Do Sensors Make the Camera?

[bbasiaga]

If you have ever seen a picture that pleased someone that was taken with a camera other than <insert the name of the camera that the internet has decided has the best sensor here>, then the sensor doesn't make that big of a deal, right? Isn't it that simple?

The internet is not always helpful. I find myself in its thrall often. I sit here and think 'i need to get the newest x because my current gear is obsolete now'....but when I go out with my obsolete stuff I still somehow get memorable images that myself and others find pleasing. This is despite the fact that my 5d3 doesn't have enough MPX, DR, FPS, GPS, WIFI...etc. At least...according to the internet it doesn't.

The real problem I fear is when this techno speak prevents some new person, perhaps the next Ansel Adams, from starting because they can't afford the 1Dx. Though the internet says that's a good thing because even the 1Dx is terrible and behind the times. Sigh....


-Brian

 

[scottkinfw]

And there is the issue of the lenses. Once you buy into the ecosystem, it is costly and dare I say, emotionally painful to switch.

You will have your beloved lenses long after you buy this new camera.

sek

 

[brad-man]

I think that the number of iPhone photos that are being published are a strong indication that the sensor is far less important that the photographer.

I think that the number of iPhone photos that are being published are a strong indication that the old adage "the best camera is the one you have with you" is true...

The sensor alone does not "make the camera." However, everything else in the camera is there to direct the intended photons to the sensor (other than memory cards).

 

[gsealy]

The sensor is an information gathering device. The more information that is gathered, the more that can be done. The processor is just as important and the 'smarter and faster' it is to use that information, the better are the possibilities. We can expect both to evolve over time.

Some people say given sensor is good and other people say it's crap. Actually, both of those terms are relative. For example, I would say the best sensor there is on a consumer camera is crap relative to the Hubble telescope! The point is that you have to consider what is in your price range and what your needs are. Most costs more, and less costs less.

 

[MichaelHodges]

1. Has anyone seen an actual tech report on the 6D sensor? What makes it different from the 5DIII?
2. We know Canon makes it own sensors. The 6D and other Canons have already had Electronic First Curtain Shutter. The pictures produced by Canon sensors have long made Canons the choice of some of the highest paid commercial photographers in the world such as Gilled Bensimon, Patrick Demarchelier, Annie Leibovitz, Mario Testino; please note I wrote "commercial" and their success is measured by how much money they make and how many spreads they get in the most prestigeous publications. Sports photogs chose Canon at the last World Cup. More award winning pix were done with Canon at the last 3 Windland-Smith nature photography awards I saw personally at the Smithsonian in Washington DC. Yet Nikon's are better because DxO says so? I don't get it.
3. The smears on the Hassleblad Lunar is that it is a dressed-up Sony. So why isn't a Nikon D810 smeared for being a dressed-up Sony?

In an era of homogenized features spread across multiple camera brands, the differentiating factor is the sensor.

There's no way around it.

 

[Don Haines]

Saying that the sensor makes the camera is as silly as claiming that the engine makes the car....

Point in case.... my brother has a 1969 Dodge charger with a 650HP engine. I drive a Mazda3 with a 150HP engine..... his car has 4 times the engine mine does, yet if we took the two of them to the local track (a nice road track with lots of twists and curves) I could run away from him with ease...

You have to look at the entire package in the context of what you want to do... you can not fixate on a single component.

 

[tcmatthews]

In some cases yes. But in others the system as a whole is more important. For the most part Canon builds some of the most reliable and consistent cameras on the market. After you become familiar with their cameras and lenses you are almost guarantied consistent results. For many pros consistency is the most important factor.

I understand that many are satisfied with Nikon cameras but personally I cannot stand their layouts.

I can get results with my Nex 6 that are flat out impossible with my 60D because of dynamic range. I love the ability to utilize legacy glass with actual focusing aids. But the Sony also has some quirks with color balance. I have seen images shifted to completely magenta in between normal shots.

The 6D is much more capable when it comes to dynamic range than the Crop canons I have used. I have not tried taking a picture of a black cow with a white face in full sunlight with my 6D. The Nex 6 simply take the picture boost black in post to recover highlights. The 60D you either blow out all the detail in the white face or end up with a black blob of a body. So yes the sensor matters some. But for the most part all current cameras have trouble with my cow test.

The truth is the best sensor in the world is useless with out the camera system surrounding it to support it. And Canon as the best system as far as I am concerned.

 

[MichaelHodges]

The problem with this is that the "entire package" in DSLR's are all extremely similar.

A couple FPS here and there, a few extra or lopped off focus point here and there. None of these things differentiate a camera body.

The sensor does.

 

[Orangutan]

The problem with this is that the "entire package" in DSLR's are all extremely similar.

A couple FPS here and there, a few extra or lopped off focus point here and there. None of these things differentiate a camera body.

The sensor does.

That may be true for you and, if so, that's a very good reason for you to choose a particular camera based on the sensor. For others it seems clear that the "entire package," including lenses and accessories, not to mention reliability and ergonomics, does make a very big difference.

The needs for your style of photography may not be representative of the overall market for DSLR systems.

 

[MichaelHodges]

When you include the ecosystem in the comparisons, you're weakening the camera body itself.

This is a camera comparison.

 

[unfocused]

No. A camera doesn't need a sensor. There used to be something called film.

 

[Hillsilly]

1. No idea, sorry.
2. I hear so many positive things about Sigma sensors, that I'm starting to wonder if Sigma cameras produce the best image quality at the affordable end of the spectrum. But there are so many compromises in using Sigmas that they are on few people's radar. There's so much more to a camera (and more importantly, a system) then the sensor.
3. While it is fun to have fun with Sonikon users, Nikon cameras do use different processing technologies compared with Sony. Then there is the camera design and build quality. They also have a very different feature set, many of which are at least the equal of Canon's. As with question 2, there is more to a camera than a sensor.
[/quote]

 

[ishdakuteb]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

In 2-4 years time, I expect people with Sony/Nikon cameras to be taking and editing photographs that Canon people simply can't - at least not with the same level of detail and color. I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time. As for the system? They'll fill that in. The vast majority of users don't need more than a handful of lenses - thus "a system" that has macro, T/S, etc, is meaningless to the average photographer that will buy a camera plus lens kit and use that for the next n years without buying anything else. How many people is that? There's a thread on here somewhere... the number of people that buy extra lenses is less than 10%. i.e the "system" is meaningless to 90%+ of the people that buy Canon cameras.

you sound pretty smart in giving prediction for future. but i do not see it that way, including in photography. however, if you can answer this topic question close to the truth, then i might re-consider. remember, do not let me think that it is all tofu that are residing in your br**n...

 

[Don Haines]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time.

I am amazed that they don't have them already...

The 7D has a full well charge of 24,800. you need 15 bits to properly read that.... and in the last 5 years full well charges have increased, particularly with FF. Only having 14 bits is a choke point.

 

[dgatwood]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time.

I am amazed that they don't have them already...

The 7D has a full well charge of 24,800. you need 15 bits to properly read that.... and in the last 5 years full well charges have increased, particularly with FF. Only having 14 bits is a choke point.

The full well charge on the full-frame bodies won't even fit into 16 bits. In an ideal world, they'd dispose of the downstream amplifier and go to at least a 17-bit DAC (or cut costs and use an off-the-shelf 18-bit DAC).

With that said, given that we're talking about an analog voltage level, they'd probably be better off using a higher-precision DAC even though strictly speaking there are fewer discrete levels, if only because you'd expect some charge decay over the course of longer shots, and having a more precise measurement of the voltage would allow you to adjust for that in post processing.

Also, there's the issue of noise floor. You want the digital floor to be way below the analog floor so that you guarantee that anything that qualifies as signal gets captured. Right now, the digital floor is considerably above the analog floor (as you pointed out), which is bad. Pushing it several bits below makes for a nice safety margin.

Personally, I don't really understand why all the camera manufacturers don't just standardize on a 20-bit DAC and be done with it. Storage is cheap. Quality is irreplaceable. Why cut corners?

 

[Loswr]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

People will want something that gives them a better image than their mobile phone.
The choice is Canon, Nikon and Sony. Two of those three are now providing substantially better images.

There you have it, folks. Canon dSLRs don't provide images substantially better than a cell phone. That deserves an award!

 

[Don Haines]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

I fully expect Sony/Nikon cameras to have 15, if not 16, bit ADCs in 4 years time.

I am amazed that they don't have them already...

The 7D has a full well charge of 24,800. you need 15 bits to properly read that.... and in the last 5 years full well charges have increased, particularly with FF. Only having 14 bits is a choke point.

The full well charge on the full-frame bodies won't even fit into 16 bits. In an ideal world, they'd dispose of the downstream amplifier and go to at least a 17-bit DAC (or cut costs and use an off-the-shelf 18-bit DAC).

With that said, given that we're talking about an analog voltage level, they'd probably be better off using a higher-precision DAC even though strictly speaking there are fewer discrete levels, if only because you'd expect some charge decay over the course of longer shots, and having a more precise measurement of the voltage would allow you to adjust for that in post processing.

Also, there's the issue of noise floor. You want the digital floor to be way below the analog floor so that you guarantee that anything that qualifies as signal gets captured. Right now, the digital floor is considerably above the analog floor (as you pointed out), which is bad. Pushing it several bits below makes for a nice safety margin.

Personally, I don't really understand why all the camera manufacturers don't just standardize on a 20-bit DAC and be done with it. Storage is cheap. Quality is irreplaceable. Why cut corners?

I know.... it's not like it's hard to do....
I can't think of anything at work that does not use at least 24 bit A/D and we have some test equipment that has 64 bit A/D and others that have 48 bit A/D running at 60Ghz sampling rates... I think that the last time I designed something with only 16 bit A/D was back in the 1980's....

 

[Orangutan]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

I know.... it's not like it's hard to do....
I can't think of anything at work that does not use at least 24 bit A/D and we have some test equipment that has 64 bit A/D and others that have 48 bit A/D running at 60Ghz sampling rates... I think that the last time I designed something with only 16 bit A/D was back in the 1980's....

Even though I don't know a lot about electronics I'll go ahead and wade in to water over my head. While it may be easy to implement, it may have implications for the rest of the body. Presumably, more precise sampling will draw more power proportional to the increase in precision: more bits of A/D will mean more components, all of which draw power. Then the digital circuitry all the way from A/D to flash card has to be scaled-up to match which also draws more power. All of this also generates heat which must be dealt with. In my sophomoric opinion, this would result in slower framerate and heat issues for the sensor. And that's not even considering the effect on battery life. It's not impossible, but it's an extra set of engineering problems which incur greater cost, which affects retail cost and profit.

Also, why jump straight to 20 bit A/D when you can sell 14, then 16, then 17, then 18, then 19, then 20. 8)

 

[weixing]

Re: Do Sensors sell the Camera?

Hi,

I know.... it's not like it's hard to do....
I can't think of anything at work that does not use at least 24 bit A/D and we have some test equipment that has 64 bit A/D and others that have 48 bit A/D running at 60Ghz sampling rates... I think that the last time I designed something with only 16 bit A/D was back in the 1980's....

Even though I don't know a lot about electronics I'll go ahead and wade in to water over my head. While it may be easy to implement, it may have implications for the rest of the body. Presumably, more precise sampling will draw more power proportional to the increase in precision: more bits of A/D will mean more components, all of which draw power. Then the digital circuitry all the way from A/D to flash card has to be scaled-up to match which also draws more power. All of this also generates heat which must be dealt with. In my sophomoric opinion, this would result in slower framerate and heat issues for the sensor. And that's not even considering the effect on battery life. It's not impossible, but it's an extra set of engineering problems which incur greater cost, which affects retail cost and profit.

Also, why jump straight to 20 bit A/D when you can sell 14, then 16, then 17, then 18, then 19, then 20. 8)

Hmm... Pentax use 22-bits ADC many years ago... on the Pentax K10D, but the raw file is only 12-bits... then Pentax K20D use back the 14-bits ADC... just wonder why they change back to 14-bits??

Have a nice day.

 

[jrista]

1. Has anyone seen an actual tech report on the 6D sensor? What makes it different from the 5DIII?
2. We know Canon makes it own sensors. The 6D and other Canons have already had Electronic First Curtain Shutter. The pictures produced by Canon sensors have long made Canons the choice of some of the highest paid commercial photographers in the world such as Gilled Bensimon, Patrick Demarchelier, Annie Leibovitz, Mario Testino; please note I wrote "commercial" and their success is measured by how much money they make and how many spreads they get in the most prestigeous publications. Sports photogs chose Canon at the last World Cup. More award winning pix were done with Canon at the last 3 Windland-Smith nature photography awards I saw personally at the Smithsonian in Washington DC. Yet Nikon's are better because DxO says so? I don't get it.
3. The smears on the Hassleblad Lunar is that it is a dressed-up Sony. So why isn't a Nikon D810 smeared for being a dressed-up Sony?

Here is how I see it these days. The camera is a tool. That's all it is. Some people will say, it's 99% the photographer, 1% the camera. I personally don't believe that. The photographer can't do anything without a camera. Similarly, a better camera in the hands of a skilled photographer will free that photographer from potential limitations, giving them the ability to create better photography.

So here is how I look at it. Is the camera you have now limiting you in some way? If so, you might want to figure out which camera out there will free you from those limitations. Are you limited by the AF system? Canon currently has the best on the market, and the 7D II might be coming with an even better one than the 5D III and 1D X have. Are you limited by the sensor? Canon sensors are good, and at high ISO it generally doesn't matter who's sensor your using, but if you need the best low ISO IQ, then Sony sensors are better. Are the lenses you have resolving the kind of detail you expect? Entry-level kit lenses only take you so far. Upgrading to any L-series Canon prime, and most of their longer zoom lenses, will give you some of the best IQ on the planet. For wide angle zoom lenses, you might want to look to Sigma, or if you need that low ISO DR, a Nikon D800/810/600 and their ultra wide angle zooms will serve you best.

Pick the tool that will eliminate the thing that is limiting you, that is preventing you from progressing and improving the quality of your work. If you don't know what's limiting you, then your probably not limited. Stick with what you have, and keep pushing the envelope until you know without question that something with your current kit is holding you back.

That's always been my approach. I started with a 450D, the 18-55 kit, and a 100mm macro. I first "graduated" to a 16-35mm L II for landscapes. Then I "graduated" again to a 100-400mm L and 7D for birds and wildlife. I then made a quantum leap to the EF 600mm f/4 L II to remove the 100-400 L as a limiting factor. I recently moved to a 5D III and a 1.4x and 2x TC III, along with the 600/4, to remove the 7D as a limiting factor. For my landscapes, I've recently found the 5D III to be very wanting in the low ISO IQ department, and my next upgrade will probably be a Nikon D810 and 14-24mm f/2.8 (unless, by some miracle, Canon releases a camera with some incredible improvements in low ISO DR and a nice big boost to total megapixel count within the next few months here...if they do, I'd prefer to stick within the brand; I don't really expect that to happen, and Nikon has what I need right now...so I see no reason to let the brand difference hold me back).