This seems similar to the P20 project Huawei and Sony worked on for the camera in that phone. Pretty cool to see it in a product other companies can use but it seems like processing is going to be more important than ever with this kind of sensor. I wonder of the Pixel 3 series will use it?

sony makes about 50% of world wide cam sensors, and about 70% of video sensor, so most stuff that takes nice pics, has one in it. as there arent many making 48MP phone sensor, just look for its cam res ;-)

Just too bad there is basicly no room for half a decent lens in a phone 😕

I think 48MP is ridiculous and just a full frame or medium format camera can take full advantage of so many pixels.. 4K (3840 x 2160) is just 8.3MP wile 8K (7680 × 4320) 33.2MP. Wile many people are starting to adopt 4k displays, the most used resolution is still just 1920x1080 (2.1MP). Then comes the low light performance: the more MP the less low light performance it has. I'd very much prefer a 9 to 12 MP sensor with good low light performance and use the CPU processing power for 60/120/240/480/960 fps video capture.

Hope that they can make a great firmware/image processing algorithm for this sensor on their own phones. With old sensors, somehow all the other manufacturers could do wonders, but Sony always failed to impress even though they make the sensors.

@Silva ? the sensor switches to 12MP for low light, so not sure what the problem is. outside that, take pictures in 24/20/16/12MP and compare on a 1080p screen and you can still tell the difference. maybe not on a 4x6, but most people now view things on larger things like monitors and tvs..

After some 40 years of being an amateur/semi pro photographer I feel it's my duty to help you, dear colleagues. Pixel count does not have any direct impact (or: it is not related in any way) to the overall image quality (be it photos or a moving pics). Unless one is intending to cover a mural with a single photo, without the need of post-processing in order to avoid visible artifacts. Things that DO make the major differences are: 1. physical size of the cell and it's (cell's) degree of technological refinement (purity of the material, certain aspects of the production process etc.) which defines cell's light sensitivity/conductivity, level of "grain" (noise), recovery time etc. 2. quality of a lens (total % of aberrations, light capability etc.) 3. punctuality of the device's mechanics (correctness of the exposure etc.). So, this is just another gimmick/dirty trick played upon the targeted customers - people whose mind follows the so-called linear logic and have a wrong perception of the quality vs quantity problem... And, by the way, the trick is soooo typical of Sony, the company that is capable of making the best cells...and average cameras (why do I think of Nikon/Canon?Olympus...?); best displays...and average phones and tv sets (why do I think of Nokia/Motorola/Samsung/Hitachi/Philips...?)...lots of inventions...very few successfully finalized products. And all that at HIGHEST retail prices.

But, pixel count certainly does matter, though. Can have all the lenses and other things you want and it won't make a good or useful picture on a sensor with a tiny pixel count. In phones it also makes some sense to use sensor and software tricks to try and alleviate as many of the limitations of being without a proper lens as possible.

You're free to believe. Believers, keep on believing (Stevie Wonder).

fry178:

@Silva ? the sensor switches to 12MP for low light, so not sure what the problem is. outside that, take pictures in 24/20/16/12MP and compare on a 1080p screen and you can still tell the difference. maybe not on a 4x6, but most people now view things on larger things like monitors and tvs..

So why does Sony releases 3 different models of the A7 with different MP number? And why does the Panasonic GH4 is only 16MP and the GH5 is 20MP? And why does any dedicated video camera, like the the Sony FDR-AX100, only have 14MP? It's marketing, more MP doesn't mean a better image, unless you're viewing it on a screen that supports that image. Unless you have an 8K screen at home, you can't see a difference up to 4k (8MP). For stills, bigger isn't always better. But for video, bigger is actually worse.

@DLD And i have yet to see an non full frame 6MP camera with a 5000$ lens that takes better pics than lets say an a6300 with stock lens. To a certain degree, MP DO matter. @Silva Because they dont want to sacrifice overall performance by having one cam doing everything "mediocre". The a7 is the regular one, the R is for resolution (40 vs 24MP) and S is for sensitivity (12MP and 400000 iso). And as far as screen goes, everything up to 20MP i can tell the difference between 4/8/12/20 on any 55/65 4k tv i have in the shop.. As soon as you look at details and especially plants/trees. Given that we are not talking about pro grade cam/lens. They have different chips, as they use different sizes (chip) and sometimes older ones (16/20MP), and lower resolution sensors to improve low light performance, which is more important than res on video, especially since 4K needs only 8MP, which will also help quality a bit, as the sensor isnt maxed out. Most cams improve a bit going with resolution below the top one (e.g. 16/18/20 vs 18/20/24).

Silva:

It's marketing, more MP doesn't mean a better image,

More MP doesn't necessarily mean a better image, you are correct, but it does mean it captures more data, more detail, and that is important. Even viewing a very large picture on a smaller screen will utilize that extra data in the best way possible, you'll get less blurryness. Again, that doesn't mean the quality will be any better, like you said, but more data is never bad. it also allows you much better control over making a digital picture into a physical picture. I have seen people take pictures for an event and want it on a banner, feet long and high etc. And though it looks good on their phone, it looks pixelated when printed, ESPECIALLY if it has to be cropped. Plus, it also allows you to take pictures, and crop stuff out of those pictures and still retain the detail since you have so much information to make it work If i had a low pixel device i would not have been able to get this decent of a picture of these yellowjackets without having to use the macro or install a macro lense and get up very close to the bees i had no desire to get closer to. Though if i had done that i could have captured even more detail, ofcourse, but there's not a huge lack of detail here. https://i.imgur.com/Xjd3eQv.jpg

i think they are hornets/wasps

Clawedge:

i think they are hornets/wasps

Yellowjackets i believe, which is what i meant to type, haha

@fry178 I know what each a7 is for, that's why I gave their example. I agree with you that for a big TV you'd notice sharpness differences. But for monitors below 32'' not so much. It's a phone we are talking about, not a cinema camera. @aura89 I would prefer better low light performance over detail on a mobile device, or any camera at all. To capture detail, you need to have control of the light. As an amateur, I almost never have. You need to think about who uses this technology: pros who pixel peep, or amateurs who just wanna snap a couple pictures? Beautiful pic btw, but if you want detail: fill the frame with the subject aka use a bigger lens. Oh, wait: you used a phone? You can't ever get DSLR/Mirrorless quality on a phone, it's not possible due to space and lack of lens.

We surely need better lens asap I DO NOT CARE ABOUT PRICE ATM bring me detailed image neither low light matters until you live in a cave, basement or hollow earth. Both my Xperia XZ Premium and XZ1 have trash camera. I will not buy Sony again anytime soon.

Silva:

@fry178 I know what each a7 is for, that's why I gave their example. I agree with you that for a big TV you'd notice sharpness differences. But for monitors below 32'' not so much. It's a phone we are talking about, not a cinema camera. @aura89 I would prefer better low light performance over detail on a mobile device, or any camera at all. To capture detail, you need to have control of the light. As an amateur, I almost never have. You need to think about who uses this technology: pros who pixel peep, or amateurs who just wanna snap a couple pictures? Beautiful pic btw, but if you want detail: fill the frame with the subject aka use a bigger lens. Oh, wait: you used a phone? You can't ever get DSLR/Mirrorless quality on a phone, it's not possible due to space and lack of lens.

Oh i know, i'm just saying there's positives for both, especially high megapixels in camera phones since they almost always have zero optical zoom. In a perfect world, there'd be equal advancements in all areas and equally put into phones rather then just one feature here but lack of feature there, lol

A future pixel phone with a 40+ mp sensor would be divine, more megapixels are useful for cropping

@warlord Dont remember what sensor was in those, as they usually had either 16/18 or 20 and 24MP (the 20 is better than the 24), maybe look at the z5, as that was better on IQ, rather than focusing speed..

Angular Resolution/The Rayleigh Criterion, basically there is a physics-based limit. There's a reason phone cameras have been sticking around 12MP because for the aperture of phones, going higher would result in no detail gain.