Home |
Technical |
Up |
Prev |
The 6 main categories in the Martian Scheme
The madness of the camera world
The mass-market camera world is madness! Such a plethora of models and features that it's almost impossible to get your head around it all. Furthermore it's hard to compare models because you are not always comparing apples with apples: Is a compact better than a camera phone? Is 12 MP better than 5? Is a pretend SLR better than an ordinary compact? These questions are NOT straight forward! The ignorant consumer has no idea what is going on and is easily duped by the sales staff who generally have no idea either. The Manufacturers establish new categories willy-nilly that confuse customers and may not be needed anyway. What we need is a sensible categorisation scheme so that everyone knows what they are dealing with.
Let's get some order into this chaos
The idea is that Manufacturers restrict the sensor specifications for their camera designs to a series of defined categories. They can produce one or more models for each category but must stick to the parameters for that category. This will help the consumer to compare apples with apples and to ensure they get decent image quality. Note that there will still be plenty of opportunity for the Manufacturers to differentiate their models within a category using such parameters as lens quality, zoom ratio, view-finder, movie capability, shape and colour etc.
I have produced such a categorisation scheme based on sensor size and image quality, each a roughly a stop apart. Each step up the ladder gives you better IQ and greater resolution. I also wanted to use existing categories if possible, and to put the clamp on resolution creep, which is ruining the industry. Behold:
The Martian Digital Camera Categorisation Scheme
| Category Name | Sensor Format |
Sensor Area (mm²) |
Mega Pixels |
Pixel Pitch (µm²) |
Example Model | Comment |
| Mini | 1/3.2" | 16 | 2.7 | 6 | Cell phones, internet cams etc. | |
| Compact | 1/1.7" | 48 | 6 | 8 | Fuji F10 | Small cameras for everyone to use. |
| Midi | 1" | 124 | 8 | 16 | Pretend SLRs used by enthusiasts who don't want to plump for the real thing. | |
| Standard | APS | 373 | 12 | 32 | Nikon D60 | Mainstream SLR users. |
| 35mm | 35mm | 864 | 13 | 64 | Canon 5D Mk1 | Serious photographers who need quality and speed. |
| 35mm Fat | 35mm | 864 | 26 | 32 | Sony A900 | Serious photographers who need high resolution. |
| Jumbo | Medium | 1,798 | 28 | 64 | Hasselblad H3D 31 | Professional photographers who need high resolution and high quality, and cost and weight are not an issue. |
| Jumbo Fast | Medium | 1,798 | 14 | 128 | Professional photographers who need extreme speed, and cost and weight are not an issue. | |
| Jumbo Fat | Medium | 1,798 | 56 | 32 | Hasselblad H3DII-50 | Professional photographers who need extreme resolution, and cost and weight are not an issue. |
| Mammoth | Large | 5" x 4" and larger. Relics from the ancient world. Cameras that are too large to be of interest to all but a few. |
How it works
The heart of the scheme is the sensor size, which goes up in quasi-regular increments. Originally I thought of doubling it each time, but this gave too many categories and didn't allow for the beauty of the steady increase in quality AND resolution. It turned out that 3 was the optimum multiplier, and each category uses a sensor 3 times the size of the one before it. I had to drop this back to roughly 2 at the high end as the preexisting formats of APS, 35mm and medium format are too well established to be altered. At the low end, there is a continuous run of sensor sizes and resolutions, so I feel it is acceptable, nay, DESIRABLE! to impose a standard on the laissez faire farce that currently exists.
Enforcing decent image quality
As I have discussed in depth elsewhere on this site: compacts have been universally ruined by insufficient pixel pitch, and SLRs are in danger of going the same way. As a consequence I have fixed the minimum pixel pitch at 6µm² (even for cell phones). This will enable excellent image quality in reasonable light. I have made the call, albeit in the face of the big manufacturers, that pixel pitch of 5µm² and less is not acceptable for anyone!
Each level is better in every way
The clever thing about this scheme is that it is based on total sensor size going up in 3s but pixel pitch going up in 2s. You get exactly one stop of extra speed (and hence quality) at each level. "How much better is a Standard SLR than a Compact?" Consult the hierarchy... "Exactly 2 stops Madam." This means that image quality goes up steadily as well as resolution! The consumer gets an improvement in EVERYTHING at each level! Nice!
The Midi niche and Four Thirds
It happens that there is a niche between APS and compacts which until recently was unfilled. This is where the pretend SLRs and "super compacts" should go. This is the niche for "prosumers" who want something more than a compact, but who baulk at the size of a proper SLR and for SLR shooters who want something small for casual use, but still want respectable image quality. You might think that the Four Thirds format should go here but if you look at the figures it is too close to the APS. Four Thirds simply doesn't fit the scheme, it insufficiently differentiated and must go. If Panasonic wish to pursue the sub-APS market they should adopt the 1 inch "Midi" category and run with that. The Midi niche is CLEARLY differentiated against both the APS and Compact sections.
But there IS movement on this front! Nikon have decided to listen to me and have jumped into this empty niche with their "1" series! Kudos to Nikon for being the first! However, if you are going to take my advice Nikon, you should really get my FULL advice. It's unwise to take part of my ideas without knowing the rest of the thinking that surrounds them. There is no point in interchangeable lens systems in sub-APS C cameras. The extra room taken up by the mount and lens housing makes the camera unwieldy and you might as well use your APS C and be done with it. The Midi format will shine when set up like a compact, with a built in zoom lens. Then it will be just a little larger that a standard compact, but will take images almost as clean as an APS unit. Talk to me next time Nikon, (or any other manufacturer), and I'll help you to avoid tripping over your own feet.
And second to the mark we now have Sony with their DSC RX100 who took my advice about keeping a fixed lens system on a 1" platform but then ruined their good work by doubling the resolution to 20MP, instantly wasting everybody's time. As for their damn-fool 25 point AF and their over-long lens that is over-slow for most of it's range... Well, they have proved that it can be done, they just made a lot of bad decisions. Seriously guys: I know you THINK that you know better than me, but CLEARLY you don't! Just ring me before you start your next design process and I'll teach you how to design a CLASSIC!
Sub-divisions at the high end
At the top end of the hierarchy, in the cases of 35mm and Medium Format, the sensor is sufficiently large to enable subdivisions of the category, to emphasise speed or resolution, without compromising professional quality standards. It is my judgement that the APS format is NOT large enough to warrant such a split. 35mm gets 2 divisions, Medium Format gets 3. Cameras emphasising resolution get the suffix: "Fat" and those emphasising speed get the suffix: "Fast".
Renaming old standards
I have renamed some of the existing categories:
- APS becomes "Standard": It is the perfect balance between size and quality, it has niches above and below it, and is the tool that most enthusiasts will buy.
- Medium Format becomes "Jumbo": "Medium Format" is confusing, since in today's hierarchy it is in fact the largest format in general digital use.