The growing image-processor unpleasantness

Posted Aug 23, 2022 3:36 UTC (Tue) by bartoc (guest, #124262)
In reply to: The growing image-processor unpleasantness by stephen.pollei
Parent article: The growing image-processor unpleasantness

That presentation seems a little nuts to me.

Firstly, it seems to confuse DSLRs with mirrorless cameras, DSLRs are absolutely going away, I think this was due to improvements in display resolution and (esp) brightness, as well as improvements to autofocus, esp for people who use telephoto lenses a lot. The advantages with mirrorless are huge.

Also, the bit about image sensor size doubling doesn't seem right to me, while that might happen (I think most phones are like 1/3" to 1/2" now, sony shipped a phone with a 1" sensor, but the lens couldn't cover the whole sensor, making it somewhat pointless). Bigger sensors mean a lens needs a longer focal length to give the same framing (i.e., the smaller sensors are "zoomed in" or "cropped" compared to the bigger ones with the same lens. Lenses with larger focal lengths are bigger, need more elements, and are more expensive to manufacture, to the point that a good ~35mm prime lens (I think most smartphone lenses are about equivalent to that) for a full frame camera is about as expensive as a mid-range phone. The bigger sensors are more expensive too.

We _have_ been seeing CMOS sensor size in pro cameras get bigger pretty quickly, hell you can even buy a large format digital back now. Medium format digital cameras have been getting very popular over the last few years.

In any case, even if the sensor size goes up to 1", or a bit more there would still be interest in APS-C and full frame ILC cameras, that format is much larger, and you can get physical bokeh/depth of field, which is not possible with phone cameras because the lenses end up with really short focal lengths. Cameras with full-frame or APS-C also still do much better in low light than phone cameras, which is important for both indoor photos and if you are using a telephoto lens or a teleconverter.

The growing image-processor unpleasantness

Posted Aug 23, 2022 6:45 UTC (Tue) by jem (subscriber, #24231) [Link] (1 responses)

>I think this was due to improvements in display resolution and (esp) brightness, as well as improvements to autofocus, esp for people who use telephoto lenses a lot.

One thing that was holding back mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras was that they need an electronic viewfinder, since there is no mirror. The electronic viewfinders of a not so distant past were low-quality, expensive and power-hungry. Some die-hard DLSR camera fans still hate the electronic viewfinder.

>The advantages with mirrorless are huge.

One advantage is that the flange to sensor distance can be made much shorter, since there is no mirror in the way. This relaxes some optical constraints, enabling smaller lenses.

The growing image-processor unpleasantness

Posted Aug 23, 2022 9:21 UTC (Tue) by bartoc (guest, #124262) [Link]

Hell my mirrorless camera doesn't even have a viewfinder at all! The screen is bright enough it's not really necessary, although it probably improves the color reproduction over the screen.

Both improved display tech and the better flange distance were factors too. The display tech goes for both the screen and the viewfinder (if present). Screens have gotten a _lot_ brighter over the last few years and that's important for outdoors use.

The small flange distance also lets you use almost any lens made in the last 100 years with an adapter, which is nice.

Actually, I find it a bit of a shame we'll probably loose the 1" format compact cameras. Some of them are actually quite lovely. That format is small enough that you don't need an interchangeable lens system to get a nice wide range of (equivalent) focal lengths with pretty wide apertures, and you don't have to carry around multiple lenses. Sony's is like $1100 though, which is more than the high end iphone, and the lens is 1.25 stops slower. The fact that the optical image stabilization in the iphone is useful on an f/1.8 lens does tell you something about how noisy the sensor is, though.

The growing image-processor unpleasantness

Posted Aug 23, 2022 16:19 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (5 responses)

I think most phones are like 1/3" to 1/2" now, sony shipped a phone with a 1" sensor

It's probably just as well to mention that the “1"” in “1" sensor” has nothing to do with the size of that sensor. An “1" sensor” is 13.2 mm × 8.8 mm, which is still tiny. Generally, the problem with physically larger sensors in smartphone cameras is that the larger the sensor is, the larger the lens needs to be, and that conflicts with people's desire to have a sleek, thin phone. Various manufacturers have tried to market phones with more serious lenses, but these phones usually had a more or less prominent “bump” on the back to accommodate the optics and didn't prove very popular.

In any case, even if the sensor size goes up to 1", or a bit more there would still be interest in APS-C and full frame ILC cameras, that format is much larger, and you can get physical bokeh/depth of field, which is not possible with phone cameras because the lenses end up with really short focal lengths.

Dedicated cameras can use better lenses than phone cameras and that often makes a difference because clever software and only looking at your pictures on a smartphone screen or (comparatively) low-resolution monitor will only get you so far. Also, dedicated cameras have lots of nifty buttons and dials that are easier to handle – and in particular easier to handle quickly – than touch screen menus. They're not going away anytime soon.

The growing image-processor unpleasantness

Posted Aug 23, 2022 23:30 UTC (Tue) by bartoc (guest, #124262) [Link] (3 responses)

Apparently, the naming is derived from TV camera tubes, where a 1" long tube could capture/scan over an image area 16mm long diagonally. This is some pretty heroic marketing speak work, if I'm being honest.

The growing image-processor unpleasantness

Posted Aug 24, 2022 0:26 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (2 responses)

The way this works is that a (round) video tube has a useable photosensitive area whose diagonal is approximately 2/3 of the diameter of the tube. This is basically 1930s technology. It turns out that if you have a 1"-diameter video tube, 2/3 of that (16.9 mm) is only a little more than the diagonal of the “1"” sensor, 15.9 mm, so hey presto, the numbers match! What's 6% among friends.

1" sensors make Micro-4/3 sensors, which are frequently – and unjustly – pooh-poohed on the Internet as being utterly unfit for any type of serious photography, look big by comparison. And of course 35mm-type “full frame” sensors are even bigger than that.

The growing image-processor unpleasantness

Posted Aug 24, 2022 8:22 UTC (Wed) by bartoc (guest, #124262) [Link]

Yeah, I really like Micro 4/3rds, Olympus' 4/3rds offerings are weirdly bulky and "classically styled" though.

The growing image-processor unpleasantness

Posted Aug 24, 2022 8:32 UTC (Wed) by bartoc (guest, #124262) [Link]

Hell, you "can" buy a 9"x11" digital sensor from Largesense, for $90,000, and it's black and white, and only 26MP. They sell a color wheel too, so you can get colors, if you want them, and your subject is good at staying still.

The growing image-processor unpleasantness

Posted Aug 23, 2022 23:50 UTC (Tue) by bartoc (guest, #124262) [Link]

I think the iphone uses are fairly good lenses. Lens construction gets easier with smaller sensors, also all three lenses on the iphone are primes. Frankly, for day-to-day photography the triplet of 13mm prime, 26mm prime, and 52mm prime are quite sufficient (although personally I would prefer 13, 30, and 52).