New 8MP cameras may suck (consumer cams)

Hey, guys. It's been shown that at some point, increasing resolution but not sensor size produces diminishing returns (currrent 5MP cameras are noisier and not 25% "better" than 4MP cameras).

Check out DP Review's review of Sony's new 8MP camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscf828/page14.asp

"Where the F828 starts to disappoint is image quality, many observers had concerns about the very small pixel pitch of the camera's eight million pixel sensor knowing that it would most likely lead to noisier images but what we weren't prepared for were chromatic aberrations. This came as a surprise especially considering the F828's lens carries not only the Carl Zeiss name but also the 'T*' notation indicating the use of special lens coatings. So in reality the F828's biggest issue becomes chromatic aberrations, with noise a second place..."

Doesn't look pretty. I'd buy an old 3MP D30 (much cheaper), or a used D60 (about the same price) before I bought one of these.

This sensor is going to end up in a lot of cameras (likely to be announced at PMA). I hope they do a better job with it than Sony did.

Hmmm.. I wonder if Dave Breitigam still has that old Agfa ePhoto 1680 1MP with the Arrow Underwater housing for sale? I bet I can get better looking images with that setup than I can with my 5050.

Thanks for the info, Eric. As I've heard many people mention it before, it seems a lot of people are caught up in the "I've got more megapixels than you" line and the digital camera companies are feeding them the more megapixels with little concern for quality.

I think I'm ready to move to the tiny 3MP Casio EXILIM EX-S3 with no shutter lag and fixed focus lens. Anyone know if I can install the Inon dome wide angle lens on that?

i want one of those exlims as well .. nice little housings they have ... and perfect everyday camera.

but i still want a housing for my D60 !!!

money money money .. whos got some ?

Giles

Tell you what Giles, when I get the 1D replacement and the money to buy a Seacam, I'll sell you my D60 housing. Of course, by that point, you might have moved on...

Hey, guys.  It's been shown that at some point, increasing resolution but not sensor size produces diminishing returns (currrent 5MP cameras are noisier and not 25% "better" than 4MP cameras).

 

This sensor is going to end up in a lot of cameras (likely to be announced at PMA).  I hope they do a better job with it than Sony did.

It looks like you're right about this sensor being packaged in other cameras.

http://imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1073674311.html

I'll stick to my prediction for the year:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?act=S...s&highlite=mega

Hopefully the awful results of this camera will put a stop to ever decreasing sensor pitch.

I heard that Olympus is going to announce an 8 megapixel camera at PMA - I bet they'll call it the 8080.

I wonder if they can improve on the Sony. It's not going to be easy as it's going to take an EXCELLENT lens to keep the CA down.

Cheers

James

Considering that the 828 costs more than the 300D it would seem logical that someone would put a aps size sensor in a top end consumer digicam. Throw in a decent AF system and it would meet the needs of a lot of people more than a DSLR would. A clean image of 5 to 7 MP would be more than enough for most shooters. If it were small enough, and the lens wide enough, I would give it a serious look.

I'm still waiting for my Digital range finder camera though.

I heard that Olympus is going to announce an 8 megapixel camera at PMA - I bet they'll call it the 8080.

 

I wonder if they can improve on the Sony.  It's not going to be easy as it's going to take an EXCELLENT lens to keep the CA down.

 

Cheers

James

Phil wrote in his review:

"It's a huge pity but the DSC-F828 has a fringing problem. We'll call it 'purple fringing' but it's clearly a combination of chromatic aberrations caused by the interaction of the lens and the microlenses on the sensor and enhanced by a certain amount of blooming which carries the color out further than the original artifact."

So if the problem is the lens, then another camera may have better results. If it's due to blooming, charge overflowing from a sensor to it's neighbors, then all of the cameras using this chip will have the same problem.

I think the increased noise is due to reduced sensor pitch, and it's highly unlikely we'll see significantly better results from other cameras.

Considering that the 828 costs more than the 300D it would seem logical that someone would put a aps size sensor in a top end consumer digicam. Throw in a decent AF system and it would meet the needs of a lot of people more than a DSLR would. A clean image of 5 to 7 MP would be more than enough for most shooters. If it were small enough, and the lens wide enough, I would give it a serious look.

 

I'm still waiting for my Digital range finder camera though.

Since Sony makes the imaging chip for the D100, they should be able to do this. There's a question of cost and of course a bigger chip will require a bigger lens. The camera size will increase. Also, the depth of field will be smaller at a given Fstop. I think the DOF is the reason some people find consumer digicams eaiser than DSLR's. I don't think making a consumer type digicam out of a D100 will produce a camera that's eaiser to use.

I'm waiting for a "digital rangefinder" as well. Something that can produce a very clean 6MP (dSLR-level), with a sharp lens and very low shutter lag would be sufficient.

Another review, for those interested. This one is slightly more positive, and makes the excellent point that viewing a photo at 100% isn't the same as viewing a print (since that 100% crop you're looking at is going to be a smaller and smaller part of the full image as the resolution goes up).

Excerpt from Luminous Landscape review:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml

"I should point out, for the benefit of those that see noise in the ISO 64 and ISO 100 F828 frames, that to the extent that it's visible in 100% on-screen enlargements, it's invisible in A3 or Super A3/B sized prints. The same applies to very small amounts of colour fringing. These just can't be seen in real world photographic prints.

 

Unfortunately there are some folks who see a bit of noise texture in a 100% crop and somehow jump to the conclusion that the image is crap. It shouldn't be necessary to point this out, but if the entire image were shown it would be equivalent to an on-screen image almost 3 feet high by 4 feet wide. Of course you're going to see some noise and other artifacts. But the important thing to keep in mind is how does it look in a typical sized print — say up to 11X17" image size on paper? (Look at 42" Plasma HD TV from 6 inches away and you'll see dots. Watch the football game from 9 feet away and you'll enjoy the show).

 

The answer is, as I've stated several times in the above review — at ISO 64, and to a slightly lower extent ISO 100 — noise levels on prints are excellent. Almost indistinguishable from images shot with a Canon 10D. Does it matter that on-screen, at actual-pixel magnification, there are more flaws on the Sony image that in the 10D image? Not one bit. If it can't be seen on a print it's relevance to the creative artist is essentially non-existant. To what some have called the "pixel-paparazzi" though, it is a call to arms. So be it. But readers who chance upon these on-line discussions (and the Sony Forum on DP Review is a hornet's nest) should take a pause after reading some of the vitriol."

Just be reading the excerpt I'm tempted to ask what point the extra resolution is if you can't use it for larger prints due to noise. It's good that Reichman puts the noise into perspective, but it does no good to have 8MP if you are bound to smaller prints to hide the noise. By looking at the sample image at the various ISO's, I'd say the noise is atrocious.

Curious that Reichman mentions vitriol on other's forums when he's known to dish out some of his own on occasion at his own site. He doesn't seem to see any significance to the noise issues with this camera yet he's declared in his own forums that Sigma lenses are categorically not worth owning.

I have to agree with Craig. The only reason for having an 8 megapixel camera would seem to be for greater enlargements or cropping. If small print performance is the criteria, 8 megapixels is a bit pointless.

Owning this camera does allow you to outsnob owners of d2H's, 1D's, 10D's etc cos you have 'more megapixels'.

Noise also tends to decrease apparent sharpness, and worsens with contrast/sharpening adjustments in postprocessing.

Hey guys, as I just announced in another thread we got news from Nikon. What Eric has pointed out is interesting. But note also that the new Nikon 8700 might takle some of the issues because it's capable of shooting RAW.