tstermitz
Well-known
There is a very interesting article at Luminous Landscape by Peter van den Hamer on DXOMark Camera Sensor: an Analysis. This article provides an informative look at how DXO rates sensor dynamic range, ISO and Color performance, explaining that fundamentally, it all comes down to the noise performance of the sensor. Very good explanation of noise and ISO considerations.
The latest Sony sensors are the standard to match in 2012.
The article didn't look at subjective lens qualities, but did point out that sensors are now so good that the lens is starting to be the limiting factor. van den Hamer also points out that modern sensors have such good quality and resolution that, getting more mPixels is pretty much irrelevant anymore. 24 Mpixels prints 16x24 inches at 250 dpi, so the only reason to go above that size is if you need to crop or print REALLY large.
Five theoretically indistinguishable camera configurations
(I'm the messenger, so don't argue the science with me. The author is a physicist, and I'm just an engineer. You better read the article if you have issues with the facts.)
If you look halfway down the article, there is a chart showing equivalent camera systems for different sensor sizes at 25 Mpixels. "Indistinguishable" means that from looking at the IMAGE, you couldn't tell which camera made it in terms of depth of field, angle of view, image brightness, or noise. Different formats have different sensor sizes, so to achieve this, you need to use different pixel size, focal length, aperture, and ISO sensitivity.
So, for a 25 mpixel micro 4/3 camera to match INDISTINGUISHABLY the image from a full frame camera, it needs 2x the pixel pitch, 1/2 the focal length, 2x the f/stop, and 1/4 the ISO sensitivity.
We are in the golden age of sensor performance. The sweet spot is anywhere from m4/3 to FF.
Which indistinguishable system to choose depends on size, cost or lens technology issues. In other words, you can't always get a micro 4/3 lens with a large enough aperture to match Full Format depth of field, and the medium format lens might be a big, expensive MOFO.
Selection Matrix
Considering IQ, but not subjective lens qualities or camera features, this chart makes it very easy to identify the compromises for different camera system:
Leica stands out for size and depth of field, at the cost of um cost.
m4/3 stands out for size and cost, while asking you to compromise depth of field.
A Nikon D600 can match the Leica at a much lower price, but in a much bigger package.
The latest APS-C mirrorless cameras look pretty good in terms of size, cost, quality & DoF. Slap a Pentax Limited lens on a K-01 or adapt a good lens to the Nex 6 or 7 system.
The latest Sony sensors are the standard to match in 2012.
The article didn't look at subjective lens qualities, but did point out that sensors are now so good that the lens is starting to be the limiting factor. van den Hamer also points out that modern sensors have such good quality and resolution that, getting more mPixels is pretty much irrelevant anymore. 24 Mpixels prints 16x24 inches at 250 dpi, so the only reason to go above that size is if you need to crop or print REALLY large.
Five theoretically indistinguishable camera configurations
(I'm the messenger, so don't argue the science with me. The author is a physicist, and I'm just an engineer. You better read the article if you have issues with the facts.)
If you look halfway down the article, there is a chart showing equivalent camera systems for different sensor sizes at 25 Mpixels. "Indistinguishable" means that from looking at the IMAGE, you couldn't tell which camera made it in terms of depth of field, angle of view, image brightness, or noise. Different formats have different sensor sizes, so to achieve this, you need to use different pixel size, focal length, aperture, and ISO sensitivity.
So, for a 25 mpixel micro 4/3 camera to match INDISTINGUISHABLY the image from a full frame camera, it needs 2x the pixel pitch, 1/2 the focal length, 2x the f/stop, and 1/4 the ISO sensitivity.
We are in the golden age of sensor performance. The sweet spot is anywhere from m4/3 to FF.
Which indistinguishable system to choose depends on size, cost or lens technology issues. In other words, you can't always get a micro 4/3 lens with a large enough aperture to match Full Format depth of field, and the medium format lens might be a big, expensive MOFO.
Selection Matrix
Considering IQ, but not subjective lens qualities or camera features, this chart makes it very easy to identify the compromises for different camera system:
Leica stands out for size and depth of field, at the cost of um cost.
m4/3 stands out for size and cost, while asking you to compromise depth of field.
A Nikon D600 can match the Leica at a much lower price, but in a much bigger package.
The latest APS-C mirrorless cameras look pretty good in terms of size, cost, quality & DoF. Slap a Pentax Limited lens on a K-01 or adapt a good lens to the Nex 6 or 7 system.
