Originally Posted by snova
So here you are mistaken. More pixels give you more dynamic range (DR). Not less
This doesn't work well with sources I was looking at. like this one, from DPReview:Pixel Size and Dynamic Range
We learned earlier that a digital camera sensor has millions of pixels collecting photons during the exposure of the sensor. You could compare this process to millions of tiny buckets collecting rain water. The brighter the captured area, the more photons are collected. After the exposure, the level of each bucket is assigned a discrete value as is explained in the analog to digital conversion topic. Empty and full buckets are assigned values of "0" and "255" respectively, and represent pure black and pure white, as perceived by the sensor. The conceptual sensor below has only 16 pixels. Those pixels which capture the bright parts of the scene get filled up very quickly.
Once they are full, they overflow (this can also cause blooming). What flows over gets lost, as indicated in red, and the values of these buckets all become 255, while they actually should have been different. In other words, detail is lost. This causes "clipped highlights" as explained in the histogram section. On the other hand, if you reduce the exposure time to prevent further highlight clipping, as we did in the above example, then many of the pixels which correspond to the darker areas of the scene may not have had enough time to capture any photons and might still have value zero (hence the term "clipped shadows" as all the values are zero, while in reality there might be minor differences).
One of the reasons that digital SLRs have a larger dynamic range is that their sensors have larger pixels. All things equal (in particular fill factor, "bucket" depth, and exposure time), pixels with a larger exposed surface can collect more photons in the shadow areas than small pixels during the exposure time that is needed to prevent the bright pixels from overflowing.
It is easy to understand that one of the reasons digital SLRs have a larger dynamic range is that their pixels are larger. Larger pixels can collect more photons in the shadow areas before the bright ones start to overflow.
Or, go look at your 6MP RX100 (from RAW) down sampled images to prove it to yourself at 100% magnification compared to your 70S (from RAW). See the oversharpening and the over-contrast? That is because of the lost DR (both real detail and noise).
Sorry, no. 20MP to 6MP downsampled RAW images from RX100 actually appear smoother - less jaggies, less moire, no oversharpening artifacts and no over-contrast, compared to D70 RAWs. But this is really irrelevant because RX100 sensor is at least 7 years more advanced, so it might be achieving same or better DR compared to D70s, based on technology advance, regardless of pixel size.
No doubt the Nokia has a sensor which is 4 times the surface area of iPhone. However, they ruined the IQ by using tiny pixels. Its a no win situation. You either keep all 41 and have a noisy image, or you down sample to get over-sharped and over-contrast (lost shadow detail) image. Your choice. You cant cheat physics. Its not just the size of the sensor, it the size of sensor balanced with technological limits at the time to keep noise levels to an acceptable level using small pixels.
That doesn't make much sense. First of, you can "cheat" physics; it is called technology progress, and it gives new cameras capability to achieve better results with more smaller size pixels, compared to older cameras with less larger size pixels.So are you saying that 8 million 1.4 micron pixels in iPhone 5 will give better results than 41 million 1.1 micron pixels in Lumia 1020? Or shall we go for another round of dragging random cameras into random comparisons?
From what I have seen, Lumia 1020 compares well to PureView 808, which did have 1.4 micron pixels - same as iPhone. That would probably qualify as "cheating" of physics. And there are also 5x the number of them.
Also, the Nokia lens does have a bigger aperture.. 2.2 compared to iPhone 2.4. Really?? is that need to get excited?
Why, yes. Letting same amount of light in less time can decrease noise, and you also get benefit of a bit shallower DOF, which personally I like; one of main reasons why I still grab D70s instead of RX100, on occasion.
Keeping in mind that since the aperture is fixed for both you have no ability to fix the corner softness problems of the Nokia lens. Its terrible. No amount of megapixels, downsampling or other filters is going to fix corner softness of Nokia lens.
Well, this is the trade-off you pay for other bonuses. That being said, I haven't noticed that softening is that bad, but I will review available images again, on better screen.
Don't forget to mention the ~ 4 sec shot to shot delay picking a 41 MP sensor coupled to image processor which is not able to handle it in a timely fashion. Oh someone blinked.. hold for 4 seconds while I take another. not acceptable.
I had handful of pocket cameras with few seconds between shots. I could live with that. Because this is smartphone camera and is for casual shooting - if I need serious performance, I will take my DSLR or at least RX100. But if I'm out and about and come across scene worth capturing, I will be happy to wait 4 seconds between shots - if that will provide me with superior results. And from what I have seen so far, compared to other current smartphones - it will.
Anyone with a DSLR knows you take rapid shots to prevent this problem and annoyance. iPhone 5 can take photos as fast as you can hit the volume + button. Did I mention the almost 1 second shutter delay once you have waited the 4 seconds seconds. Somehow dpreview falled to mention any of those things in their "preview".
Somehow, DPReview didn't have issue with this while playing with Lumia 1020. How much time have you spent playing with it, for having such strong opinion?