Anonymous, 25 Jul 2020I just noticed that other users wrote that your calculation is correct. No, it's not.
Yo... more"6. At base Iso you would only need to compare the focal length (the real focal length) for the amount of light per object"
I want to add that I wanted to say (focal length)². It's not as accurate as using (focal length/f-number)² x (exposure time) because different cameras define the base Iso exposure differently. Furthermore I want to add:
7. More light from an object doesn't necessarily mean less noise because the sensor produces read noise. That's relevant in extreme low-light conditions or dark shadows.
Demongornot, 25 Jul 2020Oh, I tried to figure it out by myself without thinking too much about it, I wasn't sure ... moreI just noticed that other users wrote that your calculation is correct. No, it's not.
You wrote "With (S/A)/R for (Size/Aperture)/Resolution
1. 1/2" isn't the sensor area and it's also not the sensor diagonal. 1/2" type is just the name(!) of the sensor type. The real sensor diagonal of a 1/2" type sensor is 8mm = 1/3.2". The relationship between the real sensor diagonal and the name isn't completely linear.
2. You need to use the sensor area and not the sensor diagonal, if you divide by resolution.
3. The factor needs to be 1/f-number², not 1/f-number.
4. So in order to compare the amount of light per time per pixel, you would need to use sensor area/(resolution x f-number²)
5. In order to compare the amount of light per time of an object at the same distance, you would need to use (focal length / f-number)² , (the real focal length)
6. At base Iso you would only need to compare the focal length (the real focal length) for the amount of light per object
By the way, I want to add that in pixel binning mode the S20 Ultra periscope camera would capture more light per pixel, this could give it an advantage in extreme low-light conditions. But in average light conditions the light you capture from an object might be more important, but we don't know the focal length of the rumored camera.
In my opinion note 20 isnt bringing anything new compared to s20 series, only has gorilla 7 glass, other parts are even infirior to s20, especially s20 ultra which is better, hopefully prices will go down for s20 series when new note is realesed
So the Note 20 will have a 3x hybrid zoom??? What a shitty move, Samsung! Other flagships have 20x, or 30x hybrid zoom, and you come with only 3x hybrid zoom? Why not 3x optical zoom, and at least 20x hybrid zoom? This makes me mad really, when it comes to a flagship.
All that zoom misinformation with 5x/10x/100x... its not even zoom lens, its telephoto lens. People get mislead big time.
I will wait until the unpacked event to find out the real details, but this note 20 Ultra is sounding more and more unimpressive with each day that passes, i hope most of these rumours are false, and that Samsung are not trying to be cheap at every turn, it doesnt even sound worth upgrading in the slightest from my note 10+
ypcx, 25 Jul 2020Looks like someone is sabotaging Samsung Mobile from the inside.It cant be explained better than that. Something dosent feel right with the specs.
So basically this is note 10 series with a diferent colour options and some s pen festures.
Demongornot, 25 Jul 2020I checked online and Tetracell is Samsung's name for quad bayer.Okay, My bad.
He actually meant Quad bayer by saying only bayer.
Aldwin123, 25 Jul 2020I dont think so. First if it true that it will not have PDAF (Which I think 100% is not true) ... moreYes It'll have PDAF. But that doesn't necessarily mean it won't have Laser AF.
Demongornot, 25 Jul 2020Well ACTUALLY :
With (S/A)/R for (Size/Aperture)/Resolution
((1/2)/3.5)/48 = 0,002 976
Whi... moreYou light capturing math is ok.
The problem is with your details. You're giving definition of per pixel detail, not overall detail.
Yes the 1/3.4" at f 3.0 will capture more light/detail per pixel. But that doesn't mean more light/detail overall.
Samsung is mainly doing it to cut the cost down. I'm guessing that 48MP telephoto setup alone might have cost 40$+.
But a 1/3.4" might cost under 20$.
If the 48MP were used as quad bayer instead of full resolution(in S20 ultra) it would give much better light/detail than crap 1/3.4" sensor.
I hope they'll go with the 1/2.55" sensor.
Demongornot, 25 Jul 2020I checked online and Tetracell is Samsung's name for quad bayer.By that he might have meant regular bayer.
Bayer and Quad Bayer are two different thing.
ypcx, 25 Jul 2020Looks like someone is sabotaging Samsung Mobile from the inside.Something isn't right this time.
We're only 10 days away from the launch but still we haven't got any proper benchmark result which is pretty unusual actually.
I hope they're not going with the Exynos 990.
If they go, they can rest in peace. Note 20 sale will be half of S20 sale in Europe.
This isn't new.
I think this was among the earliest rumor about the Note 20.
I wish they had used the 1/2.55" 12MP for the Telephoto instead of that small sensor.
pixel user, 25 Jul 2020not related to this post but why sammy started using mediatek chipset when they can simply use... moreCost-saving technique to maximise profits. No Samsung used Mediatek before. It stopped using Spreadtrum's Unisoc which was garbage. These MTK chips are P series, which are outdated already.
not related to this post but why sammy started using mediatek chipset when they can simply use their in-house chipset
Actually if they're using smaller sensor with higher pixel density (since both are effectively 12mp) and everything else is same, it will be acting as a crop and will give more reach optically .
It's the same principle as why same lenses on crop sensor give more reach than full frame sensors on interchangeable lens cameras
Demongornot, 25 Jul 2020I checked online and Tetracell is Samsung's name for quad bayer.Bayer and quad Bayer are different