Sony A7000 APS-C sensor with BSI and 24 or about 30 MP… same specs of Fuji X-PRO2? – WITH POLLS

[Patrick FR]

Some sensor specs of the Sony A7000... and who knows, maybe also of the Fuji X-PRO2? Check them out here: http://www.fujirumors.com/sony-a7000-aps-c-sensor-with-bsi-and-24-or-about-30-mp-same-specs-of-fuji-x-pro2-with-polls/

[TenLayers]

What is BSI and why does it matter?

[Aswald]

Backside illuminated sensor. 60% more light captured. Better low light performance.

[deva]

I've read a variety of posts from users who seem impatient for the next thing. That is easy to get caught up in, but for me Fuji can take as much time as is required. Their current offerings are extraordinary cameras capable of taking world class images under just about any circumstance. 

 

Myself, as mentioned in previous posts, would prefer to stay at 16MP. I just have no need of more. I would rather have more dynamic range and low light performance instead of more pixels. I also prefer the smaller file sizes, lower power use and faster performance of less. I understand the more more more craze... but do not share it.

 

I know this thread is about the X-Pro2 but it seems applicable to an X-T2 as well... Whenever an X-T2 is announced, and I assume it is inevitable that it is 24MP, I will likely stick with my current X-T1's for the foreseeable future because of that (unless there is some advance in another area that is too compelling). I might even stash a couple unused so I can stick at the 16MP's. 

 

If I were shooting with the X-Pro1 and looking forward to the X-Pro2, I would be disappointed to even hear the possibility of 30MP's. 24MP is already a 50% increase!!??!!

 

If cameras were cars, every new model would have a bigger engine and nobody thinks maybe some people would prefer better gas mileage. 

[9.V.III]

If you look at the low light performance of the 5Ds you can see how higher megapixels does not mean bad low light performance.

Individual pixels are noisier, but the image has more potential for data manipulation so you can downsize and/or use noise reduction to get basically the same performance. Both Brian at TDP and one unmentionable youtube reviewer have come to that conclusion.

It's been interesting watching people talk about it in theory for all these years and now see it in practice.

 

The only issue is, it introduces extra steps.

I almost think that Sony's strategy with the A7 is best. Give people both a 12MP model and an extreem resolution model.

As someone who likes landscape, wildlife and macro, there is no such thing as too much resolution. I'll take a 30MP sensor on my Fuji.

For journalistic, event and sports photography, it sounds like lower resolution is better (if only for the ability to fit more pictures on a card).

And no, I've never heard of a RAW compression scheme that doesn't ruin the data, your only option to make full use of the sensor and keep the file size small is to use a lower resolution sensor.

[umad?]

If you look at the low light performance of the 5Ds you can see how higher megapixels does not mean bad low light performance.

Individual pixels are noisier, but the image has more potential for data manipulation so you can downsize and/or use noise reduction to get basically the same performance. Both Brian at TDP and one unmentionable youtube reviewer have come to that conclusion.

It's been interesting watching people talk about it in theory for all these years and now see it in practice.

 

Physics comes to this conclusion

If the fillfactor is the same (scales linear with pixelsize) it doesn't really matter, how many pixels are on the sensor. When you downscale (or, if anyone still does that   ) print the file, the overall noise will be the same.

 

It's only with extremely small pixels (taking ~1.4-2µm here) that this ends. This is where manufacturers try to get the fill factor back up by using BSI or even stacked BSI

 

This however only goes for "general purpose cameras". The A7s (and others) are special. It's not that they have a better fill factor, but that there are different sources of noise.

The A7s is probably working with dual conversion gain (DR-Pix) cross patented with Aptina. The magic is happening somewhere around ISO3200, when the A7s transforms into an Low Light monster (It's not only noise [sNR], but also the dynamic range)

[L135M]

Exciting times.... but will a new Sony sensor mean better video performance? Fuji explicitly state that the X-Trans was developed for stills, and some have commented that the sensor itself causes problems for video. If this is the case, and a Sony sensor (instead of X-trans) improves the video..... I will be truly torn. I would hate to lose the stills quality and fuji character (especially the colour).... On the other hand, I'd really like to rationalise my kit and just run a single system - I'm currently shooting Fuji for stills and Panasonic for video. If Fuji could come up with at least one hybrid camera in their line-up that was squarely aimed at video+stills shooter I'd be over the moon.

[mjh]

If this is the case, and a Sony sensor (instead of X-trans) improves the video..... I will be truly torn.

Not ‘instead of’: Fuji employs Sony sensors (custom versions with X-Trans rather than Bayer CFA array) now and will probably continue to do so in the future. Just with sensors based on whatever is state-of-the-art then. Scaling down the full sensor resolution to obtain a HD or 4K video stream is always tricky and the X-Trans pattern doesn’t make this any easier. Sony did choose a 42 rather than 50 MP sensor for the Alpha 7R II just to simplify creating video images – the CFA pattern is just one factor to be considered.

[King Cardinal]

I've read a variety of posts from users who seem impatient for the next thing. That is easy to get caught up in, but for me Fuji can take as much time as is required. Their current offerings are extraordinary cameras capable of taking world class images under just about any circumstance. 

 

Myself, as mentioned in previous posts, would prefer to stay at 16MP. I just have no need of more. I would rather have more dynamic range and low light performance instead of more pixels. I also prefer the smaller file sizes, lower power use and faster performance of less. I understand the more more more craze... but do not share it.

 

I know this thread is about the X-Pro2 but it seems applicable to an X-T2 as well... Whenever an X-T2 is announced, and I assume it is inevitable that it is 24MP, I will likely stick with my current X-T1's for the foreseeable future because of that (unless there is some advance in another area that is too compelling). I might even stash a couple unused so I can stick at the 16MP's. 

 

If I were shooting with the X-Pro1 and looking forward to the X-Pro2, I would be disappointed to even hear the possibility of 30MP's. 24MP is already a 50% increase!!??!!

 

If cameras were cars, every new model would have a bigger engine and nobody thinks maybe some people would prefer better gas mileage. 

 

 I've just swapped from my Pentax K5 and 16-50 (Kept my K3 and DA*300 for birding for now) to the Fuji XT-1 because it's new AF just blew Pentax out the water.

 

I was in the store (London Camera Exchange) and i had my hands on the Sony A7 (FF 24mp) and the Fuji. Fuji Won because it has excellent lenses at affordable prices and i love the traditional film like quality that Fuji gives.

 

Unless your Pixel Peeking at the extreme end you do not need more, you need excellent noise control, speed, and that new kick ass AF. but for me finally it was the systems weight i can do more with smaller and lighter gear than with a FF and the associated lens weight that more Pixels and bigger sensors need.

 

And i always want better economy, go further and do more than rush around and miss even more.

[Aswald]

Perhaps this is what's in store if the new X-Pro2 uses a Sony sensor beneath the X-Trans color filters. It is definitely very promising....

 

http://petapixel.com/2015/07/04/this-is-how-good-the-sony-a7s-is-with-low-light-and-high-iso/