What do you want in a sensor

Error
  • You need to be logged in to vote on this poll

greynolds999

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 09:54
Given a choice, what would be isthing you find most important in a sensor (or what would you like to be better)?

I realise that we actually want 'all of the above' or a combination so ask yourself what single thing you would like to be better on your current sensor.
My Photobucket

Jetsam1

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 10:01
Dynamic range I think.

gwing

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 10:33
Trouble is the first three are interrelated and sensor improvement is going to improve them all so its not really a question of choosing between them. Pixel count is the only truly independent variable there and it's probably the least important (IMO).

JAK

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 10:34
Sorry, but what does 'isthing' mean?

I think a larger (FF) sensor might be useful which should provide improvements in all those categories and suffer less from lens aberations.

John K
John K
Last Edited by JAK on 29/08/2013 - 10:39

Gwyn

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 11:16
Of those listed lower noise and more dynamic range I think. Not fussed about FF, or more pixels.

Mongoose

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 11:21
compared to my current camera (in my case a K10D), or the current Pentax range?

compared to my K10D, it's lower noise followed closely by higher ISO.

compared to the current range, for me it's dynamic range.

For me, pixel count has been high enough since the *istD
you don't have to be mad to post here



but it does help

walt

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 11:59
I went for other, as I just don't think the sensor in my K30 is lacking, it has enough resolution, dynamic range, noise is fine... I think pentax will have a hard time selling me a camera based on sensor improvements. For me it's things like improved af-c with customisation, such as closest focus priority, or better hand-off between af points etc, or body improvements such as articulated screen or ...hmmm... can't think of anything else at the moment...

Mike-P

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 13:07
Lower noise followed by a higher pixel count.

Although a higher pixel count is not important to many people it is to us that like shooting aircraft/birds/boats or anything requiring a long lens. Being able to crop much harder with less noise would be great.
. My Flickr

greynolds999

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 14:17
JAK wrote:
Sorry, but what does 'isthing' mean?

Oops.

I was curious, but it seems (from early results) that it is the dynamic range most of us want.

The reason I asked is it seems to be a thing which is rarely mentioned in reviews and the one aspect where digital still hasn't caught up with film.

I find I can still shoot a building in shadow and not lose all the detail in the sky when I use Pan-F, but that to do it in digital I have to expose for the sky and hope I don't lose all the shadows.

Noise would be number two (although it does go hand-in-hand with ISO).
My Photobucket

JAK

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 14:30
Pan F is a negative film, so one normally exposed for the shadows with that to prevent detail being lost in them whereas digital is more akin to slide film where one exposed for the highlights, as we do now. So that comparison isn't really fair.

As can be shown there is plenty of detail in the shadows and highlights that can be extracted from a PEF or DNG that a standard jpeg does not show; with some subjects in sun and heavy shadow setting the camera highlight and shadow correction helps or reprocess the image as an HDR.

John K
John K

punkrockemo

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 19:53
Another vote for higher dynamic range, shortly followed by higher ISO ability

davidstorm

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 20:27
Dynamic range for me too.

Regards
David
Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

SteveEveritt

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 20:53
Mike-P wrote:
Lower noise followed by a higher pixel count.

Although a higher pixel count is not important to many people it is to us that like shooting aircraft/birds/boats or anything requiring a long lens. Being able to crop much harder with less noise would be great.

+1 and for bugs in dark places

steven9761

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 21:41
For me, forget about "1st thing".. The last thing I'd want is a higher pixel count. What I would like to see is that more information is available to the guts of the camera's circuitry from the sensor in terms of light, focus, dynamic range, etc.

If I were to compare it to a computer's CPU, what I'd like to see initially is the earliest and most basic of Pentium/AMD chips being capable of running 64-bit Windows 8 (if that statement makes any kind of sense) in terms of information handling. The newer quad-core chips (in the case of a DSLR, the image processor) would be capable of what??...

Remember - the computers that sent NASA's first manned mission to the moon were probably no more powerful that a pocket calculator that you could buy for 50p these days!! I think "bang for buck" sums up what I'm trying to say here.

cabstar

Link Posted 29/08/2013 - 22:03
You want a faster processor, me too
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.