Canon Develops 120 Megapixel APS-H-Size CMOS Sensor

[Daniel Browning]

I'd be much more impressed by a new sensor with "noise-free" 15 stops of dynamic range, or "noise-free" ISO 15000!

A certain amount of noise will always be there, because it's an intrinsic property of light itself, but there is definitely a lot of room for improvement at high ISO.

[Jon Ruyle]

That's just about enough where I might finally be satisfied.

Oh, you're easy.


I don't know how much it would take, but I would like enough so that all of my lenses are truly glass limited at all apertures. I hate it when cheapo electronics limit my expensive glass.


When pixel densities get high enough (and I don't know how high is enough), and when data rates can keep up, the reach advantage of smaller sensors will disappear. When this happens I think there will be no reason for a less-than-full-frame pro body, and APS-H will go away (though it might do so sooner).


Higher pixel densities will also make extenders less useful (far less so, IMO). I wonder how many people would use them with a 100mp sensor?

[Daniel Browning]

.

When pixel densities get high enough (and I don't know how high is enough), and when data rates can keep up, the reach advantage of smaller sensors will disappear. When this happens I think there will be no reason for a less-than-full-frame pro body, and APS-H will go away (though it might do so sooner).

Indeed. Just imagine a 72x48mm sensor in a body the same size as a 1D, with an all-new line of f/2.8 lenses. They would have the same DOF and amount of light as f/1.4 lenses on 35mm, but would be much sharper for the same cost. Throw in a gigapixel or two and I'd be in heaven.

[clemmb]

Indeed. Just imagine a 72x48mm sensor in a body the same size as a 1D, with an all-new line of f/2.8 lenses. They would have the same DOF and amount of light as f/1.4 lenses on 35mm, but would be much sharper for the same cost. Throw in a gigapixel or two and I'd be in heaven.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Amen brother

[btaylor]

This is exactly what I need! I'm painting my house at the moment but instead I could just take a 120mp image, get it blown up and glue it to the wall with no loss of resolution! [:P]


I could just face the couch toward a different wall and pretend I'm on holidays constantly. []

[Jon Ruyle]

Just imagine a 72x48mm sensor in a body the same size as a 1D, with an all-new line of f/2.8 lenses. They would have the same DOF and amount of light as f/1.4 lenses on 35mm, but would be much sharper for the same cost.

Well, I don't know about cost. For some focal lengths, it might be cheaper to make a f/1.4 that illuminates a smaller sensor. I know there are other factors such as quality and economy of scale, but medium format lenses are pretty expensive... even comparatively slow ones.


Anyhow, I *can* imagine []

I could just face the couch toward a different wall and pretend I'm on holidays constantly. [img]/emoticons/emotion-2.gif[/img]

Sounds good... just as long as we don't start burning books. []

[Daniel Browning]

Well, I don't know about cost. For some focal lengths, it might be cheaper to make a f/1.4 that illuminates a smaller sensor. I know there are other factors such as quality and economy of scale, but medium format lenses are pretty expensive... even comparatively slow ones.

I think it's just economy of scale. After the focal length gets above the image diagonal, larger image circles comes pretty cheap. With slight modification, the EF 200mm f/2.8 would easily cover a 72x48 image circle, and quality and price are really good ($760) compared to a theoretical 100mm f/1.4 (which would probably not achieve the same quality even at twice the price, as we can see from the 85mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4, and similar lenses).


Look at the 50mm f/1.4 vs 100mm f/2. I would guess that the economy of scale are about the same (probably the 50mm is favored a little), but one has much higher quality for a similar price. If the 100mm only needed f/2.8, it would probably be a little cheaper still.

[Jon Ruyle]

I think it's just economy of scale. After the focal length gets above the image diagonal, larger image circles comes pretty cheap.

Sure. I was thinking of wider angles. But you're probably right. After all, wide EF-S lenses do seem cheaper than their EF equivelants.