What would you like to see in newer sensors and cameras?

[mark_kesper]

<p lang="en-US">What would you like to see in newer sensors and cameras?</p>

<p lang="en

-US"> </p>

<p lang="en-US">Now that new sensors are being rolled out I thought of posting a couple o f ideas and concepts I've thought about since a couple of years, but for various reasons didn't post. I don't work i n the semiconductor industry (I am a geographer), however I am quite acquainted to some of the technology an d very technically interested myself.</p>

<p lang="en-US"> So long we have mainly had different Bay er sensors for capturing light in a digital way, except for the Foveon sensor, that hasn't got a big market shar e. Even thought it seems really good. One improvement (even if it is more the other around has been the rem oval of the AA filter. Sensors have so far not been of a very high-resolution kind, but the pixels hav e been bigger instead since the total sensor area is somewhat locked at the either Fullframe or APS-C size. Now with the what seems to be the move from 12-16 Mpix to 20-24 Mpix and maybe even 24-36 Mpix in APS-C and F F (24x36 mm frame) we get as users of those sensors alot more pixels to use with all the benefits and drawbacks. </p>

<p lang="en-US">There are a ton of different argument for and against more or les s pixels. However, with many pixels to begin with as the base there might be some new techniques that could be done:</p>

<p lang="en-US"> 1. Different situation-dependent pixel grouping.</p>

<p lang="en-

US"> When the Fuji new sensor type, EXR arrived, I thought that was precisely a move in the "right" direction. For one, both increased optical sharpness, less inherent noise and also different behavior in different situations, all based on the RGB matrix and pixel grouping to attain the right color/light/noise bala nce.</p>

<p lang="en-US"> Now with sensors going to 24-36 Mpixels or maybe higher span, I would propose t hat by using firmware and sensors you might take this pixel grouping even further.</p>

<p lang="en-US">1.1 For low light situations: use groups of groups of pixels with different geometry to "map" the image and get les s noise. Also, If I'd like to do BW images, let me use a different pattern that makes more out of the situation than if I shot color.</p>

<p lang="en-US">Future scenario: say that I have a 48 mpix sensor. If I shoot during twiligh t, or some other tricky lightning situation, let the dark areas make pixels group in a way where smoothness is priori tized = several pixels act as one bigger pixel. And in lighter areas the pixels maybe ungrouped and provide mor e information per pixel which makes more pixels, more details and sharper.</p>

<p lang="en-US"> T hat way maybe a resulting image will be somewhere between 24-36 Mpixel (guessing here) but sharpe r and /or cleaner where needed.</p>

<p lang="en-US"> 1.2. So somewhat in line with the EX R sensor technology & geometry I'd like to se</p>

<p lang="en-US"> 1. Adapt ive grouping of pixels.</p>

<p lang="en-US"> 2. Less resolution fo r less noise generally. </p>

<p lang="en-US"> 3. Less resolut ion from a big Mpix base for higher total dynamic range.<br>

4. Differe nt ISO areas in same image capture.<br>

5. Better tracking - and even better - Eye Controlled tracking with sensor adaptation in realtime (well, in r eality maybe near realtime).<br>

2. Better and different, even very user customized interfaces for mirr orless with EVF. Usually a standard interface with controls and information is really well done. However , the same way as people customize their computers differently with different layouts, icon, colors etc, I'd like to be able to choose in a mirrorless EVF what I can see and how it acts depending on what I shoot (profiles).<br>

2.1 Let users choose interface colors.<br>

2.2. Possibility of interface colors changi ng along with the scene situation so to both either stand out clearer or be discreet. Example: Use a "night vision " mode when shooting night. <br>

2.3. Warnings and user-choosen appropiate respons. A bi t like Canons safeguard where the camera makes some decisions on it's own if say it's to dark and you want a 1/60s f/4 image, then the camera chooses a 1/15s f/3.5 shot maybe.<br>

2.4. Profiles and handling of what is necessary between speed or accuracy.<br>

2.5. With on sensor PDAF switch between a overlay with different picture rules/geometries 1/3 triangulars, g olden ratios etc in the EVF.<br>

2.6. Scene lightness lock, kind of. Since how light a picture is depen ds both on the aperture and shutter speed, a photographer might wan't a specific light value directly in t he camera while tracking the subject or whatever she/he is doing, and therefore not have the time to compensate/tw irl on or another control. Of course today you can use Program mode and say compensate with +/-, but that not the same really, and not applicable with manual controls. Therefore a resulting light value lock would b e nice. <br>

3. Eye controlled tracking.<br>

That would be nice and useful. I keep my Canon EOS 3 for those reasons.<br>

3.1 With on sensor PDAF, Eye controlled tracking could also be switched between the whole sensor, or groups of pixels (ie speed or accuracy), since the computing power frame has a hard limit (Like on my Nikon D2XS when comparing standard and crop high speed mode). <br>

4. Open up parts of the firmware to let programming savvy users make their own addons to the camera firmw are. <br>

Now, for all this of course the files will be a bit different. For one, the files won't be neces sarily rows of identical pixels. It might be a mix of large and small resulting pixels, which might seen very weird t oday.</p>

<p lang="en-US">But that might keep the resulting files (NOT RAW, but the final pictures shipped t o customer/friends etc) smaller in file size and still better where needed. As a partial similary, the new Sony Honam i JPEG engine supposedly uses different noise removal algoritms on different parts of the image.</p>

 

<p lang="en-US">Well, these are a couple of ideas that would be nice to have in ca meras and use.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Not to simplify this discussion - technology wise - but my desires in new new equipment are probably different than most. I don't care about wi fi, video, a zillion megapixels, or most of the other things camera manufacturers seem to be espousing these days. My desire, as it has always been, is pure image quality. Give me a camera that is simple to operate, durable, and has image quality as its main reason for being. I shoot mostly at low ISO, so I'm not even concerned about high ISO capability - give me a sensor that has ISO 80 quality at up to about ISO 800 and I'm perfectly happy. But I know I'm in the minority, and manufacturers have to make cameras that will sell to the masses so I don't expect my ideal camera any time soon. In the meantime, I use a Fuji XE1 with the 14 and 35mm prime lenses and I'm pretty happy with that.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>For upper-end cameras, I think the most significant limiting factor for most shots is auto-focus performance. That's a combination of intelligence, speed, and accuracy: the ability to pick out the subject that the photographer intends, focus on it quickly enough to capture the decisive moment, and really nail the focus (front- / back-focus). I do think something like a return to Canon's eye-control focus may be one partial answer (although my personal experience is limited to brief use of a friend's wife's Elan 7E). Also, micro-focus adjust has to become a standard feature of any semi-serious interchangeable-lens camera, and I think some sort of semi-automation of the adjustment process, through use of CDAF to check / tweak PDAF's focus, would be useful to the masses.</p>

<p>Beyond that, compactness in good cameras is the order of the day, at least for many, and to give reasonable control of depth of field, very small sensors are not the answer. So I think advances in optical design and/or post-processing for very compact lenses are an area meriting major resources. In many ways, a 2013 DSLR is merely an incremental advance over a 2003 DSLR. I think the Sony RX100 is a great camera, but what really interests me is the potential use of--and related problems with--very compact standard zooms covering decent-size sensors, currently exemplified by the Sony E 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS and the Panasonic PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 OIS. Each of these lenses is extraordinarily compact, achieved in part by using only 9 elements in 8 groups despite covering a 3x zoom range. Both deliver on the real promise (compactness) of the mirrorless cameras, but have noted optical problems. Yes, their widely-reported optical performance problems may be reasonably solvable--supposedly the Sony's are mostly focusing problems and supposedly the Panasonic's are mostly image stabilizer problems. But even these lenses' staunchest advocates will admit other issues. Hopefully advances in computer-aided design, exotic materials, aspherical elements, etc. hopefully will allow equally-compact lenses that offer real improvements in resolution / sharpness, geometric distortion, vignetting, etc.</p>

<p>By the way, I agree that wifi, NFC, more pixels, etc. aren't too exciting. Really, for compact cameras, I'd happily go back to 8 MP for any appreciable real-world <em>net</em> gain in noise performance and/or dynamic range. (I say net because obviously if you scale down a 16 MP image to 8 MP, you get some improvement in per-pixel noise, although exactly how much is a subject of some debate.)</p>

 

[laur1]

<p>What I'd like to see is a 36MP FF MILC and a B&W version of the Pentax Q. I can wait for other improvements and optimizations, but these two I could use right now.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I say, keep it simple, as Dave said. I think that NR software already takes into account variables such as ISO setting, colour and brightness. I think.</p>

<p>The world's best sensor for DR right now, at 18Mpx with over 16 stops of DR, is RED's Dragon. This is more than any film stock. It's between APS-C and full-35 in size. It isn't cheap and upgrades for users of the previous generation of sensors is currently taking priority over new buyers.</p>

<p>Put that kind of thing in a Leica M or Sony NEX and you will see eBay flooded with DSLRs.</p>

<p>Also, why CMOS sensors need physical shutters is beyond me. RED cameras and mobile phones do not have physical shutters, so I wonder why Leicas do.</p>