The Digital Sensor: A Guide to Understanding Digital Cameras
by Wesley Fink on April 21, 2008 1:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Fast Forward
With digital SLR sales continuing to show record growth in a photographic market whose overall growth is much slower, it should be clear that a lot of photo buyers are selecting digital SLR cameras instead. The reasons many of these new buyers select a digital SLR is because they want better quality pictures than they can get with a point and shoot camera. They may also choose a DSLR for the flexibility and growth potential if they get hooked on the photo hobby.
These are exactly the same reasons buyers chose film SLRs instead of 110 point and shoots in the 70s, and 80s. Those reasons are just as valid in the DSLR market as they were in film, and maybe even more so. Digital sensors, like other electronics, are constantly evolving and improving, and whatever megapixel assumptions we talk about today will certainly become invalid and outdated in the near future. However, it is very clear with today's sensors that the tiny sensors in compact point-and-shoot cameras are reaching the point where higher resolutions are simply being traded for noise. Somewhere around 8-10MP we are finding that higher resolution also generally means higher noise and lower sensitivity.
No doubt this roadblock will be passed with advancements in sensor technology, but today more than 8MP of clean resolution and usable sensitivities greater than ISO 400 are rare indeed in the compact camera market. APS C sensors in digital SLRs, however, seem to be getting better and better at higher and higher sensitivities at ever-increasing resolutions. Pundits are already screaming we are going too far with14MP sensors, but they forget that the smallest 4/3 sensor is still more than nine times greater area than the average compact sensor. There is still a lot of room for growth in resolution.
The other complaint - that lenses are finally reaching resolving limits with higher sensor resolutions - is certainly true with the cheap lenses that were the wunderkind of the developing SLR market. It looks like time for quality optics again as the industry has been skating for far too long in the low demands of the developing digital SLR market.
It also appears that prosumers, the serious amateurs among us, will be facing a difficult decision today and even more so in the near future. The cost of larger and larger sensors has been dropping rapidly, and CMOS sensor development from all the majors is also a factor in lowering costs and increasing resolution. Like it or not Canon and Nikon have already begun segmenting their SLR line into full-frame and APS C sensors. Those who couldn't figure out why Sony was introducing mainly full-frame lenses will finally get their answer later this year with Sony's 24.6MP full-frame flagship model.
Despite the fact that full-frame will be aimed at the top of the DSLR market by Canon/Nikon/Sony, the APS C market does not appear to be in any danger. Developments and new models will definitely continue. Players like Pentax and Samsung seem positively locked into the APS C space with no full-frame peeking around the corner, and Olympus has fought too hard for credibility with 4/3 to start singing a full-frame song. Similarly Nikon, Canon, and Sony will adamantly define the full-frame as pro and the rest of their line as prosumer and entry-level. Nikon may also have struck the marketing chord that will develop with full-frame sensors being touted more for their incredible range of ISO sensitivity than for their higher megapixel resolutions.
The problem is that prosumers lust after pro gear and a prosumer today will have to ask another question in their buying decision for accessories now that full-frame looks like it will be "for real". That question is: "will it work on a full-frame". The current $2000 street price of the Canon 5D and the coming release of the Canon 5D Mark II are making that question an important one for many prosumer buyers. The final street price of the presumer Sony "A900" is also still a mystery, but if it is in line with the Canon 5D, as many expect, then this question in the back of the minds of prosumers will move up-front very quickly.
The purpose of this sensor guide was not to explore every facet of sensor design and performance considerations. Each topic discussed could have been an individual article in its own right with more in-depth discussion of the factors that drive design decisions. Instead, the hope was to provide a framework of basic sensor information to provide a better understanding of the evolution of digital sensors and the types of concerns and decisions that are being made in the market today. We sincerely hope you come away with a better understanding and appreciation of the current digital SLR market, and perhaps of your own digital SLR camera or one you might buy in the future.
Part 2 of this Sensor Series is in the works and many of the images are already in the can. It will take a closer look at the sensitivity range and noise of the most recent sensors in the 14MP, 12MP, and 10MP classes of sensors. A few more cameras are on the way, and as soon as they are prepped and tested we will be sharing more of our findings on the newest sensors in the higher resolution sensor classes.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
72 Comments
View All Comments
Midwayman - Friday, April 25, 2008 - link
I'm happy. I'll won't argue that it's not a variant, but its design is different enough to warrant a mention. Even for such an old sensor, it still produces a dynamic range that exceeds notables such as the 5d, etc. I know I love my Super CCD based f30.http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S3/S3PA6.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S3/S3PA6.HTM
Has a reasonably good discussion on the super ccd for those interested.
haplo602 - Thursday, April 24, 2008 - link
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s...">http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/s...ElFenix - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
http://gizmodo.com/383170/giz-explains-digital-cam...">http://gizmodo.com/383170/giz-explains-digital-cam...Ajax9000 - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
Two criticisms of the article.1> The sensor size discussion was rather muddled, with half of the information on p.4 duplicating the info on p.2
2> Yes, full-frame is really nice to aspire to, but the problem of full-frame sensor cost was not mentioned. IC lithographic machines ("steppers") cannot image a FF sensor in a single pass, making the production time cost 2-3x greater than smaller sensors (APS-H is the biggest that can be done as single pass). Worse, the large size of the sensor compared to the wafer means that yields drop appreciably as the sensor size increases. All in all, FF sensors can be 10-20x more expensive than APS-C sensors, let alone 4/3, 1/1.8", etc.
See for example: p.68 in http://www.canon.com/technology/pdf/tech2008e.pdf">http://www.canon.com/technology/pdf/tech2008e.pdf and pp.11&12 in http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Ful...">http://www.robgalbraith.com/public_files/Canon_Ful...
To quote Canon (2nd ref): "Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full-frame sensors will always cost much more than cameras with smaller sensors."
ElFenix - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
steppers used to not be able to make 35 mm sensors in one pass. as canon and nikon are two of the bigger stepper manufacturers, guess what has likely happened? and both of them are smart enough to not announce that they've made the larger stepper, so as to make more profit than the other.Wesley Fink - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
Page 2 emphasized the huge size difference between compact point-and-shoot-sensors and DSLR sensors as classes of sensors. Page 3 then explored how all the DSLR sensor sizes evolved within that class, and page 4 detailed the current variations in sensor size within the DSLR class. I appreciate your comments, but can you provide some specifics on what needs to be changed?The full-frame sensor does indeed cost more, which was mentioned a number of times in the article. However, prices are still dropping for the full-frame sensor as evidenced by the fact that the street price of the Canon 5D is now around $2000.
Ajax9000 - Wednesday, April 23, 2008 - link
Some suggested edits:Page 1
[Delete http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cameras/2008/s...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cameras/2008/s... ]
Page 2
Sensors Today
Table: Sensor Comparison
Type Width (mm) Height (mm) Area (mm^2) Percent Full Frame Crop Factor (Lens Multiplier)
1/3.6" 4 3 12.00 1.39 8.49
1/3.2" 4.54 3.42 15.53 1.80 7.46
1/3" 4.8 3.6 17.28 2.00 7.07
1/2.7" 5.37 4.03 21.64 2.50 6.32
1/2.5" 5.76 4.29 24.71 2.86 5.91
1/2" 6.4 4.8 30.72 3.56 5.30
1/1.8" 7.18 5.32 38.20 4.42 4.76
1/1.7" 7.6 5.7 43.32 5.01 4.47
2/3" 8.8 6.6 58.08 6.72 3.86
1" 12.8 9.6 122.88 14.22 2.65
4/3" 18 13.5 243.00 28.13 1.89
"APS C" 23.7 15.7 372.09 43.07 1.52
APS C 25.1 16.7 419.17 48.52 1.44
APS H 30.2 16.7 504.34 58.37 1.31
35mm film 36 24 864 100 1.00
In the above Table we can see the range of sensor sizes now available. However, the majority of Compact or Point and Shoot cameras today still generally use a 1/2.3" to 1/2.5" sensor. A few top-of-the-line compact cameras, like the Canon G9, feature a 1/1.8" to 1/1.7" sensor; and the very best compact cameras have sensors around the 1/3" to 1/2" range. In contrast, the sensor sizes for today's DSLR cameras are in the range of 4/3" and APS C. A few top pro cameras now sport 35mm-size sensors and are referred to as full frame.
The APS C to 4/3 sensors of the bulk of today's digital SLR cameras are huge by comparison to those found in mainstream Compact or Point and Shoot cameras. To see the difference in the relative size of P&S sensors and DSLR sensors, look at the graphic below.
http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cameras/2008/s...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cameras/2008/s...
[Delete http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cameras/2008/s...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cameras/2008/s... ]
Why Does Sensor Size Matter?
...
Page 3
Why All these Different Sensor Sizes?
35mm first appeared on the scene in the 1930s, using an image frame of around 24x16mm. 35mm still film simply took 35mm motion picture film and spooled it into a light-tight canister, turned the spool direction by 90 degrees, and used double the frame size. (In fact, some early 35mm still cameras were referred to as "double-frame" cameras.) By the 1960s, with point-and-shoot and developments in SLR technology, 35mm had become king of the film formats. Even as film manufacturers tried to introduce other film formats, 35mm continued to grow and prosper.
...
... Actually, the image size that was always shot was the 30.2mm x 16.7mm, and the other sizes were just standard crops. The 24mm by 16mm APS C format is approximately the same size as the 1/2 frame 35mm championed by Olympus in the film era.
Page 4
Sensor Size and Multipliers
[Delete http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cameras/2008/s...">http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/cameras/2008/s... ]
...
More recently, Canon has championed the full-frame sensor in their pro cameras and in their pro/amateur 5D model. Larger sensor manufacturing cost has dropped as digital sensors have evolved and it now appears likely the APS-H (1.3X lens multiplier) will eventually drop from the Canon line. Since no lenses depend on that image circle all current Canon full-frame lenses, such as those used with the APS-H cameras, will remain usable on the full-frame sensor pro models that will replace them.
The developing push for full-frame at the top of the current DSLR market is a move to a sensor that is a bit more than double the size of today's APS C sensors. And there is a significant problem with this -- the full-frame sensors are made using different process techniques to even APS H sized sensors, greatly increasing their relative costs. In short, the IC lithographic machines ("steppers") that make the sensors cannot image a full frame sensor in a single pass, making the production time cost 2-3x greater than smaller sensors (APS-H is the biggest that can be done as single pass). Worse, the large size of the sensor compared to the wafer means that yields drop appreciably as the sensor size increases. According to Canon USA, full frame sensors can be 10-20x more expensive than APS-C sensors.
(
As a comparison to computer components, most CPUs are less than 300mm^2. The very large and expensive G80 and R600 GPUs are about 480mm^2 and 420mm^2 respectively. Unlike CPUs and GPUs that can increase performance through a die-shrink, APS, 4/3, and full frame sensors have a fixed die size -- so Moores Law doesn't apply.
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2007/0423/kaiga...">http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2007/0423/kaiga...
http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2007/0705/kaiga...">http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2007/0705/kaiga...
)
It is not surprising then that dSLRs mostly use APS C and 4/3 sensors.
Nikon, Pentax, and Minolta all had significant success in the 35mm film market, so all three had a vested interest in preserving their 35mm lens mount and keeping their current 35mm system users happy. However, none of these three had the resources to develop and manufacture their own sensors, so they partnered with sensor manufacturers to produce digital SLR cameras. Of course, these manufacturers were mostly making APS C, 4/3, and smaller sensors. In recent years that partner has been Sony, so all three manufacturers have basically adopted a 23.6x15.7mm sensor with a 1.5X lens multiplier.
...
CSMR - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
I am not an expert but it seems to me the most important point has been missed in this article: depth of field. Larger sensors allow for greater depth of field with the same lens. There is a lot of discussion of "image quality" (resolution, shutter speed, sensitivity) but depth of field alters what the image is, which is more important.Wesley Fink - Monday, April 21, 2008 - link
In the interest of keeping the article somewhat basic and a digestible size we did not include a discussion of the depth of field variations with compact sensors compared to DSLR sensors.This IS an important concern for creative use of depth of field since the DOF is much greater with the smaller sensor than with the DSLR sensor. Not everyone would agree that a shallower depth of field on a DSLR is more desirable. It certainly might be in a portrait, but not in a sweeping landscape shot. The desired DOF depends on what you are shooting.
melgross - Tuesday, April 22, 2008 - link
This is a very complex subject for many people. It's not just the sensor size that determines depth of field.But, we also have perspective to worry about.