Canon could shock the world with a 240MP FF DSLR

[tirediron]

... I'm just saying that a full frame S100 would exceed the image quality of all the current cameras.

I very much doubt that.

Moreover, there's no bad having more megapixels.

Too much of almost anything can be bad.

 

[gsgary]

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.

Sorry but most of your posts are ******** from now on i will give all of them a miss

 

[Alex_B]

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.

Oh now I see, you are totally confusing image quality with pixelcount

 

[Alex_B]

Too much of almost anything can be bad.

How true! .. realised that recently with sausages

 

[CCericola]

"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.

That reminds me of when Bill Gates said 640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.
Never say Never

 

[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.

That reminds me of when Bill Gates said 640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.
Never say Never

Yeah, the Gates quote is a classic. I can't imagine how raw data would require more memory the way more complex software and file types keep pushing memory requirements on computers, but then I suppose if Bill couldn't foresee the changes to come, then who can be sure?

 

[Derrel]

"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.

That reminds me of when Bill Gates said 640K is more memory than anyone will ever need.
Never say Never

In his laughable book The Road Ahead, Gates also said he did not think the internet would amount to much in terms of e-commerce....

Let's hear a big Homer Simpson "Doah!" for the great visionary Bill Gates!

 

[sovietdoc]

240mp? And I thought 36mp was stupid...

 

[Derrel]

240mp? And I thought 36mp was stupid...

It's only considered stupid when "your" camera company cannot keep up...

 

[sovietdoc]

240mp? And I thought 36mp was stupid...

It's only considered stupid when "your" camera company cannot keep up...

Obvious troll is obvious

Heh anyways, no, what I am sayin' is too much of a sensor resolution doesn't help photography. Medical imagery can maybe benefit from 240 mp and perhaps if you think real hard you can find a few more industrial uses to that resolution, but even for a studio photographer or a landscapist, there will be a certain mp threshold, after which if you keep getting higher resolution, it will be pointless.

The point of higher sensor resolution is more detail, but if you give too much detail because your pictures are 15000x12000 pixels across, there is no point. Even right now, arguably, when you use cameras that are 15mp, you can't see any of the detail even on a largest best computer screen. Yes, that resolution and detail will come out in large prints, but Does your average Joe photographer print anything larger than 100 inches at 300dpi? Everything over that is pretty pointless. And yes, you can still up the sensor res, but then you're creating a very specialized tool, instead of a camera that can be used in many different settings. Technically it would still be okay if they made say 240mp sensor, but then if you wanted to you could have crop modes. Kinda like what Nikon does. Except increase the FPS in crop modes so you wouldn't get stuck with 1-2 fps burst.

 

[Overread19 7]

To be fair if we measured camera needed features by what average joe needs then - well - your iphone is all they really want. Many will take photos at events and never look at them (they just want to "take a photo") whilst those that they do look at tend to get as far as facebook and no further.

Joe won't be putting much demand on the camera so long as the shot is bright, vibrant and sharp (which is why flash is used for Everything on point and shoots )

 

[sovietdoc]

To be fair if we measured camera needed features by what average joe needs then - well - your iphone is all they really want. Many will take photos at events and never look at them (they just want to "take a photo") whilst those that they do look at tend to get as far as facebook and no further.

Joe won't be putting much demand on the camera so long as the shot is bright, vibrant and sharp (which is why flash is used for Everything on point and shoots )

Okay, so what you're telling me is more than 50% of all pro photographers in the world are constantly printing prints over 100 inches long/wide whatever?

The point of my argument is to show you that there is a certain point in technology, for when over that point, "more" is not needed by the vast majority. For example there would be some people in the world right now who could put a 20 Gigapixel sensor to good use, but them being 0.1% of all photographers who buy a camera from that brand, if say Nikon wanted to make a D something with 20Gpix sensor, they wouldn't do it because they know that only 0.1% of people will use that feature. So instead they would probably create a completely different system, with a different price bracket targeting only that 0.1 %

By "average Joe" I wasn't talking about any photographer, I was just referring to the average "pro" whos DSLR has certain capabilities that he needs. Not all pros use their iphones as primary cameras for their shoots

 

[Hickeydog]

That kind of pixel density will result in a horribly noisy sensor.

 

[Derrel]

240mp? And I thought 36mp was stupid...

People said the same thing when the Canon 50D came out with 15 megapixels...."stupid".

I remember back when a 500 megabyte harddrive was considered "spacious", and even "extravagant."

My point still stands...36 megapixels is "stupid" in the eyes of Canon fans...

Ever heard of the fable of the fox and the grapes he could not reach???

Why does your car's speedometer go up to 120 miles per hour?

 

[rexbobcat]

People said the same thing when the Canon 50D came out with 15 megapixels...."stupid".

I remember back when a 500 megabyte harddrive was considered "spacious", and even "extravagant."

My point still stands...36 megapixels is "stupid" in the eyes of Canon fans...

Ever heard of the fable of the fox and the grapes he could not reach???

Why does your car's speedometer go up to 120 miles per hour?

Your point doesn't really have a leg to stand on because of your gross generalization.

I don't want 36mp, not because the resolution itself is ridiculous, but because of what I have to give up in order to achieve that resolution. It's just personal taste.

I've created a 60 mp image before by stitching several 18mp images together. There are ways to do it, so don't cite jealousy as the reason why some people roll their eyes at the D800.

(Your vague comparisons don't really prove much)