Not 4 sports and not for lower light situations, cellphones will always stink. But yes, in perfect sunlight, smart phone cameras are very good. Right now, my 20 year old is very popular for carrying a Nikon e3200. That was my camera I bought when she was born. It is a 3MP sensor. You are right, that the future will have to focus on dramatic divergence. I never thought sonys 61 MP was a great idea.
Hi, my phone makes rather satisfactory photographs in low light. No pixel peeping, of course. Cameras still have advantages with telephoto applications, macro and yes, low light.
Spyros discusses Airy Disks. Unfortunately photography is on a bad trajectory due to the Airy Disks and smaller and smaller pixels. But will digital sensors be able to out resolve film in the future, and how bad will the ISO get? ua-cam.com/video/Nw03yP-5vZs/v-deo.html
Thanks. I don't think so. Mounting a high resolving power lens on a low resolution body creates those same flat images. Low resolution sensors usually use AA filters which may have a slight effect on rendering, but the effect of the optics is much more prominent.
Why would you want microcontrast? To me it sounds like very abrupt changes from bright to dark over short distance, i.e., the opposite of micro gradation. The OPPOSITE of what we want(?)
You are right. However, microcontrast is an over-used term that lacks an agreed definition. It is used by different people to describe different phenomena. Hence I try to refrain from mentioning it.
@@viktorpaulsen627 .... yes ... I used the term here as it is often used to refer pop. It's a loose term in vogue. I understand what you express. Thanks.
Hi Shaul, as usual I've been thinking a lot about what you've shared in this video. I hope to comment more later on, but for now I just wanted to mention that I referenced the Dirty Photography Club and some of your findings, in 2 comments that I wrote for this video from Camera Consipiracies. ua-cam.com/video/-YGQcfKT1xk/v-deo.html I found your findings fully relevant. I'm pretty hopeful I didn't misinterpret anything. If so, I welcome correction... here and there. - Gary
Hi Gary, I don't think pixel pitch per se has a significant effect on poppiness. A large pixel pitch only allows using nicer lenses with a smaller penalty in terms of visible flaws. Mounting a poppy lens on a small pixel pitch camera will still produce a poppy image.
@@sneye1 Ah, thanks for your reply. This means I did misunderstand some of what you presented previously. These days I may know just enough to make more misinterpretations than I had previously. A little knowledge is a dangerous... I've also noticed good poppiness on some lower pixel-pitch cameras. A good example is the Olympus XZ-1. Renowned for it's excellent lens, I've searched for writings and videos that evaluate its 3D pop, to no avail. But poppy photos abound online. I've wondered whether the XZ-1's CCD sensor can render the pop of its fine lens better than an equivalent CMOS sensor would. I started comparing photos between the XZ-1 and XZ-2, which has the same lens but a CMOS sensor. Overall I get the impression the XZ-1 renders dimensionality more consistently across various photos, compositions and lighting. But I've also seen a comparison of the two cameras of the same scene. The XZ-2's pop seemed somewhat better in those few photos. I just received an XZ-1 today. It's does very well in my current "poppiness scene" set-up, but not as well as a Zuiko OM 50mm 1.4 -- probably my most poppy lens so far. The OM did better on both a Canon 6D, and two M43 cameras. Later I'll compare the XZ-1 to good but lesser-pop lens/camera combinations I've started testing. I found a website that probably few Westerners know about, that teems with photos from classic lenses and cameras, in addition to modern ones. It's ------ganref.jp------ It's in Japanese, which I can read somewhat, but it can be searched and navigated pretty well without knowing the language. The photos also show many compositions that seem less common in the West, to me. ... So more conditions under which dimensionality may or may not pop forth. The happy quest continues. 🌄
@@GLu-qc6vn Thanks for the link. I will definitely explore it. The Olympus XZ-1 is a favorite of mine. Lovely lens. Not sure about how much the sensor has to do with poppiness. Anyway, following your comments, I intend to explore whether pixel pitch has an effect. Stay tuned.
@@sneye1 Lead on, Oh Captain! I'll follow in the rolling roiling wake... and mayhaps, better my vision. All in good fun, and even some joy, thanks Shaul.
A fascinating topic.
Not 4 sports and not for lower light situations, cellphones will always stink. But yes, in perfect sunlight, smart phone cameras are very good. Right now, my 20 year old is very popular for carrying a Nikon e3200. That was my camera I bought when she was born. It is a 3MP sensor. You are right, that the future will have to focus on dramatic divergence. I never thought sonys 61 MP was a great idea.
Hi, my phone makes rather satisfactory photographs in low light. No pixel peeping, of course. Cameras still have advantages with telephoto applications, macro and yes, low light.
Spyros discusses Airy Disks. Unfortunately photography is on a bad trajectory due to the Airy Disks and smaller and smaller pixels. But will digital sensors be able to out resolve film in the future, and how bad will the ISO get?
ua-cam.com/video/Nw03yP-5vZs/v-deo.html
Nice talk. Does higher dynamic range on lower mega pixel sensor contribute to micro contrast too??
Thanks. I don't think so. Mounting a high resolving power lens on a low resolution body creates those same flat images. Low resolution sensors usually use AA filters which may have a slight effect on rendering, but the effect of the optics is much more prominent.
@@sneye1 Thank you. I am not considering lens here. I am curious only about the sensor.
Why would you want microcontrast? To me it sounds like very abrupt changes from bright to dark over short distance, i.e., the opposite of micro gradation. The OPPOSITE of what we want(?)
You are right. However, microcontrast is an over-used term that lacks an agreed definition. It is used by different people to describe different phenomena. Hence I try to refrain from mentioning it.
@@viktorpaulsen627 .... yes ... I used the term here as it is often used to refer pop. It's a loose term in vogue.
I understand what you express. Thanks.
Hi Shaul, as usual I've been thinking a lot about what you've shared in this video. I hope to comment more later on, but for now I just wanted to mention that I referenced the Dirty Photography Club and some of your findings, in 2 comments that I wrote for this video from Camera Consipiracies. ua-cam.com/video/-YGQcfKT1xk/v-deo.html
I found your findings fully relevant. I'm pretty hopeful I didn't misinterpret anything. If so, I welcome correction... here and there.
- Gary
Hi Gary,
I don't think pixel pitch per se has a significant effect on poppiness. A large pixel pitch only allows using nicer lenses with a smaller penalty in terms of visible flaws. Mounting a poppy lens on a small pixel pitch camera will still produce a poppy image.
@@sneye1 Ah, thanks for your reply. This means I did misunderstand some of what you presented previously. These days I may know just enough to make more misinterpretations than I had previously. A little knowledge is a dangerous...
I've also noticed good poppiness on some lower pixel-pitch cameras. A good example is the Olympus XZ-1. Renowned for it's excellent lens, I've searched for writings and videos that evaluate its 3D pop, to no avail. But poppy photos abound online.
I've wondered whether the XZ-1's CCD sensor can render the pop of its fine lens better than an equivalent CMOS sensor would. I started comparing photos between the XZ-1 and XZ-2, which has the same lens but a CMOS sensor. Overall I get the impression the XZ-1 renders dimensionality more consistently across various photos, compositions and lighting. But I've also seen a comparison of the two cameras of the same scene. The XZ-2's pop seemed somewhat better in those few photos.
I just received an XZ-1 today. It's does very well in my current "poppiness scene" set-up, but not as well as a Zuiko OM 50mm 1.4 -- probably my most poppy lens so far. The OM did better on both a Canon 6D, and two M43 cameras. Later I'll compare the XZ-1 to good but lesser-pop lens/camera combinations I've started testing.
I found a website that probably few Westerners know about, that teems with photos from classic lenses and cameras, in addition to modern ones. It's ------ganref.jp------
It's in Japanese, which I can read somewhat, but it can be searched and navigated pretty well without knowing the language. The photos also show many compositions that seem less common in the West, to me. ... So more conditions under which dimensionality may or may not pop forth.
The happy quest continues. 🌄
@@GLu-qc6vn
Thanks for the link. I will definitely explore it. The Olympus XZ-1 is a favorite of mine. Lovely lens. Not sure about how much the sensor has to do with poppiness.
Anyway, following your comments, I intend to explore whether pixel pitch has an effect. Stay tuned.
@@sneye1 Lead on, Oh Captain!
I'll follow in the rolling roiling wake...
and mayhaps,
better my vision.
All in good fun, and even some joy,
thanks Shaul.