

Started Oct 17, 2011 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 2,157Gear list
Re: Let's put it all together.
In reply to Great Bustard, Oct 19, 2011

Great Bustard wrote:

FrankyM wrote:






It's a different technology.

So far as I'm aware, it's the same tech, just on a finer scale. It's not the pixel size or sensor size for DR, but the sensor efficiency. Pixel size does play a role, but it's a secondary role, and they way it pans out is that smaller pixels, for a given sensor size and efficiency , result in greater DR per area , but the same DR per pixel .



That's not what he's saying at all. As I highlighted, he claims better per pixel noise performance , which is true for larger pixels. But that doesn't amount to better per area noise performance , which is the proper measure for the photo.

Well read what he does say -


If you're talking about sensors, pixel noise performance is what it's about. If you're talking about photos then it depends also on the processes followed after image capture. However, image SNR cannot be more than pixel SNR at the same resolution.

And, as I've said elsewhere in this thread, the DR is the number of stops from the noise floor to the saturation limit. Smaller pixels have both lower noise floors and lower saturation limits, which are in proportion to the pixel area for a given efficiency, so the DR / pixel remains unchanged.

I'm not arguing the definition of DR, merely pointing out that what you say is in disagreement with Canon's spokesman.


Doesn't Chuck Westfall work as a marketing representative for Canon? He would be no more interested in hearing that smaller pixels have no IQ advantage than hearing that lens IS has no advantage over sensor IS.

I don't know who Chuck Westfall is but his title is given as "Technical Advisor in Canon USA's Pro Engineering and Solutions Division" by DPR. It doesn't sound like marketing to me.




That would be the green text above (I put it in bold) and also the green text in the paragraph below.

Then I misunderstood you. I consider that a 'technical' rather than operational consideration (normally operational refers to the actual operation of a business - so if, for example, not enough 36mp sensors could be manufactured in time for a fixed date product launch, that would be an operational reason to go with something else).

Nevertheless, that's just conjecture on your part.


A nice story. But is it true?

If not a design choice , then it's likely that Canon is using a new sensor tech, and they lacked the ability to make smaller pixels with it at this time. In the next generation, they will likely shrink the scale, making more pixels with it. In fact, that has been Canon's history in sensor design for some time.

Well the history with their G series is one of increasing pixels and then decreasing them. So the question is why?

 FrankyM's gear list:FrankyM's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow