Samsung Unveils ISOCELL Image Sensor With Industry’s Smallest 0.56μm Pixel (200MP)

I was under the impression that the larger the sensors pixel size, the more light gets thru and the better the quality of the image.

 

There's so much sensor you can pack on a phone, so sensor size can't grow much without phones becoming really bulky. That said, the only way you're getting more MP is through smaller pixel size.
Yes, bigger pixels can capture more light and have better ISO performance. That doesn't mean a big MP sensor can't just sum the values and just take a smaller MP photo.
This is why astrophotography cameras have less MP count than the normal cameras.
But if you have good lighting, for example during the day, high MP count captures more detail.
That said, if you're going to pair it with plastic lenses (like those on most phones) you ain't gonna see the 200MP ever.

 

Samsung continues the trend of impractical sensors for the sake of marketing.

 

I prefer the high quality 12 MP, large pixel size sensors of Apple cameras over the higher MP cameras of the competition. 200 mp cameras are seeking to impress with marketing of the high mp number which appeal more to the general masses.

 

Yes - it's no wonder why iPhones have such good cameras. Apple knows they can't defy physics just for the sake of "moar iz better". As I say over and over again: there are many ways to significantly improve phone cameras, and increasing MP count is not one of them. In fact, by adding more MP, it only exacerbates the existing issues for phone cameras.

 

And while apple adds a telephoto lens to one camera, we get a soft and distorted ultra wide on most mainstream phones. Plus a useless 2MP macro, what the actual f***!

 

lol yeah, at that rate I'd rather just use those clip-on lenses you can buy on eBay for $10.

 

i can see why you're sniping.
there is a use case scenario and these sensors aren't "impractical" (for a phone, yes it is).
right now there is a booming industry making Cube-Sats where these sensors can be properly used (with corresponding optics)

every single independent Cube-Sat maker (not talking GenDynamics/Lockeed/Boeing) uses off the shelf componentry from a lot of companies but especially Samsung.

 

Oh absolutely, there is no doubt a market for 200MP+ sensors, even beyond what you described. But these are physically much larger sensors. Even if they don't use larger sensors and literally take a phone sensor, they have very optically pure lenses, they might be taking raw photos, they might be intended for specific lighting conditions, they will be in a more suitable environment (less EMI and lower temperature, in particular), and they are more likely to be used with longer exposures in more stable environments (than a user's hand). As a result, they don't depend on so much post-processing to clean up the image to the point where a sensor of 1/4 the pixels would look just as good.

 

Yeah, I always laugh when I take pictures with my Sony A7ii and compare it to my phone. Obviously it's in a totally different cost bracket, but it shows. The 24MP from that thing will kill any amount of MP from a crappy plastic lens, tiny sensor camera.

 

Nah, don't quite agree. It should be able to pick up more details in the distance for instance allowing to zoom in on the picture quite a bit better. Not that Samsung have the best lenses but things are going forward.

 

Even if you compare it to an "ipoop" that costs the same as an average good camera, your A7ii will kick his ass.
But, in good lighting conditions, good phones take good photos. Just not 200MP phones, that's for sure.
My phone has a 64MP mode, I see no quality improvement other than the larger picture. And I lose options and can't have movement while taking said picture.
I can't deny that Apple has made the smart decision on staying with 12MP and focusing on good lenses. If they upgrade the MP count they better upgrade the sensor size too!

 

lol, without an actual zoom lens you're not "zooming in" on anything, its just digital enlargement.

enough pocket cams that can shoot raw with around 20mp on larger sensors while offering +20x optical zoom, ignoring they usually have OIS as well ..

 

Unless the target is lit by the sun on a perfectly clear day, the digital zoom just isn't going to be that great. This is why competitors just simply use multiple cameras, one of which would have a telephoto lens. They get to use cheaper sensors without sacrificing image quality and they still get the market appeal of having "more".

 

Doesn't matter what the lens are made from at this point since aperture is what really limits resolution. There's a reason phones have mainly stuck with 12-16 MP and that's cause it is the literal physical limit for the aperture phones use. To also try and compare it to professional cameras is stupid marketing wank.

 

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Aperture changes the amount of light captured and, depending on other factors, will dictate the depth of field.
If you want picture clarity, charpness, contrast and quality: you need good glass. With plastic lenses you're lucky to see half the equivalent MP count of the sensor.
Aperture has nothing to do with sensor size or MP count. Professional cameras these days have from 20 to 100 MP and can work with apertures from F0.95 to F22. Again, aperture only dictates depth of field and amount of light going in.

 

While @JJayzX is wrong, there was some logic in his statement:
The smaller the aperture, the less light you get, which means a darker image. You need to compensate for the darkness of the image. In most cases, this means cranking up the ISO/gain to the point that it's a grainy mess. To make the image look less terrible, a lot of processing is necessary, thereby effectively (but not literally) reducing your resolution. This is why I find these phone sensors to be a joke, because whether you're at 12, 25, 50, or 100MP, most images have hardly any difference in quality, because the image processing negates any benefit from higher pixel density. They all start to look like oil paintings when you look at the image at 1:1.
The other way to compensate for the darkness is to combine the average value within groups of pixels, which is literally reducing the resolution. Samsung's phones are known to do this.

But, here's the truth of the matter:
1. As you implied, aperture sizes are relative. The apertures may be tiny but so are the sensors, and that's where the real problem comes in when you get such high pixel densities. Most phones don't have an aperture much slower than f2.4, which is honestly decent. In other words: the aperture for phones is not too small.
2. The lenses of these phone cameras absolutely are a problem. They're made to be cheaply mass-produced, so they're not going to have the best glass and they're going to have imperfections. There's also the issue that these lenses are more exposed to the elements, so they are far more prone to smudges, scratches, and dirt than most other cameras. Since everything is on such a tiny scale, an imperfection that might have a negligible impact on a professional camera could yield noticeable quality loss on a phone. Meanwhile, due to all the imperfections, the image processing has to compensate, which further lowers the quality.

 

If you compare the aperture of a kit lens that comes with a camera (F3.5/4 are the widest generally) with the apertures phones are getting nowadays (F1.8/2.2) you could say aperture isn't the problem of current phones.
Sony and other brands have been putting large sensors on newest phones, but they aren't used 100% due to physical limits (the phone would need to be thicker for longer and wider lens) and they cost as much as a pro camera at 2000€.
If someone is really worried about picture quality, they should just buy a camera. Only Apple is doing anything decent with their phone cameras.
Plastic lenses suck, and most phones have them. Good quality glass is very expensive, but essential to see any benefit from going high MP.