[tclausen]

I know, but I think that most users in this categorie don't have LightRoom. They use maybe Adobe Photoshop Elements or some kind off free software around on internet. You can't apply lenscorrections in PSE so you are limited to the jpg-output.

And for those good people, there is "in camera lens correction" in the Q.

[Aristophanes]

"Noise" is the most common way to express the random error on electronic devices, and I'll continue with the convention of discussing it that way.

"Grain" is the most common way to express the limitations of film technology due to the inhomogeneity of the particles in the film.

I may want one or the other or both in my pictures. I agree that the picture above with more noise looks better than the processed one. I'd still rather have a camera that can produce perfect results optically, that I can "degrade" optically (but improve artistically) later if I so choose.

Grain applies to film because film is 3D. Sensors are not.

Noise applies to sensor images because the pixel is a discrete signal.

The noisier picture is sharper, but the noise in the OOF areas is pure mud.

[ElJamoquio]

Grain applies to film because film is 3D. Sensors are not.

Noise applies to sensor images because the pixel is a discrete signal.

The noisier picture is sharper, but the noise in the OOF areas is pure mud.

Noise is used on analog signals all the time. I don't know what you mean by 'discrete'.

[Aristophanes]

Noise is used on analog signals all the time. I don't know what you mean by 'discrete'.

Colour film is layered dyes. If a wavelength of light hits the dye, it turns the colour as intended. It cannot turn another colour. It is either more or less of that colour, and there is depth to the chemical layer as well, shading the tones. The grain comes from the structure of the 3D chemistry as a dried emulsion. The size of the grain generally represents the concentration of the dye in sensitive amounts, usually larger = higher ISO, more reactive to less light due to size. You really don't have noise in film because each dye layer is discrete and cannot bleed into other layers. You just get more colour intensity or less.

Sensors are made up of discrete bins called pixels. Too much energy in a pixel can change the signal and an area of, say blue, can turn into a non-blue signal. Most often black, or blown highlights, or the multi-colour chroma noise patterns. Sensors go through analog to digital convertors, so the analog signal of the pixel bins then gets interpreted as noise. It has no 3D structure so it cannot be grain. Some of the editing plug-ins try and replicate film grain by clumping together tones. Works better on b/w.

You've been here long enough; you should know this.

[ytango]

Grain applies to film because film is 3D. Sensors are not.

Noise applies to sensor images because the pixel is a discrete signal.

Colour film is layered dyes. If a wavelength of light hits the dye, it turns the colour as intended. It cannot turn another colour. It is either more or less of that colour, and there is depth to the chemical layer as well, shading the tones. The grain comes from the structure of the 3D chemistry as a dried emulsion. The size of the grain generally represents the concentration of the dye in sensitive amounts, usually larger = higher ISO, more reactive to less light due to size. You really don't have noise in film because each dye layer is discrete and cannot bleed into other layers. You just get more colour intensity or less.

Sensors are made up of discrete bins called pixels. Too much energy in a pixel can change the signal and an area of, say blue, can turn into a non-blue signal. Most often black, or blown highlights, or the multi-colour chroma noise patterns. Sensors go through analog to digital convertors, so the analog signal of the pixel bins then gets interpreted as noise. It has no 3D structure so it cannot be grain. Some of the editing plug-ins try and replicate film grain by clumping together tones. Works better on b/w.

You've been here long enough; you should know this.

Grain is called grain because they are GRANULES of dye clouds formed from exposed and developed silver halide. They are NOT called grain "because film is 3D". Also, sensors are VERY MUCH 3D. The sensor wells, microlenses, amps, ADC, etc don't magically exist in a 2D plane.

Noise doesn't apply "because the pixel is a discrete signal". Noise applies because of shot noise, which is due to the distribution of light hitting the sensor, as well as physical limitations in manufacturing real systems. Integer algebra is composed of discrete signals, and does not have noise.

Grain has similar poisson distribution as shot noise. It IS noise. Furthermore, the resulting color of a slide or neg depends not only on the initial exposure, but also on the chemical development process, emulsion batch variation, and freshness of the film. It is far from being always color accurate.

[ElJamoquio]

Colour film is layered dyes. If a wavelength of light hits the dye, it turns the colour as intended. It cannot turn another colour. It is either more or less of that colour, and there is depth to the chemical layer as well, shading the tones. The grain comes from the structure of the 3D chemistry as a dried emulsion. The size of the grain generally represents the concentration of the dye in sensitive amounts, usually larger = higher ISO, more reactive to less light due to size. You really don't have noise in film because each dye layer is discrete and cannot bleed into other layers. You just get more colour intensity or less.

Sensors are made up of discrete bins called pixels. Too much energy in a pixel can change the signal and an area of, say blue, can turn into a non-blue signal. Most often black, or blown highlights, or the multi-colour chroma noise patterns. Sensors go through analog to digital convertors, so the analog signal of the pixel bins then gets interpreted as noise. It has no 3D structure so it cannot be grain. Some of the editing plug-ins try and replicate film grain by clumping together tones. Works better on b/w.

You've been here long enough; you should know this.

Your description of the grain/film is OK but your description of the sensor is lacking. Sensors are 3D. Noise comes from a variety of sources, and it's not just because there's an A-D converter. Heck, the K-5 has 14-bit data.

[mecrox]

What I mean by mount limitation ceiling is whether a larger sensor can go into a somewhat larger body while retaining the Q mount (since PRAC says Pentax is committed to the Q-mount) or whether the register distance / image circle of Q mount and lenses are prohibitive for upgrading.

Potential problems such as this are why I always harbor the suspicion that Ricoh's QuickandDirty Plan B is, acquire a mount or m4/3-related patents and designs (Oly?) and kill something of their own.

Hmmn, Aristophanes' point - that a 1" sensor is the mark at which a camera can pull decisively ahead of a smartphone - is a pretty strong one, Imho. It's not hard to envisage some classy Ricoh compacts with a 1" sensor, anyway, and on past performance they would probably be very good cameras.

A Plan B of a kind is already in operation here. The K-01 is currently the same price as the Q10 at my dealer: K-01 + 40 mm vs Q10 + 5-15mm = both 379 pounds, though the original Q is less as is the K-01 + 18-155mm DAL which is only 299 pounds. Step up a little, and you can get a D3200 and kit lens for 439 pounds. Step sideways and you can get a 1100D and kit lens for 389 pounds. Crazy situation really.

Strikes me that Pentax saying they are committed to the Q means they have a mirrorless presence in the Far East, where the Q has been a success, but not in the West where it hasn't (at least by comparison).

---

Last edited by mecrox; 05-16-2013 at 08:04 AM.

[Uluru]

.

Strikes me that Pentax saying they are committed to the Q means they have a mirrorless presence the Far East, where the Q has been a success, but not for the West where it hasn't (at least by comparison).

Yes, for the westerners obsessed with the size of their tools, Pentax will issue a compact body of the NEX3 size, but with a 645D sensor in it, to finally shut up conceptually challenged photobloggers and other gatekeepers of the holy values of the digital photography prejudices. The camera will utilise only 50% of the sensor active pixels, but that doesn't matter (pun intended – read further); namely, the rest of unused pixels will be used by DarkMatter @ Home project launched by the Stanford Uiversity, which uses the idle time of our sensors in between exposures as a mean to investigate the dark matter.

[IchabodCrane]

Yes, for the westerners obsessed with the size of their tools, Pentax will issue a compact body of the NEX3 size, but with a 645D sensor in it, to finally shut up conceptually challenged photobloggers and other gatekeepers of the holy values of the digital photography prejudices. The camera will utilise only 50% of the sensor active pixels, but that doesn't matter (pun intended – read further); namely, the rest of unused pixels will be used by DarkMatter @ Home project launched by the Stanford Uiversity, which uses the idle time of our sensors in between exposures as a mean to investigate the dark matter.

Buyers truly looking for the biggest camera wouldn't have bought a Pentax.

[Aristophanes]

Grain is called grain because they are GRANULES of dye clouds formed from exposed and developed silver halide. They are NOT called grain "because film is 3D". Also, sensors are VERY MUCH 3D. The sensor wells, microlenses, amps, ADC, etc don't magically exist in a 2D plane.

Noise doesn't apply "because the pixel is a discrete signal". Noise applies because of shot noise, which is due to the distribution of light hitting the sensor, as well as physical limitations in manufacturing real systems. Integer algebra is composed of discrete signals, and does not have noise.

Grain has similar poisson distribution as shot noise. It IS noise. Furthermore, the resulting color of a slide or neg depends not only on the initial exposure, but also on the chemical development process, emulsion batch variation, and freshness of the film. It is far from being always color accurate.

Let''s be accurate:

Photographic Film

Kodak R&D: Chemistry-Silver Halide Emulsions

Film has granules which are a 3D photochemical structure. Look. See. Microscope. Crystals. We all call them grain and have for........decades. They have depth and layering (by design) which confers tonality as the light passing through each layer and through the layer itself diminishes through absorption, more noticeable on b/w film. Grain "noise" is deliberate, such as the difference between Tri-X and T-Max. Obviously one can mess it all up at at the last remaining Kodak emulsion factory or in the lab, or by leaving the loaded camera in the glove compartment on a hot day. Nevertheless a red dye cloud in that particular emulsion layer is still inherently red. Grain in film is largely intentional and had over 100 years of aesthetic development, so call it noise if you will as we walk down the purely analog path. I was in a darkroom last week and it hasn't changed since the time of Lincoln.

All sensors pixels are discrete and side-by-side. If neighbours get different signals, or not enough or too much signal, then you have a problem. That "noise" is interpreted by the ADC in a different manner than film because now neighbour pixels disagrees with each other. So you get that chroma mess. A very different kind of noise and not there by design. To our aesthetic it looks bad, like screen static. Call it shot noise or whatever, the ADC gets different info between neighbours and chugs along regardless.

Back to the topic at hand, larger sensors can have, at the same megapixel aggregate count, larger pixel bins, and, in low light especially, more accuracy and understanding between neighbours. Better neighours = less noise. So the design in sensors is to reduce or eliminate noise because there is no aesthetically pleasing grain structure from digital signal noise. Film could design structures and layers dimensionally that made to the human eye interesting tonal variations based on the grain. Sensors cannot. (Caveat: I am sure some Bohemian photographer hipster somewhere has turned that into an arts grant).

Therefore the goal should be to have the largest sensor possible for that camera's form factor at a competitive price point. It is RULE #1 with digital cameras. When you see the Sony RX100 with a much larger sensor than the Pentax Q in a comparative form factor at a similar price point....it's Pentax that has the problem.

[Aristophanes]

Hmmn, Aristophanes' point - that a 1" sensor is the mark at which a camera can pull decisively ahead of a smartphone - is a pretty strong one, Imho. It's not hard to envisage some classy Ricoh compacts with a 1" sensor, anyway, and on past performance they would probably be very good cameras.

We know this because of the Sony RX100 and also the Nokia's 808 Pureview phone.

I'm not sure the pixel binning will be a mainstay, but the sensor size race is definitely on.

To their credit, and I generally think Sony is a horribly run company and have said so for years on this forum, having never forgiven Sony for dumping my precious Minolta brand, they've put their industrial muscle behind the engine development of digicams. Someone at Sony has figured out that sensor size is where it's at.

The Q looks like an attempt too put cheap, last gen sensor size into a system camera thinking consumers are more concerned with lenses, accessories ($249 external VF), and colours than sensor size. I think Pentax miscalculated and the Q is isolated in the being the system camera with the smallest sensor and therefore worst performing IQ at a lousy price point amongst fierce competition.

Within 24 months I predict both the Q mount (and Ricoh's GXR system) to be officially on life support or dead.

[Kunzite]

Within 24 months I predict both the Q mount (and Ricoh's GXR system) to be officially on life support or dead.

And I predict the Q will be fine.

[cfraz]

The megapixel race is stalling because resolution sells no more images. It officially stalled with the Nikon D700.
.

Curious. You conclude the MP race has stalled because the D700's successor has "only" three times the resolution?

[Aristophanes]

Curious. You conclude the MP race has stalled because the D700's successor has "only" three times the resolution?

The MP race stalled because the D700 emphasized low light, high-ISO capacity at the expense of megapixels. This went against all marketing trends at the time.

I'd also argue the D600 is the D700's true successor for prosumers, not the D800. I think Nikon was surprised the D700 sold so well (and ramped down the price curve) to non-pros. I also think they saw sales of the D3 slip to the D700, so the D600/800 split was designed to...split that market with more finesse and retained profitability.

In the 5+ years since the D700 was released, those same high-ISO capacities have been realized in higher density MP sensors, but there is no doubt the MP race is almost done at 24MP for APS-C (unless pixel binning becomes acceptable). My understanding s that FF can get to 50MP before Nyquist kicks in.

Right now for prosumer cameras the limiting factor is turning out to be RAW file size and PC processing and storage. That's going to be another limiting factor.

[Zygonyx]

I never said anything about DOF. What I said was that if 3 systems cost relatively the same--about C$700--then the one's with the larger sensors will do better. So in that category, the DSLR will win, or, in a compact size, the RX100 will win. Both provide superior photographic value because the essence of a photograph is now contained by sensor data, and larger sensors gather more data and more accurate data. I cannot envision a scenario where the Q competes as a photographic tool with the RX100 or a Nikon 3200 DSLR kit at the same price point. All reviews certainly say so.

Wait. Sorry. It does compete if you want lots of colour choices. My bad.

Well, but i did say something about DOF : its bigger depth easily achieved with small sensor IS AN ADVANTAGE for a lot of newbees and amateur consumers.
As well as it IS AN ADVANTAGE for landscaping shooters.
Some professionnals (not me) even pretend that thin DOF is a symptom of "bad composition" photographic skills...

The Q system is a typical "niche" product :
=> regarding size, the Q system has achieved the better in terms of compactness with interchangeable lenses ; and crop factor when adapted on almost other optics (this is a good value criteria for some enthusiast shooters)
=> in terms of design and ergonomy, it is a perfect example for stylish and practical tool
=> in terms of colours arrangement, it is a world record that meets any differenciation attempt
=> in terms of image quality (including almost all parameters), it reaches top notch amongst same sized sensors

You shouldn't consider the Q system as a mainstream and mass marketing initiative.
Same with GXR system...
Don't forget that Ricoh is DEFINITELY NOT a true competitor for CASONIKON.
As when former Hoya's time adverts mentionned it : "be interesting" doesn't mach with "common wisdom thinking".
And whatever be the "rationals" of your approach, this kind of product lines make sufficient sales/margin for business to continue.