Canon could shock the world with a 240MP FF DSLR

[EchoingWhisper]

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

You probably didn't comprehend my first post. Theoretically, a 240MP Canon sensor would beat D800's image quality.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

... 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.

If you read the link I gave, DxOMark already showed that theoretically a full frame S90 would exceed the image quality of D800 - they expect its 40 points to increase to 105 points if it is turned full frame. Why? DxOMark scores are for a specific output size. If it is turned to full frame, its Low Light Performance point would be around ISO 3600, exceeding all current cameras.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Okay, let me clarify everything I said. According to DxOMark, if S90/S95/S100's quantum efficiency is brought up to a full frame sensor, then the S100 would have a DxOMark score of 115, exceeding D800 - the current highest scoring camera in DxOMark by 20 point. I understand that increasing the sensor size by 20 times will drive costs up. Everything here is just an if. But to say too many megapixels is just absurd.

Remember the D1X and D1H? They essentially have the same sensor, but the D1H utilises pixel bining so it has a lower MP, which combines data to reduce noise and etc. That way, the FPS would increase and image noise would decrease. Canon could do the same by using S100 sensor and turn it full frame then pixel bining it. This way, the image quality will greatly exceed D800.

According to DxOMark, for the same DxOMark score per pixel (the Screen tab), a sensor with 2 times the megapixel will have 1 stop better noise performance (3DB SNR), 0.5 EV dynamic range and 1.5 bit color sensitivity compared to the lower MP sensor when printed at the same condition. DxOMark - Detailed computation of DxOMark Sensor normalization
If it is not too expensive, I don't find it irrational to FX-fy the S100's sensor. A 240MP gives you no harm (maybe other than price). Worried about file size? Pixel bin. Worried about FPS? Pixel bin. Need more resolution? You have 240MP.

Too say that a 240MP have really bad image quality is not right, because you shouldn't be examining pictures per pixel, but per unit area when printed/displayed at the same size. Read this: http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/More-pixels-offset-noise!

I'm sorry if I caused confusion by my way of talking. And please read the links before you start bashing me.

 

[Alex_B]

a sensor with 2 times the megapixel will have 1 stop better noise performance (3DB SNR), 0.5 EV dynamic range and 1.5 bit color sensitivity compared to the lower MP sensor when printed at the same condition.

Might be true if one assumes that both sensors had the same noise ratio per pixel. But you get a better noise perfomance with larger pixels.

(not trying to bash anyone here )

 

[EchoingWhisper]

a sensor with 2 times the megapixel will have 1 stop better noise performance (3DB SNR), 0.5 EV dynamic range and 1.5 bit color sensitivity compared to the lower MP sensor when printed at the same condition.

Might be true if one assumes that both sensors had the same noise ratio per pixel. But you get a better noise perfomance with larger pixels.

(not trying to bash anyone here )

Yes, I'm saying that given the same performance per pixel, a sensor with 2 times the megapixel will have 1 stop better noise performance (3DB SNR), 0.5 EV dynamic range and 1.5 bit color sensitivity compared to the lower MP sensor when printed at the same condition.

Of course a larger pixel get higher noise performance due to less read noise and less loss of light from the gaps (though the loss it diminishing due to micro lens and Sony's low read noise technology). But if you have seen the quantum efficiency of S90/S95/S100, you'll know why.

It's ISO score is around 180. When you turn it full frame, it becomes larger by 20 times and the ISO score would be around 3600. Dynamic range would increase by about 2.5 stops and color sensitivity will increase by around 7 bits.

A full frame S100 would have an overall score of 115. Low light ISO would be 3000. Dynamic Range would be 13.8 EVs. Color Depth would be 27.2 bits. It would make an even better studio camera than D800.

 

[Alex_B]

Yes, I'm saying that given the same performance per pixel, a sensor with 2 times the megapixel will have 1 stop better noise performance (3DB SNR), 0.5 EV dynamic range and 1.5 bit color sensitivity compared to the lower MP sensor when printed at the same condition.

Of course a larger pixel get higher noise performance [...]

OK, so we at least agree here

It would make an even better studio camera than D800.

Well, I never said you could not build a better camera than the D800 ... both companies, NIKON and CANON, and probably others too, could easily build better cameras. But these would be simply to expensive for a mass market

 

[EchoingWhisper]

Yes, I'm saying that given the same performance per pixel, a sensor with 2 times the megapixel will have 1 stop better noise performance (3DB SNR), 0.5 EV dynamic range and 1.5 bit color sensitivity compared to the lower MP sensor when printed at the same condition.

Of course a larger pixel get higher noise performance [...]

OK, so we at least agree here

It would make an even better studio camera than D800.

Well, I never said you could not build a better camera than the D800 ... both companies, NIKON and CANON, and probably others too, could easily build better cameras. But these would be simply to expensive for a mass market

We do agree. It's just that my way of writing has caused a lot of confusion, for a long time. It used to take more than 10 pages before I get my idea through. I'm not saying that everyone is wrong, it's just that there is a mass misunderstanding that higher megapixels equates to lousy image quality. It's not true that you can only shoot at ISO 300 before you lose image quality. Indeed, you will get worse performance when you compare them at pixel level, but when they are displayed/printed at the same size, the higher megapixel camera would have slightly worse performance, but it's not really that bad.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Yes, I'm saying that given the same performance per pixel, a sensor with 2 times the megapixel will have 1 stop better noise performance (3DB SNR), 0.5 EV dynamic range and 1.5 bit color sensitivity compared to the lower MP sensor when printed at the same condition.

Of course a larger pixel get higher noise performance [...]

OK, so we at least agree here

It would make an even better studio camera than D800.

Well, I never said you could not build a better camera than the D800 ... both companies, NIKON and CANON, and probably others too, could easily build better cameras. But these would be simply to expensive for a mass market

We do agree. It's just that my way of writing has caused a lot of confusion, for a long time. It used to take more than 10 pages before I get my idea through. I'm not saying that everyone is wrong, it's just that there is a mass misunderstanding that higher megapixels equates to lousy image quality. It's not true that you can only shoot at ISO 300 before you lose image quality. Indeed, you will get worse performance when you compare them at pixel level, but when they are displayed/printed at the same size, the higher megapixel camera would have slightly worse performance, but it's not really that bad.

Michael, where have you got these figures from? Have you simply multiplied the figures on the DXO website? I'm not quite sure the design process for a 240MP Full frame sensor and a 10MP compact sensor would be the same??

And do you know of lenses that can resolve 240MP? And when would diffraction limits begin on a 240MP sensor? :er:

 

[EchoingWhisper]

OK, so we at least agree here



Well, I never said you could not build a better camera than the D800 ... both companies, NIKON and CANON, and probably others too, could easily build better cameras. But these would be simply to expensive for a mass market

We do agree. It's just that my way of writing has caused a lot of confusion, for a long time. It used to take more than 10 pages before I get my idea through. I'm not saying that everyone is wrong, it's just that there is a mass misunderstanding that higher megapixels equates to lousy image quality. It's not true that you can only shoot at ISO 300 before you lose image quality. Indeed, you will get worse performance when you compare them at pixel level, but when they are displayed/printed at the same size, the higher megapixel camera would have slightly worse performance, but it's not really that bad.

Michael, where have you got these figures from? Have you simply multiplied the figures on the DXO website? I'm not quite sure the design process for a 240MP Full frame sensor and a 10MP compact sensor would be the same??

And do you know of lenses that can resolve 240MP? And when would diffraction limits begin on a 240MP sensor? :er:

Read the links. I multiplied them correctly. And about 240MP, you could pixel bin them down.