The bigger the sensor, the smaller the problem

[Bill Pierce]

In theory, at least, the bigger the sensor, the less problem with high ISO noise. Or, to put it in a more negative way, the smaller the sensor, the more of a problem with high ISO noise. Small cameras from the Canon G (and S90/95) series with a 1/1.7 inch sensor to the M4/3’s cameras can’t take on available darkness. DxO Optics rates the low light ISO of the S90 at 185 ISO, the Panasonic Lumix DMC GF1 at 498 ISO, but the small, mirrorless Sony NEX5 with its C-sensor comes in at 796 ISO. That may not compare with the full framed 5D Mark II’s 1815 ISO, but 300 over a 4/3’s sensor - that’s pretty impressive.

Like it or not, the available-darkness digital crowd, those who were rangefinder users in the film era, are using the less than discreet, somewhat hefty and a little bit noisy DSLR’s. Could the C-sensor in a non mirror body be the smaller, quieter, more discreet available darkness camera that the rangefinder was in film days?

I don’t know because I haven’t used the NEX5. Anybody out there with hands on experience with this camera? Anyone who has grilled a friend who has one? Any thoughts that will keep the rangefinder/film dudes from laughing at us digital darkness dudes?

 

[kshapero]

Interesting read. Would like to hear a rant on this.

 

[ebino]

I have no experience with this camera but the high ISO comparison chart at dpreview shows some really impressive results for NEX5.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/page16.asp


I'm actually quite intrigued now because I'm looking for a digi that shoots at least usable images at 1600ISO. I need to research NEX5 a bit more.

 

[craygc]

Although there is a reasonable correlation with sensor size (so far), its more precisely about the size of the photo sites on the sensor. The sensors around the 1/1.7 size, such as Canon's G10/11//12 have photo sites with a pitch only twice the length of red light's wavelength... makes catchin' them photons harder 😀

 

[ebino]

After doing some research on NEX5 the question in my mind is should I wait for Fuji X100 or go for NEX 5.

Apart from a viewfinder NEX5 has everything I want. Its not fixed lens, it has high ISO performance, decent kit lenses, especially the 16mm/24mm equivalent, which is exactly what I need. It operates quickly, with latest firmaware its menu operation are easier to navigate with. its also cheap, at least $400 cheaper than Fuji X100.


just today i was thinking, its a long wait for X100 and then this thread comes along and now decisions... decisions...

So, I'd appreciate it as well if people post their experience with NEX 5.

 

[Mark D.]

My NEX 5 came in the mail a couple days ago and I am impressed with it. The small size is impressive but it still has a nice weight to it, which I like. The version 3 firmware which was released this week makes fantastic improvements to the interface.

The adapter to use my OM lenses is in the mail - can't wait to try those out. The manual focus is quick and easy with the 16mm lens so I imagine the OM lenses will be the same.

Get yours hands on one and give it a test drive if you can.

 

[Doug]

In theory, at least, the bigger the sensor, the less problem with high ISO noise. ...

Like it or not, the available-darkness digital crowd, those who were rangefinder users in the film era, are using the less than discreet, somewhat hefty and a little bit noisy DSLR’s. Could the C-sensor in a non mirror body be the smaller, quieter, more discreet available darkness camera that the rangefinder was in film days?...

It does appear the APS-C non-mirror cameras can be very useful in a rangefinderish way, and I have two main concerns: intuitive user interface, and effective viewfinder. I like a built-in eye-level viewfinder, and the X100 looks very intriguing in that respect. I also find articulated/swivel rear LCD panels useful when otherwise awkward positions would be needed. I'd like to avoid arms-length LCD viewing with head tilted back for bi-focals.. 😱

 

[Bill Pierce]

Here's a hands on, at least in the Photokina booth, preview of the X100. And, yes, it does look like a little camera from the rangefinder era.

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Fujifilm-FinePix-X100-First-Impressions-Review.htm

 

[ampguy]

Hi Bill,

I"ve talked to a few NEX owners, and the low-light performance is there, like the DLSR cousins that share the same sensor.

However, lack of VF, and potential issues with 28 and wider if not native Sony lens (i.e. CV 15/21 edges) has me squirmish.

I'll likely jump on one, but am in no hurry. If they're at Walmart now, they prices will certaily drop by the time I'm ready to really use one.

Until then, the trusty M8 and film rules.

 

[Nikon Bob]

Bill

Thanks for posting the link to the X100 review. I think they are 90% there to producing what I want. Just add a FF sensor and interchangeable lenses and have it made by someone other than Leica so it might be in some way affordable. I sure hope Fuji has a success with this one and that other manufacturers may follow, are you listening Nikon, with their versions.

Bob

 

[kevin m]

Here's a hands on, at least in the Photokina booth, preview of the X100. And, yes, it does look like a little camera from the rangefinder era.

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Fujifilm-FinePix-X100-First-Impressions-Review.htm

Sweet nuggets! An optical viewfinder AND a 35mm (equivalent) prime lens. If the IQ is there, this could be really tempting.

EDIT: Aw, crud. A fixed lens? That kills some of the fun.... 🙁

 

[Dogman]

The Nex sounds impressive but....

...it's one of the goofiest looking cameras around. Looks like it started with a viewfinder but somebody put it on a table saw and removed the top.

The size comparison photos I've seen also indicate it is smaller than the E-P1 and maybe the G10. Those are about as small as I can handle with my big clumsy hands.

Now that Fuji is another story.

 

[Ronald M]

Wait for Leica to make a decent high ISO sensor for the M9+.

Until then. Nikon D3S and one of the new 1.4 lenses, 24/35/50/85.

A candy bar size camera that is any good has been a dream for about 80 years now. Right there with high gas mileage-high permance engines. You is old nuf to no they dont hapen.

 

[emraphoto]

I'm curious how many people work up into the 3200 and beyond.

I had a student ask me about gear recently (shudder) and her biggest complaint with the camera she was using was that it sort of crapped out past 3200 ( detail lost and ugly noise). Her 'professor' had suggested buying a d700 (which we all know is an awesome camera) and she was unsure. I kind of gave her the old 'glass before cameras' and 'don't buy until YOU know what you need' speech but it got me thinking. High iso seems the new 'megapixels' to me.

I know everyone has their own needs and all but in the past year I cannot remember shooting higher than 800. I carry a couple of rolls of neopan 1600 'just in case' but have yet to use them.

I suppose my question is "how important is the high iso thing to you folks"? I understand full well the advantages re: shutter speeds/aperture etc. Would you buy a great, fast hunk of glass over an iso 25,000 camera?

 

[emraphoto]

I guess it is important to add that I am quite happy to work on point and shoots and rarely have an issue with sensor size. Interface and size trump high iso in my books.

 

[charjohncarter]

Probably: just like that faster the film the bigger the problems.

 

[chrispiper]

High ISO is extremely useful. I like to shoot people indoors in available light, about the hardest thing to do. You can't do much past 1/30 and f/1.4 with any hope of clarity. With film I don't expect razor sharp images, but I don't want mush either. Digital high ISO gives me what film can't. My 5D really shines at its top ISO of 1600, many times cleaner than 1600 ISO film. While I don't always shoot the 5D when I want to shoot inside, it's a nice option to have. Would I take cleaner high ISO if I could (affordably) get it? You bet. When the 5D II comes down in a year or so I'll be happy to see if I can trade up.

Chris

 

[goffer]

I bought a NEX5 thinking it would compliment my R4A, it does in a way, but in no way does it, or will it ever, replace my rangefinder.

It is small, discrete and packs a punch. It works very well with my M and F mount glass, and with the new firmware, it fixed my main concerns with the button/menu configuration.

I bring the NEX5 on my weekly photo adventures, it is very unobtrusive as it takes up as much space as one of my nikkor lenses but sadly I don't find myself using it as much as I thought, although it gets used more then my D700 which I haven't used for pleasure shooting in a long while.

It could be that the lack of viewfinder is uninspiring to me, but regardless the camera is very capable even up to ISO 3200.

 

[ebino]

A smaller sensor gives that extended dof, which means if you work at even 2.8 you get decent dof instead of that clichéd soft background (not really bokeh) of a larger ff sensor at same f stop.

so, D3 has that high ISO capability but it lacks the dof advantage at the same f stop of a smaller sensor. while with NEX you get the slight dof advantage as well as high ISO making for crisper low light available darkness shots.

 

[shyoon]

I suppose my question is "how important is the high iso thing to you folks"? I understand full well the advantages re: shutter speeds/aperture etc. Would you buy a great, fast hunk of glass over an iso 25,000 camera?

I'd suspect High ISO performance is more important to DSLR users since they generally use slower lenses. It's much more convenient to consumers to have an entry-level DSLR body which has a usable ISO3200+ then fork out $1000+ for a zoom that still only has a maximum aperture of f2.8.