was my preferred combination for taking pictures in darkish old churches. From comments made about IQ of the various super-zoom bridge cameras, I believe that regressing back to the smaller sensor would also regress back to a lower IQ, and equally importantly, potential new purchasers would be concerned about it. On the other hand, when my "primary" camera, a Canon Rebel, unexpectedly died last May, my experience with Q-7 IQ made me willing to use the Q-7 as a temporary "primary", which enabled me to be patient in finding a new "primary"; I believe all that would be thrown away by going to the more crowded sensor.

Added thought: We're celebrating Thanksgiving today because our older daughter arrived from San Diego yesterday evening. I'm using my Q-7 most of the time, because it is so much smaller / convenient to carry around than my K-30 is, but still (with 02 lens) gives me a good range of views and reasonable IQ. I'm not convinced I would feel that way if I had a Q-S2 with a smaller sensor.

---------- Post added 11-27-15 at 11:48 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
What's happened is that individuals who refute the "Megapixel Myth" are guilty of the same nature of thought processing that plagues individuals who believe "More Megapixels are Better": both look for a singular bottom-line "fact" and cling to it, never contemplating that technology improves.
Personally, I would have no issue with using a modern 1/1.7" sensor on the Q-S2; in fact, that is what I assume they would do. My issue would be with regressing back to a smaller sensor.

Last edited by reh321; 11-27-2015 at 10:06 AM. Reason: added thought
11-27-2015, 10:08 AM   #78
Pentaxian




Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Hamilton, Texas
Photos: Albums
Posts: 647
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
The problem with the article you reference in your contention of "cramming more megapixels..." is that the author of that article (and you) are assuming that the technology is stagnant. It's not. Engineering improves, the fabbing process improves, the sensor improves. The algorithms of the on-sensor NR chip improve.
However, you begin running into the fundamental constraints of the laws of optics -- such as photon noise (as the article pointed out) or diffraction. No amount of improvement in sensor technology is going to make these go away.
11-27-2015, 10:18 AM - 1 Like   #79
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lake District
Posts: 222
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
While there are many sites that offer more technical explanations and examples, may I suggest that you check out the link to a good dissertation on pixel sizes. Cramming more pixels into the small Q size sensor is NOT going to improve the image. However, if Pentax had started out with 8MP then grew to 10MP at most, it might have been a better sensor but in this day and age when buyers think more MP is gooder coming out with a really good 8MP sensor would not have been a smart business decision.
Clarkvision: Does Pixel Size Matter
I fully understand the technical side of number is photons poet pixel site.

Never the less, after several years extra development, the 1" (with more pixels )was producing better pictures. I assume other factors come into play that I certainly don't understand in the electronics. Things like sensor design-asking with the micro lenses over the pixel sites, signal loss in the chips. Who knows.

Even with more photons, older chips and circuitry must loose more of the original between sensor and SD card.
I can't help what I saw
J

11-27-2015, 11:02 AM   #80
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,880
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
However, you begin running into the fundamental constraints of the laws of optics -- such as photon noise (as the article pointed out) or diffraction. No amount of improvement in sensor technology is going to make these go away.
In my previous post, I think my phrase "...the author of that article...assuming that the technology is stagnant" is poor. I should have said something to the effect that the author is comparing only specific aspects of sensor tech as it impacts optical aspects of image quality, not that he is assuming sensor tech is stagnant. But his conclusion is far from definitive, as he hedges his bets a lot, which is smart

There's always going to be a trade-off between low-iso resolving power and high-iso noise characteristics. I think for there to be one person, or one school of thought, to determine which aspect is more important than the other is either ill-informed or pretty damned arrogant.

---------- Post added 11-27-15 at 01:15 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Personally, I would have no issue with using a modern 1/1.7" sensor on the Q-S2; in fact, that is what I assume they would do. My issue would be with regressing back to a smaller sensor.
I agree. I'm admittedly a fan of the 12MP 1/1.7" sensor, IMO it's a sweet spot. Prints well at 13x19 at low ISO, high-ISO is good enough for snapshots and Internet posting, small enough to fit in pocketable camera bodies or a superzoom.

I don't think I've had more actual fun during the photographic process than my Q7 + 01 + Auto 110 primes. And part of that is the resulting images looked good, IMO. Which is why I want to re-acquire a Q.

01 Prime, ISO 800
11-27-2015, 11:31 AM   #81
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lake District
Posts: 222
If I actually really had a say in Pentax's decision process, I'd go for the benefits of the last few years in design helping, AND dropping to 10MP. A double whammy.
I'd be happy with 10MP.

However even 10 is considered too low in a modern phone, so what chance have we got with a Q :-(

J
11-27-2015, 07:02 PM   #82
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Far North Qld
Posts: 3,294
QuoteOriginally posted by jethro10 Quote
However even 10 is considered too low in a modern phone, so what chance have we got with a Q :-(
It is? By whom?

Anyway, there's no real comparison, the phone sensor is so tiny.
11-27-2015, 08:35 PM   #83
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,109
Sensor technology is a mix of hardware components and clever firmware programming. Both elements have been advancing in leaps and bounds over the past 10-15 years. There's no reason to believe that it won't continue to evolve until we reach some atomic limit. I don't know where that limit is but I'm guessing it's still pretty far out there. Will we one day have higher resolution sensing systems with lower noise, wider dynamic range, and more accurate color reproduction? Yes, I believe we will. Will it happen tomorrow? No, it will take time.

The 1/1.7" 12MP sensor is only what we have today. There is no reason to believe that this is a hard limit.

11-27-2015, 10:14 PM   #84
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,880
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
Sensor technology is a mix of hardware components and clever firmware programming. Both elements have been advancing in leaps and bounds over the past 10-15 years. There's no reason to believe that it won't continue to evolve until we reach some atomic limit. I don't know where that limit is but I'm guessing it's still pretty far out there. Will we one day have higher resolution sensing systems with lower noise, wider dynamic range, and more accurate color reproduction? Yes, I believe we will. Will it happen tomorrow? No, it will take time.

The 1/1.7" 12MP sensor is only what we have today. There is no reason to believe that this is a hard limit.

My "concern" is that development on the 1/1.7" sensor has essentially stopped. If you look at the sensors that bracket it - the 1/2.33" and 1" sensors (I'm not counting Fuji 2/3" X-Trans) - those sensors have increased MP count significantly since the introduction of the 12MP 1/1.7" sensor.

Off on a slight tangent: in 2008, Canon introduced the Powershot G10, a top-of-the-line "enthusiast" P&S that used a 14.7MP, 1/1.7" CCD sensor. It was blasted by users and reviewers for poor high-ISO performance, so when Canon assembled it's successor, the G11, they used a 10MP CMOS sensor. Complaints about noisy high-ISO performance disappeared. But... the G10 has now become something of a cult classic, because to this day it out-resolves all the newer G-series cameras (we're up to G16 now) that use the 1/1.7" sensor at base ISO.

I think the Q's best lenses would do well with a 14-16MP 1/1.7" sensor, and I bet the noise profile could be well-enough controlled that the noise profile would be similar to what we see in the current sensor, similar to how the K-3 compares with the K-5. But I doubt this will happen.
11-27-2015, 11:53 PM   #85
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Lake District
Posts: 222
QuoteOriginally posted by Steve.Ledger Quote
It is? By whom?

Anyway, there's no real comparison, the phone sensor is so tiny.
The marketeers I guess, as top flight phones have all moved above this now.
J

---------- Post added 28-11-15 at 06:57 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
My "concern" is that development on the 1/1.7" sensor has essentially stopped. If you look at the sensors that bracket it - the 1/2.33" and 1" sensors (I'm not counting Fuji 2/3" X-Trans) - those sensors have increased MP count significantly since the introduction of the 12MP 1/1.7" sensor.

Off on a slight tangent: in 2008, Canon introduced the Powershot G10, a top-of-the-line "enthusiast" P&S that used a 14.7MP, 1/1.7" CCD sensor. It was blasted by users and reviewers for poor high-ISO performance, so when Canon assembled it's successor, the G11, they used a 10MP CMOS sensor. Complaints about noisy high-ISO performance disappeared. But... the G10 has now become something of a cult classic, because to this day it out-resolves all the newer G-series cameras (we're up to G16 now) that use the 1/1.7" sensor at base ISO.

I think the Q's best lenses would do well with a 14-16MP 1/1.7" sensor, and I bet the noise profile could be well-enough controlled that the noise profile would be similar to what we see in the current sensor, similar to how the K-3 compares with the K-5. But I doubt this will happen.
The point I was trying to get across, but you're much more eloquent.
J
11-28-2015, 06:20 AM - 1 Like   #86
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Tony Belding Quote
Going to higher pixel density would also invite even more diffraction issues than we have already.
In terms of pixel density, 12MP on the original "crop sensor" Q
is the same as 20MP on the "full frame" Q7.

So the main issue would concern the edge resolution of the lenses.
11-28-2015, 08:22 AM   #87
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,109
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
My "concern" is that development on the 1/1.7" sensor has essentially stopped. If you look at the sensors that bracket it - the 1/2.33" and 1" sensors (I'm not counting Fuji 2/3" X-Trans) - those sensors have increased MP count significantly since the introduction of the 12MP 1/1.7" sensor.

Off on a slight tangent: in 2008, Canon introduced the Powershot G10, a top-of-the-line "enthusiast" P&S that used a 14.7MP, 1/1.7" CCD sensor. It was blasted by users and reviewers for poor high-ISO performance, so when Canon assembled it's successor, the G11, they used a 10MP CMOS sensor. Complaints about noisy high-ISO performance disappeared. But... the G10 has now become something of a cult classic, because to this day it out-resolves all the newer G-series cameras (we're up to G16 now) that use the 1/1.7" sensor at base ISO.

I think the Q's best lenses would do well with a 14-16MP 1/1.7" sensor, and I bet the noise profile could be well-enough controlled that the noise profile would be similar to what we see in the current sensor, similar to how the K-3 compares with the K-5. But I doubt this will happen.
I agree with you that active development of the 1/1.7" sensor has seemingly stopped. The biggest development is happening in small phone camera sensors and larger sensors like u4/3, APS and FF. It seems the other sizes between 1/2.3" and 1" just get whatever trickles down to them. This doesn't mean that those other sizes are dead but it may mean a long delay before that trickling down happens. The market for those sensors isn't big enough to justify the adaptation of newer technology.
11-28-2015, 09:07 AM   #88
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,880
QuoteOriginally posted by 6BQ5 Quote
I agree with you that active development of the 1/1.7" sensor has seemingly stopped. The biggest development is happening in small phone camera sensors and larger sensors like u4/3, APS and FF. It seems the other sizes between 1/2.3" and 1" just get whatever trickles down to them. This doesn't mean that those other sizes are dead but it may mean a long delay before that trickling down happens. The market for those sensors isn't big enough to justify the adaptation of newer technology.
My question is, is there enough prospective applications for the 1/1.7" sensor to justify further engineering? Isn't the typical smartphone camera sensor something like 1/3"? Then you step up to 1/2.3" for entry-level digicams (a dying breed), "tough" camera like the WG-4 & GoPro, and superzooms (The best of which seem to sell very well, it's difficult to find the Nikon P900 in stock in the USA). The 1/1.7" sensor used to be for "serious" compact cameras, but that has been superseded by the 1" sensor. So maybe it's bye-bye.

Anyway, I'm not worried about the current Q sensor in terms of IQ and megapickles. The Q7/Q-S1 is fine for me. There are other advancement I would prefer (better LCD is top of my list) but most of all I would like a Qontinuation of the line.
11-28-2015, 09:24 AM   #89
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,982
QuoteOriginally posted by Professor Batty Quote
Although diffraction may limit pixel density, there may still be advances in processing which will effectively increase resolution and decrease noise in small sensors. I think we're in sort of a plateau in digital camera development right now. The rise of 'smart' phones (basically hand held computers) has changed the entire industry, I wouldn't be surprised to see future professional cameras become phones with interchangeable 'lens modules' after latency issues are resolved. The 1/1.7" sensor is probably as big as you could practically fit in a phone–it may well be the future "full frame."
I'm hoping that the software advances made for smart phone cameras (yes, I know they have more processing power) will be adapted for use on regular cameras, especially including the smaller formats.
11-28-2015, 09:34 AM   #90
Site Supporter
6BQ5's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nevada, USA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,109
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
My question is, is there enough prospective applications for the 1/1.7" sensor to justify further engineering? Isn't the typical smartphone camera sensor something like 1/3"? Then you step up to 1/2.3" for entry-level digicams (a dying breed), "tough" camera like the WG-4 & GoPro, and superzooms (The best of which seem to sell very well, it's difficult to find the Nikon P900 in stock in the USA). The 1/1.7" sensor used to be for "serious" compact cameras, but that has been superseded by the 1" sensor. So maybe it's bye-bye.

Anyway, I'm not worried about the current Q sensor in terms of IQ and megapickles. The Q7/Q-S1 is fine for me. There are other advancement I would prefer (better LCD is top of my list) but most of all I would like a Qontinuation of the line.
I don't think the application space for 1/1.7" sensors is big enough to warrant a lot of active development. In fact, I would even question how much active development is done in the 1/2.3" space. Just because there are a lot of these sensors doesn't mean they are improving. Only "low hanging fruit" gets put in that basket. Fuji is pushing the 2/3" size which is marginally larger than 1/1.7". Other than that ...

I am also satisfied with my Q7 kit and I have no desire to replace it. If a better 1/1.7" sensor appears in a future Q model then I may upgrade. Otherwise, I'll keep shooting with it until it dies and I get another Q7.

If I want a camera with a bigger sensor then I can get on any time. Right now I have a Q, an Olympus M10, and a K-3. That's my Small-Medium-Large. I'm happy.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bigma, camera, focus, high-iso, k-3, lens, lenses, mirrorless, pentax, pentax news, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, pentax rumors, phase, phase detection, pixels, profile, q-s1, q10, q7, sensor
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rumor: Pentax FF new Limited lenses coming soon? Stavri Pentax News and Rumors 253 09-27-2015 10:40 AM
New Pentax leaf shutter 645 medium format lenses coming soon i83N Pentax News and Rumors 73 10-03-2014 08:03 AM
New soon-to-be Q owner Soul_Est Welcomes and Introductions 4 06-05-2013 12:21 AM
First signs of upcoming Pentax K-3 appearing... JohnBee Pentax News and Rumors 183 09-06-2012 08:20 AM
K20D will be replaced very soon? (Signs of..) RiceHigh Pentax News and Rumors 127 09-17-2008 01:16 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:14 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top