Why can't nikon/canon develop take their crop sensor cameras, drop the resolution to ~12mp, and have a camera with great DR and low light performance?
Because consumers are faggots.
>>2842500
Sure thing, faggot.
I'd be happy with even 8mp. If the low light performance and focusing improved by the same multiplier.
>>2842507
You think I didn't know I was a consumer, faggot?
>>2842497
But the aps-c D7200 has more dynamic range than ALL other cameras except the D810.
Ever since BSI, dropping resolution doesn't necessarily mean better low light or DR. But apparently idiots like /\M8U5H haven't gotten the memo.
>>2842526
But isn't it easier and cheaper to produce a lower megapixel sensor? Then use those savings to improve DR and LLP, which would be easier to do on a relatively low pixel to sensor size ratio? I have no idea how a camera works besides the basic functions so pls don't get mad at me. I've just always been curious why cams like this don't exist.
>>2842513
I don't think you knew that you were a faggot, consumer.
>>2842532
It is cheaper to produce a lower megapixel sensor. But for low light, you are limited by how efficiently you can convert photons from light to electrons. This is called quantum efficiency and we are near the maximum limit. There's a stop at best left meaning companies can make tomorrow's ISO 1600 look like todays ISO 800 and that's it. Then they'll need other tricks, but the sensor tech for low light is near a dead end.
For DR, the key features are full well capacity and low noise. The low noise aspect is also near physical limits. The engineering challenge now is full well capacity which is tough to do.
You can design higher full well capacity photosites if the sites are larger but interestingly, if you have more sites, that also improves the SNR and therefore dynamic range.
>>2842542
Will we ever go past full frame sensors in terms of size in DSLR's? Is that a possible next step? That was upsetting to read.
>>2842547
Optics dictate that as sensor size increases, lens size also increases for the equivalent angle of view. At some point, it becomes unfeasible to lug around big lenses. For some people, all they can stomach with is cameras that are pocketable.
>>2842547
Well if you think in terms of current tech, yeah it's kind of upsetting. But there are tricks to get more DR like using the fast read sensors to measure rates of photons coming in to a site.
Low light is tricky. There are larger sensors than full frame but with sensors, the cost goes up exponentially.
Back in the day they used to have 3-CCDs to read RGB which should offer a bit more sensitivity compared to the mosaic color filters being used now.
>>2842559
Only for fast lenses. A Mamiya 7 was about the size of a pro SLR with booster pack and the lenses weren't that large.
>>2842535
But he said consumers were faggots, faggot consumer.
>>2842526
Pentax K-5 and K-3 would like to have a word with you
>>2842497
Because the typical person buys cameras like this:
>walk into best buy
>"wat cameru is best and hav most megapickles????"
>walks right past rabal and D3300
>buys $1000 superzoom because 36MP
>>2842547
For the mainstream, not any time soon, simply because very few people are willing to replace all of their glass to go up a few mm in sensor size. The advantages of larger sensors are also eroding pretty quickly these days, and if anything, I think the trend is going to be toward smaller sensors rather than larger ones.
Outside the mainstream, it's already happened, in the form of the Leica S. The S uses a sensor that's between 35mm and 645, and fits it into a body that's pretty comparable to a pro DSLR.
>>2842526
Funny, because I could have sworn I bought the D7200 for this reason, as well as better AF and WiFi. Buffer size is a nice bonus, but I never exceeded it with the D7100 anyway.
I was being sarcastic toward OP's desire to disrupt a calculated, profitable, advancing market because he wants something the majority (the people who keep Nikon / Canon in business) don't want: less megapickels.
By the way: Lower resolution doesn't mean better low light performance, you dumb fuck. It's a byproduct of larger cell size; using a D7200 in 1.3x mode doesn't increase its low light performance.
>>2842547
We've had one for awhile now. but medium format sensors still aren't as big as MF film.
>tfw you will never have a 6x7 sensor
>>2843184
Phase one has full frame dmf sensors. But they're still limited to the modular cameras, not yet into a 645z type 'big dslr'
>>2842564
I have a modern Canon point and shoot with a CCD sensor. They are still around.
>>2842497
Just curious as to how dark of a place you want to shoot at?
>>2843212
I'm talking about a 3 CCD sensor one that uses dichroic filters to split the RGB components to 3 separate sensors.
>>2843177
>By the way: Lower resolution doesn't mean better low light performance, you dumb fuck.
Funny because I already fucking said "Ever since BSI, dropping resolution doesn't necessarily mean better low light"
Not surprised you are illiterate as well.
>>2843228
>still not understanding
Once again: There are plenty of factors when it comes to sensitivity, but you are misunderstanding the resolution connection. Photocell size is the main difference. IE, the larger the photocell, the more light gathered.
There's a funny thing about making cells larger and / or spacing them apart, though: You can't fit as many into a given area... say, for shits and giggles, the area of a DX or FX sensor.
The lower resolution is a physical necessity, not the reason why it's better. There are plenty of low resolution sensors with shit performance, and you could just as easily make a larger sensor with more, and larger, cells gaining both. But our market is stuck at APS-C and FF, and I'm fine with that.
TL;DR: Even before BSI, dropping resolution had nothing to do with better low light (FTFY)
>>2843259
>There's a funny thing about making cells larger and / or spacing them apart, though: You can't fit as many into a given area... say, for shits and giggles, the area of a DX or FX sensor.
Yeah, OP is talking about APS-C shithead. Higher resolution = smaller photosites or "photo cells" as you call them.
But higher resolution APS-C does NOT have worse low light performance than low resolution APS-C for similar sensor generations.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2
If you can't follow the thread, maybe you should not shit up the thread with your reddit-tier "knowledge".
>Even before BSI, dropping resolution had nothing to do with better low light
Wrong. With FSI, the higher the density, the greater the percentage of a given photosite devoted to read circuitry. Microlenses helped but they aren't perfect and photons would still be lost on read circuitry.
It's fairly negligible with large sensors which is why BSI doesn't give as dramatic improvements but the improvement exists.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2
The only time a large photosite is better is at ISOs where read noise comes into play. Since read noise is very low now, that means a small ~1/3 stop advantage at around ISO 25,600 and higher.
Once sensors switch to photon counting, something Sony has in the works, read noise becomes zero and there will be ZERO advantage to large photosites.
>>2843184
>still aren't as big as MF film
almost as 6x4.5, Give it a few more years.
>>2843186
>But they're still limited to the modular cameras, not yet into a 645z type 'big dslr'
>they're still limited
I'd rather not be limited by having everything in one body. I really like the modular backs and feel they provide a lot more to any system than a fixed SLR.
>>2843313
>not seeing the fuck load more noise in the D810 over the A7s
Jesus, man... use your eyes. Even at ISO 400 you can see it. You can even see it when the D810 is resized!
His words are taking precedence over your eyes and brain... how weak minded can you get?
>>2843313
What I gathered from the article is photosite size makes no difference unless you are talking about cell phones
>ok
>>2843332
>His words.
You mean fucking math?
Also that's the A7RII vs the A7SII, not the D810. Here's ISO 400. No noise advantage either way, 810 even resized to 12MP is much sharper as expected.
And DxO's low light data shows the 42MP A7RII beating the 12MP A7SII and within a tenth of a stop of the A7S. But who the fuck cares about quantitative measurements right because one of the shittier tripfags on /p/ knows better.
>>2843338
It shouldn't matter with cell phones either as long as the sensor is BSI. The reason the S7 is probably better than the S6 in low light is more likely due to its slightly faster lens and maybe newer generation sensor, not the bigger pixels (even though media and marketing drones like to suggest that).
You can look at the HTC ultrapixel nonsense which had a 4MP sensor and 1/3" sensor size vs the 8MP Lumia 920 which has the same sensor size. Despite the HTC having photosites significantly larger, it isn't better.
But cameras in smartphones aren't a big enough priority for some models so there's a wide variation in quality.
>>2842497
>haha, his brand new 'camera' only have 12 mega pickles. He got totally ripped off. My phone has more than that
>>2843362
>I didn't read the thread: the post
