Canon could shock the world with a 240MP FF DSLR

[EchoingWhisper]

Nikon shocked everyone with their D800 by using similar designs from D7000.

After reading this, DxOMark - DxOMark review for advanced compacts, I thought, if Canon used the S100 technology and turn it FF size, they would get a 240MP FF DSLR with a DxOMark score of at least 105! If you're worrying about the FPS, Canon could pixel bin them down to a lower MP.

 

[TheBiles]

No.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

 

[CCericola]

So what? Hasselblad already has a 200mp.

 

[TheBiles]

So what? Hasselblad already has a 200mp.

Technically, it's just 50MP.

 

[Alex_B]

The problem in sensor technology is not really getting high pixel densities, but getting high pixel densities at large areas without any small defects.

Canon used the S100 technology and turn it FF size

So S100 pixel densities are not the problem, but transfering it to full frame! This is what actually pushes production cost up tremendously (hence the extreme price tags for digitial backs for say Hasselblad or other MF cameras).

On the other hand, what would you do with such a camera? Most of us could not afford the lenses to resolve that pixel density on FF.

 

[KenC]

"Just Say No" to too many megapixels. We all have so many already that a few fall out of our pockets every time we reach for our wallet.

 

[Overread19 7]

Most of us would need to sink £1K at least into a whole new computer and probably just as much into harddrives and backup to handle files from 240MP sensors. Heck even 21mp starts to make files really big - 240MP RAWs would be a nightmareishly big size (you'd almost be back to film shooting volumes because of storage space needs)

 

[Markw]

That would be absolutely pointless. As fine as Canon glass is, I highly doubt even that would be able to resolve a 240mp sensor. And IF they could, I honestly doubt anyone would buy it anyhow. Simply put, no one needs it. The FPS would be pushed to like 0.5 or something stupid like that. Probably lower. ISO would have to stay under 320, and aperture couldn't go too high either before diffraction sets in. That would be a huge problem.

I don't think this will happen any time soon, unless Canon beats Nikon to the MX market (which I REALLY think will come about in the next few generations). And probably not even then.

Mark

 

[Overread19 7]

they could probably do it like Sigma do - by having the 3 layered sensor. True its marketing trickery, but it would probably work for most people. That said the Sigma sensor hasn't yet really gotten much exposure outside of Sigma and they've not really pushed their own camera into canon/nikon competition to really challenge them to consider it.

 

[Village Idiot]

Most of us would need to sink £1K at least into a whole new computer and probably just as much into harddrives and backup to handle files from 240MP sensors. Heck even 21mp starts to make files really big - 240MP RAWs would be a nightmareishly big size (you'd almost be back to film shooting volumes because of storage space needs)

Not if GPU usage were more common in computer programs like PS. It does some things, but it could get away with more.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I mean, you could pixel bin them on sensor, like how the 41MP Nokia phone does it and some pro Nikon cameras does it last time, then file size wouldn't be a big problem eh? My main point is that if Canon does this, their image quality would exceed Nikon's D800.

 

[tirediron]

I'm happy with 12Mp; when I need more, I pull out the Mamiya and shoot MF.

 

[molested_cow1]

And only a robot will be impressed.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I'm happy with 12Mp; when I need more, I pull out the Mamiya and shoot MF.

I'm not saying that you need all that. I'm just saying that a full frame S100 would exceed the image quality of all the current cameras. Moreover, there's no bad having more megapixels.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

The problem in sensor technology is not really getting high pixel densities, but getting high pixel densities at large areas without any small defects.

So S100 pixel densities are not the problem, but transfering it to full frame! This is what actually pushes production cost up tremendously (hence the extreme price tags for digitial backs for say Hasselblad or other MF cameras).

On the other hand, what would you do with such a camera? Most of us could not afford the lenses to resolve that pixel density on FF.

True. The current MF backs are badly under performing for their sensor size though.