photosites

Do some sensors have too many photosites?

/ spqr / Leave a comment

For years we have seen the gradual creep of increased photosites on sensors (images have pixels, sensors have photosites – pixels don’t really have a dimension, whereas photosites do). The question is, how many photosites is too many photosites (within the physical constraints of a sensor)? It doesn’t matter the type of sensor, they have all become more congested – Micro-Four-Thirds has crept up to 25MP (Panasonic DC-GH6), APS-C to 40MP (Fuji X-T5), and full-frame to 60MP (Sony A7R-V).

Manufacturers have been cramming more photosites into their sensors for years now, while the sensors themselves haven’t grown any larger. When the first Four Thirds (FT) sensor camera, the Olympus E1, appeared in 2005 it had 2560×1920 photosites (5MP). The latest rendition of the FT sensor, on the 2023 Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 II has 5776×4336 photosites (25MP), on the same sized sensor. So what this means of course is that ultimately photosites get smaller. For example the photosite pitch has changed from 6.89μm to 3μm, which doesn’t seem terrible, until you calculate the area of a photosite: 47.47μm2 to 9μm2, which is quite a disparity (pitch is not really the best indicator when comparing photosites, area is better, because it provides an indication of light gathering area). Yes, its five times more photosites, but each photosite is only 16% the area of the original.

Are smaller photosites a good thing? Many would argue that it doesn’t matter, but at some point there will be some diminishing returns. Part of the problem is the notion that more pixels in an image means better quality. But image quality is an amalgam of many differing things beyond sensor and photosite size including the type of sensor, the file type (JPEG vs. RAW), the photographers knowledge, and above all the quality of a lens. Regardless of how many megapixels there are in an image – if a lens is of poor optical quality, it will nearly always manifest in a lower-quality image.

The difference in size between a 24MP and 40MP APS-C sensor. The 40MP photosite (9.12μm2) is 60% the size of the 24MP photosite (15.21μm2).

However when something is reduced in size, there are always potential side-effects. Small photosites might be more susceptible to things like noise because despite algorithmic means of noise suppression, it is impossible to eliminate it completely. Larger pixels also collect more light, and as a result are better at averaging out errant information. If you have two different sized sensors with the same amount of photosites, then the larger sensor will arguably deliver better image quality. The question is whether or not photosites are just getting too small on some of these sensors? When will MFT or APS-C reach the point where adding more photosites is counterproductive?

Some manufacturers like Fuji have circumvented this issue by introducing new larger sensor medium format cameras like the GFX 50S II (44×33mm, 51MP) which has a photosite size of 5.3µm – more resolution, but not at the expense of photosite size. Larger sensors typically have larger photosites, resulting in more light being captured and a better dynamic range. These cameras and their lenses are obviously more expensive, but they are designed for people that need high resolution images. The reality is that the average photographer doesn’t need sensors with more photosites – the images produced are just too large and unwieldy for most applications.

The reality is, that cramming more photosites into any of these sensors does not really make any sense. It is possible that the pixel increase is just a smokescreen for the fact that there is little else in the way of camera/sensor innovations. I mean there are the stacked sensors, but their development has been slow – the Foveon X3 has shown little use beyond those found in Sigma cameras (they haven’t really taken off, probably due in part to the cost). Other stacked CMOS sensors are in development, but again it is slow. So to keep people buying cameras, companies need to cram in more photosites, i.e. more megapixels. Other things haven’t changed much either, I mean aperture is aperture right? For example autofocus algorithms haven’t taken a major step forward, and the usability hasn’t done much of anything (except perhaps catering to video shooters). Let’s face it, the race for megapixels is over. Like really over. Yet every new generation of cameras seems to increase the number slightly.

Photosites – Quantum efficiency

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Not every photo that makes it through the lens ends up in a photosite. The efficiency with which photosites gather incoming light photons is called its quantum efficiency (QE). The ability to gather light is determined by many factors including the micro lenses, sensor structure, and photosite size. The QE value of a sensor is a fixed value that depends largely on the chip technology of the sensor manufacturer. The QE is averaged out over the entire sensor, and is expressed as the chance that a photon will be captured and converted to an electron.

Quantum efficiency (P = Photons per μm2, e = electrons)

The QE is a fixed value and is dependent on a sensor manufacturers design choices. The QE is averaged out over the entire sensor. A sensor with an 85% QE would produce 85 electrons of signal if it were exposed to 100 photons. There is no way to effect the QE of a sensor, i.e. you can’t change things by changing the ISO.

The QE is typically 30-55% meaning 30-55% of the photons that fall on any given photosite are converted to electrons. (front illuminated sensors). In back illuminated sensors, like those typically found on smartphones, the QE is approximately 85%. The website Photons to Photos has a list of sensor characteristics for a good number of cameras. For example the sensor in my Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II has a supposed QE of 60%. Trying to calculate the QE of a sensor in non-trivial.

Photosite size and noise

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Photosites have a definitive amount of noise that occurs when the sensor is read (electronic/readout noise), and a definitive amount of noise per exposure (photon/shot noise). Collecting more light in photosites allows for a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), meaning more signal, less noise. The lower amount of noise has to do with the accuracy of the light photons measured – a photosite that collects 10 photons will be less accurate than one that collects 50 photons. Consider the figure below. The larger photosite on the left is able to collect many four times as many light photons as the smaller photosite on the right. However the photon “shot” noise acquired by the larger photosite is not four times that of the smaller photosite, and as a consequence, the larger photosite has a much better SNR.

Large versus small photosites

A larger photosite size has less noise fundamentally because the accuracy of the measurement from a sensor is proportional to the amount of light it collects. Photon or shot noise can be approximately described as the square root of signal (photons). So as the number of photons being collected by a photosite (signal) increases, the shot noise increases more slowly, as the square root of the signal.

Two different photosite sizes from differing sensors

Consider the following example, using two differing size photosites from differing sensors. The first is from a Sony A7 III, a full frame (FF) sensor, with a photosite area of 34.9μm²; the second is from an Olympus EM-1(ii) Micro-Four-Thirds (MFT) sensor with a photosite area of 11.02μm². Let’s assume that for the signal, one photon strikes every square micron of the photosite (a single exposure at 1/250s), and calculated photon noise is √signal. Then the Olympus photosite will receive 11 photons for every 3 electrons of noise, a SNR of 11:3. The Sony will receive 35 photons for every 6 electrons of noise, a SNR of 35:6. If both are normalized, we get rations of 3.7:1 versus 5.8:1, so the Sony has the better SNR (for photon noise).

Photon (signal) versus noise

If the amount of light is reduced, by stopping down the aperture, or decreasing the exposure time, then larger photosites will still receive more photons than smaller ones. For example, stopping down the aperture from f/2 to f/2.8 means the amount of light passing through the lens is halved. Larger pixels are also often situated better when long exposures are required, for example low-light scenes such as astrophotography. For example, if we were to increase the shutter speed from 1/250s to 1/125s, then the number of photons collected by a photosite would double. The shot noise SNR in the Sony would increase from 5.8:1 to 8.8:1, that of the Olympus would only increase from 3.7:1 to 4.7:1.

Photosite size and light

/ spqr / Leave a comment

It doesn’t really matter what the overall size of a sensor is, it is the size of the photosites that matter. The area of the photosite affects how much light can be gathered. The larger the area, the more light that can be collected, resulting in a greater dynamic range, and potentially a better signal quality. Conversely, smaller photosites can provide more detail for a given sensor size. Let’s compare a series of sensors: a smartphone (Apple XR), a MFT sensor (Olympus E-M1(II)), an APS-C sensor (Ricoh GRII) and a full frame sensor (Sony A7 III).

A comparison of different photosite sizes (both photosize pitch and area are shown)

The surface area of the photosites on the Sony sensor is 34.93µm², meaning there are roughly 3× more photons hitting the full-frame photosite than the MFT photosite (11.02µm²), and nearly 18× more than the photosite on the smartphone. So how does this affect the images created?

The size of a photosite relates directly to the amount of light that can be captured. Large photosites are able to perform well in low-light situations, whereas small photosites struggle to capture light, leading to an increase in noise. Being able to capture more light means a higher signal output from a photosite. This means it will require less amplification (a lower ISO), than a sensor with smaller photosites. Collecting more light with the same exposure time and, therefore, respond with higher sensitivity. An exaggerated example is shown in the figure below.

Small vs. large photosites, normal vs. low light

Larger photosites are usually associated with larger sensors, and that’s the reason why many full-frame cameras are good in low-light situations. Photosites do not exist in isolation, and there are other factors which contribute to the light capturing abilities of photosites, e.g. the microlenses that help to gather more light for a photosite, and the small non-functional gaps between each photosite.

The size of photosites

/ spqr / 2 Comments

Photosites on image sensors come in different sizes. The size of a photosite on a sensor is based on the size of the sensor, and number of photosites on the sensor. Some sensor sizes have differing sizes of photosites, because more have been crammed onto the sensor. However different sensor sizes can also have the same sized photosites. For example the Olympus E-M5(II) (16.1MP) has a photosite size of 13.99 µm², and a Fujifilm X-T3 sporting 26.1MP has the same photosite size.

The size of a photosite, is often termed pixel pitch, and is measured in micrometres (or in old terms microns). A micrometre, represented by the symbol µm, is a unit of measure equivalent to one millionth of a metre. It is equivalent to 0.001mm. To put this into context, the nominal diameter of a human hair is 75µm. The area of a photosite is represented by µm². For example, the Olympus E-M5(II) has a pitch of 3.74µm, or 0.00374mm, which is 20 times smaller than a human hair.

comparison of human hair and photosite
Comparison the size of a photosite with a human hair

In order to increase the number of photosites a sensor has, their size has to decrease. Consider an example using a Micro-Four-Thirds (MFT) sensor. An Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II fits 16.1 million photosites onto the sensor, whereas an Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II fits 20.4 million. This means the pixels on the E-M1(II) will be smaller. This works out to a pixel area of roughly 13.99 µm² versus 11.02µm². This may seem trivial, but even a small difference in size may impact how a photosite functions.